GOP senators reintroduce bill to protect opponents of same-sex marriage [W:596, 1059]

A group of 22 GOP senators is reintroducing a controversial measure that would protect opponents of same-sex marriage from federal actions intended to curb discrimination.

The First Amendment Defense Act (FADA) would bar the federal government from taking any action against individuals who discriminate against same-sex couples or others based on "a sincerely held religious belief."

Click to expand...

GOP senators reintroduce bill to protect opponents of same-sex marriage | TheHill

This not good, people. Once we allow religion to circumvent law, we're going down a very bad road indeed.

Re: GOP senators reintroduce bill to protect opponents of same-sex marriage

The government does not have the right to make you violate your own conscious. Nor can they punish you for when they fail to do so.

Re: GOP senators reintroduce bill to protect opponents of same-sex marriage

"protect the deeply held religious beliefs of Catholics and the beliefs of Americans of all faiths."

Click to expand...

I support their right to say "hey, I don't like same sex marriage", but is that where it stops? The line between freedom of speech and discrimination is easily crossed.

Re: GOP senators reintroduce bill to protect opponents of same-sex marriage

leekohler2 said:

GOP senators reintroduce bill to protect opponents of same-sex marriage | TheHill

This not good, people. Once we allow religion to circumvent law, we're going down a very bad road indeed.

Click to expand...

You do have the first amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" There was the case of several Indian tribes using Peyote for religious purposes which was against federal law along with other controlled substances, the SCOTUS ruled in 1979 in the Indian's favor and now for religious purposes they are free to use Peyote.

I don't see this much different. It is the States that issue marriage licences and certificates. This law if passed isn't about to change that. It isn't about to change benefits involved from either the federal or state governments either. Now a person or a church I suppose can say I don't recognize your marriage because of religious reasons. But that means nothing more than stating their religious beliefs and has no repercussions I can see. No person or church can take away benefits from a gay married couple, they can't annul or void the marriage.

This probably would give the baker of a cake a bit of more protection or something akin to that. But there would be no circumventing of the law. At least not that I can see. So a gay couple has to get their cake from someplace else, it's not like there aren't millions of bakers.

I think it is important to realize since the no establishment part of the first amendment, no federal, state, city, local government or any type of government activity can use this law if it would pass to do anything against a gay married couple. Personally, I think this is nothing more than a bone being thrown to the religious right which doesn't mean a darn thing in the overall scheme of things. I'm sure if passed which I doubt think it will see the light of day, at sometime in the future the SCOTUS will have to rule on its constitutionality.

Re: GOP senators reintroduce bill to protect opponents of same-sex marriage

............ Make Hating Gays Great Again .............. but what did folks expect from the GOP anyhows? ..............

Re: GOP senators reintroduce bill to protect opponents of same-sex marriage

Perotista said:

Personally, I think this is nothing more than a bone being thrown to the religious right which doesn't mean a darn thing in the overall scheme of things.

Click to expand...

To the "bakers" it may mean they can't be bullied. That is more than a bone to the small Mom and Pop stores. Small in the overall scheme of things, and I agree with the rest of your assessment.

Re: GOP senators reintroduce bill to protect opponents of same-sex marriage

I read the entire link. Can someone explain what's going on here?

The subject line says those who "speak out" against gay marriage, but the body of the article says this:

The First Amendment Defense Act (FADA) would bar the federal government from taking any action against individuals who discriminate against same-sex couples or others based on "a sincerely held religious belief."

The bill would also protect those who discriminate against marriages not recognized under federal law or individuals who engage in sex outside of marriage.


Speaking out against something is a wonderful American privilege. Discriminating against them is not.

What exactly am I missing here?

Re: GOP senators reintroduce bill to protect opponents of same-sex marriage

If our huge fed gov didnt get involved with marriage, i wouldnt care if gays could get married or not. I believe people have the right to discriminate if they want. ESPECIALLY with goods and services.
But the govt is involved, and i dont believe they should discriminate at ALL.
Let the gays get married and shut up already, or get the gov out.
Besides, who really gives a crap if they get married?

Re: GOP senators reintroduce bill to protect opponents of same-sex marriage

TNHarley said:

If our huge fed gov didnt get involved with marriage, i wouldnt care if gays could get married or not. I believe people have the right to discriminate if they want. ESPECIALLY with goods and services.
But the govt is involved, and i dont believe they should discriminate at ALL.
Let the gays get married and shut up already, or get the gov out.
Besides, who really gives a crap if they get married?

Click to expand...

well, I bet you didn't have that opinion before 'gay' marriage was legal, when it was only heteros that were 'legally' being married

now that gay folks can legally marry it sounds as if that is an issue for you & others

good for you ........

Re: GOP senators reintroduce bill to protect opponents of same-sex marriage

TNHarley said:

Besides, who really gives a crap if they get married?

Click to expand...

Considering it is one of the biggest topics of debate among the population and hundreds of millions of people hold a strong belief one way or the other in America alone, I'd say most people give a crap if they get married.

Re: GOP senators reintroduce bill to protect opponents of same-sex marriage

cuban smokes said:

well, I bet you didn't have that opinion before 'gay' marriage was legal, when it was only heteros that were 'legally' being married

now that gay folks can legally marry it sounds as if that is an issue for you & others

good for you ........

Click to expand...

Wow, you must be super human. Can you tell me the powerball numbers? Or is mind reading and time traveling your only specialty?

Re: GOP senators reintroduce bill to protect opponents of same-sex marriage

TNHarley said:

If our huge fed gov didnt get involved with marriage, i wouldnt care if gays could get married or not. I believe people have the right to discriminate if they want. ESPECIALLY with goods and services.
But the govt is involved, and i dont believe they should discriminate at ALL.
Let the gays get married and shut up already, or get the gov out.
Besides, who really gives a crap if they get married?

Click to expand...

Evangelicals.

Re: GOP senators reintroduce bill to protect opponents of same-sex marriage

"OMG did you hear billy and craig are getting married? The divorce rate is already going up!!"
arty

Re: GOP senators reintroduce bill to protect opponents of same-sex marriage

No colored folk allowed.

Re: GOP senators reintroduce bill to protect opponents of same-sex marriage

leekohler2 said:

GOP senators reintroduce bill to protect opponents of same-sex marriage | TheHill

This not good, people. Once we allow religion to circumvent law, we're going down a very bad road indeed.

Click to expand...

Why is conscientious objection suddenly taboo? OMG, folks are speaking out against having one (minority?) group decalred a special protected class while another (minority?) group get labeled as criminals for freely expressing a sincerely held religious belief. Should we jail and/or fine those that refuse military service or to pay social security taxes due to conscientious objection?

Re: GOP senators reintroduce bill to protect opponents of same-sex marriage

If a company can refuse service to someone just because they're homosexual, how is that any different from a company refusing service to black people? Maybe their "sincerely held religious beliefs" are that black people should be segregated and treated like animals. Does that somehow make it okay since it's a religious belief?

Re: GOP senators reintroduce bill to protect opponents of same-sex marriage

Oborosen said:

The government does not have the right to make you violate your own conscious. Nor can they punish you for when they fail to do so.

Click to expand...

lol...of course they do. Couple examples:

1) The DRAFT

2) TAXES that support programs and initiatives you don't agree with.

The whole reason that we have laws and government is to prevent the kind of anarchy that happens when people figure they can be as big an asshole as they want to other people.

Re: GOP senators reintroduce bill to protect opponents of same-sex marriage

ttwtt78640 said:

Why is conscientious objection suddenly taboo? OMG, folks are speaking out against having one (minority?) group decalred a special protected class while another (minority?) group get labeled as criminals for freely expressing a sincerely held religious belief. Should we jail and/or fine those that refuse military service or to pay social security taxes due to conscientious objection?

Click to expand...

When did you stop doing that? And yes, you should.

Re: GOP senators reintroduce bill to protect opponents of same-sex marriage

So it's wedding cakes today, but what about tomorrow? We going to see separate water fountains for gays? Separate bathrooms? Restaurants and whatnot putting up no gays allowed signs?

When I was a kid, I believed, really believed, I was going to live in a golden age of America. So far it has been a nightmare brought to us by the Rightwing Religious nutjobs trying to get back to the 1950s.

And I still don't accept hating gay people has anything to do with Christ's teachings, this is just prejudice guised as religious belief. Pure and simple. Civil Rights didn't happen all that long ago, the people we see in those pictures angrily screaming at MLK, turning hoses and dogs on people, they are still alive today for the most part. That hate don't go away, they lost when it comes to discrimination against black people. Now they think they are clever and found a loophole for gays. They're not clever, just ignorant. They make their whole religion look bad, they make this country look bad.

I used to love my country, now I pretend I'm Canadian.

Re: GOP senators reintroduce bill to protect opponents of same-sex marriage

tres borrachos said:

Evangelicals.

Click to expand...

Who also gave Roy Moore a mulligan.
Fvcking hypocrites.

Re: GOP senators reintroduce bill to protect opponents of same-sex marriage

obviously the GOP is on the WRONG side of history ................

........... and more often than not ...........

Re: GOP senators reintroduce bill to protect opponents of same-sex marriage

tres borrachos said:

I read the entire link. Can someone explain what's going on here?

The subject line says those who "speak out" against gay marriage, but the body of the article says this:

The First Amendment Defense Act (FADA) would bar the federal government from taking any action against individuals who discriminate against same-sex couples or others based on "a sincerely held religious belief."

The bill would also protect those who discriminate against marriages not recognized under federal law or individuals who engage in sex outside of marriage.


Speaking out against something is a wonderful American privilege. Discriminating against them is not.

What exactly am I missing here?

Click to expand...

Don't we all "discriminate" on a daily basis?

We chose who we prefer to associate with as friends, who we prefer as marriage partners, what we want to eat, where we go to shop, what we choose to say or not say depending on who we are talking to, etc.

I think it is foolish to discriminate publicly on the basis of race, sex, etc., but by the same token I find this hard to reconcile when talking about someone's individual liberty.

How can we say one is "free" when they can be compelled by law to labor for another, or to associate with another they do not wish to?

Doesn't a "free market" allow for competition and alternatives?

The whole argument seems a bit strange. "You are violating my rights when you refuse to sell your goods to me for whatever reasons."

If a baker says he does not wish to sell you a cake, for whatever reason...why not just find a baker who will?

I can see some restrictions if the dealer in goods is the ONLY dealer within reasonable commuting distance, and the population too small to provide reasonable alternatives.

I can also see laws protecting against discrimination in hiring practices, and publicly funded situations like education, etc.

I can also see rational public responses like boycotting a product if it's business practices are based on unfair discrimination.

But otherwise forcing a person to labor for you? I just don't see it.

Re: GOP senators reintroduce bill to protect opponents of same-sex marriage

tres borrachos said:

I read the entire link. Can someone explain what's going on here?

The subject line says those who "speak out" against gay marriage, but the body of the article says this:

The First Amendment Defense Act (FADA) would bar the federal government from taking any action against individuals who discriminate against same-sex couples or others based on "a sincerely held religious belief."

The bill would also protect those who discriminate against marriages not recognized under federal law or individuals who engage in sex outside of marriage.


Speaking out against something is a wonderful American privilege. Discriminating against them is not.

What exactly am I missing here?

Click to expand...

Conflicts between public accomodation laws and conciencious objection (CO) based on sincerely held religious beliefs exist. Obviously, both are said to be rights but they can (and do) conflict. Since both SSM and CO to SSM are minority positions (statuses?) these conflicts are likely to be rare yet, obvlously, not impossible.

Personally, I think that public accomodation laws go too far and see no problem with women's only gyms, so long as we have a male only draft. Since I do not advertise, work as a self-employed handyman and service regular customers and their referrals only, I have little concern for such laws. I discriminate based only on location (e.g. will not work in high crime areas or over 15 miles from my home) and the type of job (e.g. too big, unsafe or obviously not to code) or bid method (I will not do remodel work on a fixed price basis - time plus materials only).

Re: GOP senators reintroduce bill to protect opponents of same-sex marriage

Captain Adverse said:

Don't we all "discriminate" on a daily basis?

We chose who we prefer to associate with as friends, who we prefer as marriage partners, what we want to eat, where we go to shop, what we choose to say or not say depending on who we are talking to, etc.

I think it is foolish to discriminate publicly on the basis of race, sex, etc., but by the same token I find this hard to reconcile when talking about someone's individual liberty.

How can we say one is "free" when they can be compelled by law to labor for another, or to associate with another they do not wish to?

Doesn't a "free market" allow for competition and alternatives?

The whole argument seems a bit strange. "You are violating my rights when you refuse to sell your goods to me for whatever reasons."

If a baker says he does not wish to sell you a cake, for whatever reason...why not just find a baker who will?

I can see some restrictions if the dealer in goods is the ONLY dealer within reasonable commuting distance, and the population too small to provide reasonable alternatives.

I can also see laws protecting against discrimination in hiring practices, and publicly funded situations like education, etc.

I can also see rational public responses like boycotting a product if it's business practices are based on unfair discrimination.

But otherwise forcing a person to labor for you? I just don't see it.

Click to expand...

You may discriminate on a daily basis. I don't.

Re: GOP senators reintroduce bill to protect opponents of same-sex marriage

Oborosen said:

The government does not have the right to make you violate your own conscious. Nor can they punish you for when they fail to do so.

Click to expand...

So if my religion dictates that I don't have to pay taxes, than I won't go to jail when I don't pay them right?