Republicans plan to reintroduce Anti-LGBT ‘religious freedom’ bill supported by Trump

What awesome news.

A bill that will allow folks to claim that their business has religious beliefs that will exempt them from laws created to provide equal protections to all.

I think one can also accurately characterize "religious freedom" bills as a license to promote hatred and bigotry while using the claim of religion.

I would consider this a regression in both morality and intellect, with politicians pandering to religious based bigotries in order to garner a few votes. I don;t think one could sit there and say with a straight face that religion includes the promotion of hate.

If this is what Trump is going to usher in era president as he has vowed to, I woudl daresay our country is going backwards towards an era where discriminatory beliefs were so great violence towards minorities in race, sexual, orientation, or nation of origin is soon to follow.



http://www.rawstory.com/2016/12/rep...bt-religious-freedom-bill-supported-by-trump/

Citing “momentum” from the November elections, Republicans are once against eyeing a bill that would allow corporations and individuals who object to same-sex marriage on religious grounds to deny goods or services to gay people, Buzzfeed News reports.

Republicans originally filed the in 2015, but the prospect of a presidential veto tapered attempts to pass the bill. Now, given Donald Trump’s campaign pledge to sign FADA and “protect the deeply held religious beliefs of Catholics and the beliefs of Americans of all faiths,” GOP leaders feel emboldened to pass the controversial bill.

One such is Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), who said Friday he intends to reintroduce the bill next year.

“Hopefully November’s results will give us the momentum we need to get this done next year,” spokesman Conn Carroll told Buzzfeed.

“We do plan to reintroduce FADA next Congress and we welcome Trump’s positive words about the bill,” Carroll added.

Lee has support from Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), an avid supporter of religious freedom and an outspoken critic of marriage as a fundamental right to all people.

“The prospects for protecting religious freedom are brighter now than they have been in a long time,” Cruz told Buzzfeed. “We are having ongoing conversations with our colleagues both in Congress and leaders in the new administration about a multitude of ways we can honor the commitment made to the voters in this last election.”

The Republican senator also suggested Trump’s election provided the momentum Republicans need to pass the bill. “Any effort to protect religious liberty has brighter prospects with a new Congress and new administration,” Cruz said.

FADA “prohibits the federal government” from “discriminating” against any person (defined by the bill as “ any person regardless of religious affiliation, including corporations”) who “acts in accordance with a religious belief” that same-sex marriage is immoral and that sexual reaction should be “reserved to such a marriage.”

Though proponents of the bill insist it protects the rights of companies and individuals to act in accordance with their deeply-held religious beliefs, civil rights groups warn that FADA will “”open the door to unprecedented taxpayer-funded discrimination against LGBT people.”

“FADA seeks to foster state sanctioned discrimination under the guise of religious liberty,” the Human Rights Campaign said in response to the bill. “[FADA’s] broad, overreaching language would not only prevent the federal government from combatting harmful discrimination, but could mandate it.”

Still, considering a Trump presidency, and control over the House and Senate, Republicans are poised to push the bill through. “We made great progress last Congress, the first Congress it was introduced,” Carroll said, “… We have every reason to believe the momentum will continue next yea

 

Great news. I hope people regain the ability to conduct business with people they want to conduct business with. Freedom, yo.

 

it just keeps getting better and better each day. Best election of my lifetime !

 

The left refuses business to someone based on their political ideology and it is fine, the right refuses based on their beliefs and it is Armageddon.

 

This sounds promising. I'll look forward to hearing more about it and learning more of the specifics.

 

No no no no no!
You do not have the option to not associate with people the left finds acceptable but you do not!
What do you think you are? Free?

 

Elections have consequences!

 

Didn't know we even needed a law considering we already HAVE THE FIRST AMENDMENT.......

Oh of course we need this redundent law - because progressives continually ignore the First Amendment..... Well until it applies to them like when they're rioting or pushing the labor union agenda.....

Funny how freedom of association only applies to labor unions eh????? oh yea - progressives are fascists and this is just another example of progressives and their fascism...

 

Um, okay.

 

If this law doesn't pass then it proves that labor unions are illegitimate....

Of course no progressive will ever understand why.

 

Sounds a lot like the Hyde Amendment, which allows the federal government to deny taxpayer funds for abortion services to women. Presumably, this is done to accommodate the beliefs of corporations and businesses who oppose abortion on religious grounds.

I'm a "pro-choice" RWer and I have no problem with this.

Furthermore, this agnostic doesn't have a problem with religious bakers refusing to make wedding cakes for gay "marriages" and Jews refusing to cater Nazi rallies. I also happen to be a white man who doesn't have a problem with blacks refusing to serve Ku Klux Klan meetings.

Personally, I am not sympathetic to the hypocrisy of individuals and groups who complain about people not accommodating their own lifestyle decisions while they refuse to accommodate the lifestyle decisions of others.

 

Ok what....

You want to have your cake and eat it again.

 

Ask yourself this.

Why would a gay go to a Christian knowing their wedding will not be catered?

Answer: because they're looking for trouble.

You see a lot of these people are just looking for trouble - looking for drama - looking to sue and get attention at the same time.

They're radicals that want to fight.

 

Where was all this Rightwing concern for freedom of association when states were banning gay marriage?

 

Correct...it's not enough to get what they want IE a wedding cake(they can go to other bakeries in town) or a 3rd bathroom that's gender neutral. No...they want to FORCE the people who believe differently than they do to accept their beliefs and even participate which is the ultimate revenge in their minds.

 

That's a good point. Left-wing politics produces many activists who want to become the next Rosa Parks (in their minds) and fight for justice on behalf of their victim group.

 

No worries. Last I heard, California couldn't handle the other candidate winning so they're talking about seceding to become a sanctuary state. You'll be fine.

 

Out the other side of their mouths, these same people will whine and cry about people who engage in legal open carry.

 

Pretty much...

Of course this gay issue was really about "acceptance" 10-15 years ago and people were like "oh ok fine" but now it's about FORCING people to accept them, and forcing people to accept any and ALL bizarre lifestyles - not only that but forcing people to cater to them.

It's disgusting...

Of course not all gays are like this, but plenty are....

Oh and there is a "gay agenda" - why would we need a bill to protect religious rights if there was no "gay agenda"?

It's sad because we alraedy have religious rights - it's called the First Amendment...

 

I'm not gay.
When go to a store and they don't want to serve me, I say (&&%$) and shop elsewhere.
Wish I had a special status that allowed me to sue someone because of my own issues.

 

Where was this concern for religious rights when states were banning gay marriage?

 

I don't give a (*)(*)(*)(*) what states do....... States can do what they want that's why the Tenth Amendment exists.

If you want my personal opinon on gay marriage I don't care because as a libertarian I don't think government should be involved in marriage in the first place.

Morally I'm opposed to gay marriage but guess what? I don't care who screws who or whatever because it's none of my business until you try pushing that garbage on me - then you will know my opinion.

 

Four years of that demanding attitude is one of the bigger reasons that Trump won the election comfortably, and why Republicans not only kept the House, but also the Senate. They were supposed to lose both the presidency AND the Senate.

 

Except the 14th Amendment extends all the protections/restrictions on government from the Bill of rights to the states. So you should care.

Unless that is you support for constitutionality is entirely partisan and selective.

 

Absoltuely.....

Not only that but regular people are tired of being called homophobic, racist and they hate woman etc just because they disagree with these radicals......

Sanity has spoken and sane people are tired of the insane running things...

If progressives want to blame someone or something for why Hillary lost -- they just need to look in the mirror because that's why.