First Amendment Defense Act
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 2 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-12-2016, 03:01 PM
RE: First Amendment Defense Act
(21-12-2016 11:01 AM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  I could make arguments for or against this bill. I've said many times that people shouldn't be forced to perform work against their religous beliefs unless they are actual government employees. Like the muslim truck drivers that won their lawsuit against their employer for making them drive beer trucks. Snowflake fast food workers refuse to serve cops. Snowflakes can go find a pro gay marriage bakery to make their cake when they want to marry another snowflake.

Individuals or companies conduction commerce with the public should not be entitled to discriminate based on sexual orientation, so generally, I oppose this legislation.

For practical reasons, I oppose this bill because it is a colossal waste of time. The Dems have a filibuster available to them in the Senate, and there is no way this legislation will ever pass through the Senate. It would be a ginormous distraction and would grind the Senate to a halt. It would suck all the wind out of Congress's ability to pass tax reform, repeal Obamacare, reign in over-regulation, and all the other major priorities Trump ran on. However this bill has so little chance of passing, that I do wonder whether NBC is just concern-trolling.

Now on the policy:

One of the protections is to prevent the federal government from revoking non-profit status of an organization for the reason that they hold religious beliefs in contradiction to current law on same sex marriage. I have no problem with a religious organization continuing to hold their beliefs, and I have no problem with a religious organization acting in a discriminatory way consistent with their beliefs AS LONG AS they are not discriminating if they provide services to or conduct commerce with the general public. The law only addresses actions that can be taken by the federal government such as cancelling contracts, denying tax deductible treatment of charitable contributions, and so on. Still no problem here, again, as long as they are not discriminating in providing services to or conducting commerce with the public.

All the protections added to this bill already exist for religious organizations for their own membership, though, and there is well-established case law on these topics. However the bill goes beyond the protections I mention above for religious organizations by extending that organization's rights to discriminate when providing public services or conducting commerce with the public.

But even more, the problem with this bill is that it allows an individual to claim this right, even if they are working in a government office that has policies in contradiction to discrimination.

The effect of this law would be to in a wholesale way vitiate any and all protections in place for gay people. Any individual working for the government could legally refuse services to a gay individual on religious grounds, and nobody could do anything about it. So someone working in a welfare benefits office could decline benefits for a legally married gay couple. A person at the DMV counter could decline to offer a drivers license if they suspect that two grown men living at the same address are gay. A county clerk could refuse to issue a marriage license to a gay couple. A religious affiliated hospital could deny a gay partner visitation rights even if they are legally married. A religiously affiliated non profit could deny shelter at a homeless shelter based on sexual orientation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes BryanS's post
21-12-2016, 03:15 PM (This post was last modified: 21-12-2016 03:23 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: First Amendment Defense Act
(21-12-2016 12:56 PM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote:  Now let's review this.

I'll take a shot too. But this time from the "How can Girly make this work for me?" perspective 'cause that's just how I roll now.

Quote: SECTION 1. Short title.
This Act may be cited as the “First Amendment Defense Act”

So you're proposing to infringe on the First Amendment in some form or another. Got it. Let's proceed.

Quote:SEC. 2. Findings.
Congress finds the following: ...

Obligatory propaganda section duly marked and noted. Proceed.

Quote:SEC. 3. Protection of the free exercise of religious beliefs and moral convictions.

The Federal government is already prohibited from doing all these things. Superfluous. Please continue.

Quote:SEC. 4. Judicial relief.

What the fuck did I just read? Hold on a sec lemme read it again. ..... What the fuck did I just read?

Here's how Girly can make that shit work for me. First if you ever find yourself in a deposition with lawyers from the feds recall that I have always represented myself as a Christian, just not your typical one (you can leave the whole atheist part out of it, they wouldn't understand it anyway). So given that:

1) Create a software consulting business providing programming services with bible verses all over my advertisements. Think I can do this without a lawyer for a few hundred bucks in fees.

2) Submit an application to the SBA looking for funds for my small business. Make sure every section is filled out so it can't be dismissed for technicalities but only spend like 10 minutes on each section filling it with jargon. Add a bible passage at the end. Make it obscure so it looks like I really know my bible.

3) Before application is reviewed and denied find a gay couple looking for programming services. (Not a problem. It'd be harder to find a straight couple in my family and friends). Make it so they're asking for it to keep track of shit for their upcoming fabulous wedding (which is coming up IRL). Tell them I can't do becuase it goes against my very being, my very core, every bone in my body as a devout pious Christian man.

4) Wait for inevitable loan application denial from SBA.

5) Sue the SBA for discriminatory action against me because of my deeply held Chrisitian beliefs.

6) Give the lawyer a 1/3 of the settlement and keep 2/3 myself.

7) Profit.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-12-2016, 03:19 PM
RE: First Amendment Defense Act
(21-12-2016 11:01 AM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  Snowflake fast food workers refuse to serve cops
What is a snowflake? Is there a fast food company called snowflake? Why are these employees marrying each other?

Is this a USA thing?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Stevil's post
21-12-2016, 06:06 PM
RE: First Amendment Defense Act
(21-12-2016 03:19 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(21-12-2016 11:01 AM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  Snowflake fast food workers refuse to serve cops
What is a snowflake? Is there a fast food company called snowflake? Why are these employees marrying each other?

Is this a USA thing?

Snowflake is nice for pussy.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-12-2016, 07:33 PM
RE: First Amendment Defense Act
(21-12-2016 06:06 PM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  
(21-12-2016 03:19 PM)Stevil Wrote:  What is a snowflake? Is there a fast food company called snowflake? Why are these employees marrying each other?

Is this a USA thing?

Snowflake is nice for pussy.
You grab em by the snowflake?

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
21-12-2016, 07:47 PM
RE: First Amendment Defense Act
Whenever they start poking around the First Amendment it makes me nervous.
As it is right now doesn't need changing, and anything else would do damage to some group or another.
Any excuse to change or redefine it is bullshit designed to push one agenda forward while stomping on the rights of others.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-12-2016, 07:47 PM
RE: First Amendment Defense Act
(21-12-2016 07:33 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(21-12-2016 06:06 PM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  Snowflake is nice for pussy.
You grab em by the snowflake?

Only if allowed. I ain't that evil.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-12-2016, 07:52 PM
RE: First Amendment Defense Act
I'm with the libertarians on this issue, I don't think the government should intervene to prevent discrimination committed by businesses. They should allow the bigots to show their bigotry openly so that people can be boycott them until they go out of business. Any legislation that, in effect, forces them to hide their bigotry causes people to unknowingly support business owners that they wouldn't if they knew what they were truly like. I agree with LDH that there are good points on both sides of the argument, but I ultimately feel like we should let things sort themselves out naturally in the spirit of free-market capitalism.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: