Republicans resurrect hateful First Amendment Defense Act (FADA) to allow anti gay discrimination

USER1234

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 31, 2009
Messages
9,342
GOP senators reintroduce bill to protect opponents of same-sex marriage

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."

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

The measure was introduced by Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and 21 Republican co-sponsors, including Sens. Marco Rubio (Fla.), Ted Cruz (Texas) and Orrin Hatch (Utah).

FADA was introduced in both the House and the Senate in 2015, but only received a hearing in the House.

My comments:
1) what a surprise the gop homophobic bigots are at it again (oh wait, its not a surprise)

2) this bill has no other purpose but to shield people who want to discriminate against gay people from lawsuits!

3) last time even some of the anti gay hate groups withdrew there support because it could affect straight married couple unfortunately they seem to have solved that issue

4) one of the reasons it went nowhere the first time is President Obama stated he would veto it, unfortantly the man-child in chief has said he would sign it (no doubt to pander to the anti gay far right)!!
 
Last edited:


USER1234

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 31, 2009
Messages
9,342
great news bit of pushback against the gaystapo not a bad thing :cool:
1) Gaystapo really?? You know many gay people died at the hands of the Nazis!

2) Legislation with just one purpose, to legalise discrimination is a good thing?? WTF

You are really well named you nasty troll!!
 
Last edited:

Betson

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2013
Messages
16,705
If is legislation to protect the right of bakers or other private service providers to deny a service on religious or moral grounds then I would support it.

But if it includes public officials having a right not to carry out their public duty such as process marriage licenses etc then I would not support that, a public official should never have the right to choose who he/she serves based on their religious/moral beliefs.

But a private enterprise is a different matter , they should have the right to refuse custom.
 

DexterGreen22

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 15, 2016
Messages
599
My comments:
1) what a surprise the gop homophobic bigots are at it again (oh wait, its not a surprise)

2) this bill has no other purpose but to shield people who want to discriminate against gay people from lawsuits!

3) last time even some of the anti gay hate groups withdrew there support because it could affect straight married couple unfortunately they seem to have solved that issue

4) one of the reasons it went nowhere the first time is President Obama stated he would veto it, unfortantly the man-child in chief has said he would sign it (no doubt to pander to the anti gay far right)!!
Using your logic half of British Muslims are far right.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/11/british-muslims-strong-sense-of-belonging-poll-homosexuality-sharia-law

'However, when asked to what extent they agreed or disagreed that homosexuality should be legal in Britain, 18% said they agreed and 52% said they disagreed'.
 

cunnyfunt

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 16, 2015
Messages
6,622
If is legislation to protect the right of bakers or other private service providers to deny a service on religious or moral grounds then I would support it.

But if it includes public officials having a right not to carry out their public duty such as process marriage licenses etc then I would not support that, a public official should never have the right to choose who he/she serves based on their religious/moral beliefs.

But a private enterprise is a different matter , they should have the right to refuse custom.
I'm kinda there too. Just wondering whats your thoughts on muslims working for the likes of tesco...marks & spencer etc being permitted to refuse to sell stuff like pork alcohol etc?
 

cunnyfunt

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 16, 2015
Messages
6,622
Using your logic half of British Muslims are far right.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/11/british-muslims-strong-sense-of-belonging-poll-homosexuality-sharia-law

'However, when asked to what extent they agreed or disagreed that homosexuality should be legal in Britain, 18% said they agreed and 52% said they disagreed'.
Yeh USER, you just have to be vehemently opposed to sharia law we assume?............which according to your own logic has to be islamophobic? (merc should appear soon :roll:)
 

Betson

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2013
Messages
16,705
I'm kinda there too. Just wondering whats your thoughts on muslims working for the likes of tesco...marks & spencer etc being permitted to refuse to sell stuff like pork alcohol etc?
Should be up to the employer to decide if an employee is exempt from doing a service for that company , there should be no protection or interference from the state for employees who refuse to carry out such a service. They accept a job from a company knowing full well that company sells pork , alcohol etc then they have no valid complaints when asked to do this.
 

Sobieski-II

Active member
Joined
Jan 9, 2018
Messages
263
Sadly cant see Trump passing this.... tho if you impeach him like you expect [BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA] Pence might get it done.

The act isnt about gays at all - but more about saying that if you work or wish to be a customer you you act in line with whats normal for their business, and if you get refused service/employment you dont get to sue. Sensible.

Seriously the tiny tiny tiny percentage of gays who goto cake shops to make a 'point' dont deserve to damage businesses. They would NEVER attempt the same BS in a Halal establishment.
 

O'Sullivan Bere

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 14, 2005
Messages
15,007
If is legislation to protect the right of bakers or other private service providers to deny a service on religious or moral grounds then I would support it.

But if it includes public officials having a right not to carry out their public duty such as process marriage licenses etc then I would not support that, a public official should never have the right to choose who he/she serves based on their religious/moral beliefs.

But a private enterprise is a different matter , they should have the right to refuse custom.
Agreed in part, disagreed in part. I agree on the public aspect, but disagree on the 'private' aspect if the sales are open to the public because it's not genuinely private like a private club closed to the general public. You don't have to sell a product openly to the public, but if you do, then you should be required to sell it to the public consistent with civil rights.

A reasonable exception IMO would be for bespoke products involving advocacy on free speech and association grounds. Religion doesn't make the same grade. As the late Justice Scalia put it, that's untestable and would make alleged religious belief superior to the written and common law and permit people to become a law unto themselves.

Should be up to the employer to decide if an employee is exempt from doing a service for that company , there should be no protection or interference from the state for employees who refuse to carry out such a service. They accept a job from a company knowing full well that company sells pork , alcohol etc then they have no valid complaints when asked to do this.
Agreed on this one, provided the employer doesn't discriminate for nefarious purposes, e.g., forcing Muslims and Jews only to sell pork, etc. Ordinarily, the company gets to choose what it sells and what kind of work an employee does.
 
Last edited:

Mercurial

Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
86,861
If is legislation to protect the right of bakers or other private service providers to deny a service on religious or moral grounds then I would support it.

But if it includes public officials having a right not to carry out their public duty such as process marriage licenses etc then I would not support that, a public official should never have the right to choose who he/she serves based on their religious/moral beliefs.

But a private enterprise is a different matter , they should have the right to refuse custom.
So you support, for example, the right of a business owner to refuse to serve black people?
 

Mercurial

Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
86,861
Sadly cant see Trump passing this.... tho if you impeach him like you expect [BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA] Pence might get it done.

The act isnt about gays at all - but more about saying that if you work or wish to be a customer you you act in line with whats normal for their business, and if you get refused service/employment you dont get to sue. Sensible.

Seriously the tiny tiny tiny percentage of gays who goto cake shops to make a 'point' dont deserve to damage businesses. They would NEVER attempt the same BS in a Halal establishment.
You see a lot of halal cake shops where you live, do you?
 

Betson

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2013
Messages
16,705
So you support, for example, the right of a business owner to refuse to serve black people?
No , but if a black person was looking for a service that was in connection to something the provider was morally or religiously opposed to , I think they should have the right to refuse that service.
 

O'Sullivan Bere

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 14, 2005
Messages
15,007
No , but if a black person was looking for a service that was in connection to something the provider was morally or religiously opposed to , I think they should have the right to refuse that service.
As Scalia put it, though, it's citing pixie dust and any motive can hide behind such a claim. To allow that would permit people to become immune to the laws themselves.
 

Cruimh

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2010
Messages
83,467
If is legislation to protect the right of bakers or other private service providers to deny a service on religious or moral grounds then I would support it.

But if it includes public officials having a right not to carry out their public duty such as process marriage licenses etc then I would not support that, a public official should never have the right to choose who he/she serves based on their religious/moral beliefs.

But a private enterprise is a different matter , they should have the right to refuse custom.
If this is about Ashers bakery, worth remembering that initially they accepted the order and then broke the contract....
 

O'Sullivan Bere

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 14, 2005
Messages
15,007
If this is about Ashers bakery, worth remembering that initially they accepted the order and then broke the contract....
I sided with Ashers on that one. It wasn't a case of a bakery refusing a wedding cake to a gay couple citing religious grounds. It was a LGBT group that wanted them to make the following cake:

That's social and political advocacy that they wished not to foster.
 

Cruimh

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2010
Messages
83,467
I sided with Ashers on that one. It wasn't a case of a bakery refusing a wedding cake to a gay couple citing religious grounds. It was a LGBT group that wanted them to make the following cake:

That's social and political advocacy that they wished not to participate.
But they had accepted the order! It was later that they decided they couldn't fill it. If they had declined the business right from the start I would have had more sympathy for them.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top