Donald Trump Pledges To Sign Anti-LGBT Law To Permit Religious Discrimination - Polidicks

[quote] In a statement, Trump confirmed he would sign the so-called First Amendment Defence Act, which bans the government from taking any action “action against a person, wholly or partially on the basis that such person believes or acts in accordance with a religious belief or moral conviction that marriage is or should be recognised as the union of one man and one woman, or that sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage.” The broadly written law would effectively legalise all discrimination against LGBT people in all sectors – from employment to retail to healthcare – as long as the person discriminating claims it was due to their religion. The shocking would require the repeal of Barack Obama’s landmark LGBT discrimination protections, which Trump also confirmed he would axe.[/quote] [URL="http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2016/09/23/donald-trump-pledges-to-sign-anti-lgbt-law-to-permit-religious-discrimination/"]http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2016/09/23/donald-trump-pledges-to-sign-anti-lgbt-law-to-permit-religious-discrimination/ [/URL] [quote] Religious liberty is enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution. It is our first liberty and provides the most important protection in that it protects our right of conscience. Activist judges and executive orders issued by Presidents who have no regard for the Constitution have put these protections in jeopardy. If I am elected president and Congress passes the First Amendment Defense Act, I will sign it to protect the deeply held religious beliefs of Catholics and the beliefs of Americans of all faiths. The Little Sisters of the Poor, or any religious order for that matter, will always have their religious liberty protected on my watch and will not have to face bullying from the government because of their religious beliefs.[/quote] [url]https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/issues-of-importance-to-catholics[/url] [quote] The First Amendment Defense Act (FADA) is tantamount to state sanctioned discrimination. On its face, this bill would prohibit discrimination by the federal government based on individual beliefs about same-sex marriage. In reality, this bill would allow non-profit organizations and businesses contracting with the federal government to circumvent critical federal protections designed to protect LGBTQ families from harmful discrimination. Following the U.S. Supreme Court decisions in U.S. v. Windsor and Obergefell v. Hodges, same-sex married couples are entitled to all federal spousal benefits regardless of where they live. Under FADA, however, individual businesses could run roughshod over the civil rights of these couples and deny them the spousal benefits they have earned and deserve. [/quote] [URL]http://www.hrc.org/resources/first-amendment-defense-act[/URL]

"But Trump isn't Anti-LGBT guys!!" [editline]23rd September 2016[/editline] Why the fuck do people think that religious freedoms should be more important then human rights?

[QUOTE=Kyle902;51095728]"But Trump isn't Anti-LGBT guys!!" [editline]23rd September 2016[/editline] Why the fuck do people think that religious freedoms should be more important then human rights?[/QUOTE] because they don't see gays as human

While it seems scummy on the surface, I think a UK news outlet under the title of "pink news" with a front page like they have is probably one of the worst places to get a level headed summary of what the bill actually entails.

[QUOTE=evilweazel;51095742]While it seems scummy on the surface, I think a UK news outlet under the title of "pink news" with a front page like they have is probably one of the worst places to get a level headed summary of what the bill actually entails.[/QUOTE] Which is why the OP provided another source.

[QUOTE=Kyle902;51095747]Which is why the OP provided another source.[/QUOTE] This was the source before it was edited to the HRC article: [url]https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/issues-of-importance-to-catholics[/url] Which includes very little about LGBT anything.

[QUOTE=evilweazel;51095755]This was the source before it was edited to the HRC article: [URL]https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/issues-of-importance-to-catholics[/URL] Which includes very little about LGBT anything.[/QUOTE] Which is why I edited it out and put in a better source? It still mentions the bill either way: [quote]Religious Liberty Religious liberty is enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution. It is our first liberty and provides the most important protection in that it protects our right of conscience. Activist judges and executive orders issued by Presidents who have no regard for the Constitution have put these protections in jeopardy. [B]If I am elected president and Congress passes the First Amendment Defense Act, I will sign it to protect the deeply held religious beliefs of Catholics and the beliefs of Americans of all faiths[/B]. The Little Sisters of the Poor, or any religious order for that matter, will always have their religious liberty protected on my watch and will not have to face bullying from the government because of their religious beliefs.[/quote] Eh, may as well stick it in there anyways since it does mention the bill itself.

[QUOTE=evilweazel;51095755]This was the source before it was edited to the HRC article: [url]https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/issues-of-importance-to-catholics[/url] Which includes very little about LGBT anything.[/QUOTE] That source directly states that he wants to sign the First Amendment Defense Act.

[QUOTE=Phycosymo;51095759]Which is why I edited it out and put in a better source? It still mentions the bill either way: Eh, may as well stick it in there anyways since it does mention the bill itself.[/QUOTE] Skimmed that section and missed that bit, my mistake then. Still, it's a few very highly opinionated sources. Both seem to more or less espouse the same types of articles. An actual summary of what the bill would entail from a neutral site or something similar would be more useful.

[QUOTE=evilweazel;51095742] level headed summary of what the bill actually entails.[/QUOTE] [url]https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2802[/url] Heres the actual bill.

Im pretty sure i remember an argument on fp where trump supporters were saying that he wasnt gonna be THAT bad for lgbt people Here are your chickens, come home to roost

[QUOTE=Kyle902;51095770][url]https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2802[/url] Heres the actual bill.[/QUOTE] Nice, exactly what I was looking for. Didn't know there were any .gov sites with anything on record about it.

[QUOTE]Religious liberty is enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution. It is our first liberty and provides the most important protection in that it protects our right of conscience. [B]Activist judges and executive orders issued by Presidents who have no regard for the Constitution have put these protections in jeopardy.[/B] If I am elected president and Congress passes the First Amendment Defense Act, I will sign it to protect the deeply held religious beliefs of Catholics and the beliefs of Americans of all faiths. The Little Sisters of the Poor, or any religious order for that matter, will always have their religious liberty protected on my watch and will not have to face bullying from the government because of their religious beliefs.[/QUOTE] [URL="https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/issues-of-importance-to-catholics"]Source: donaldjtrump.com[/URL] Hint, "activist" judges and Presidential executive orders haven't been taking rights away from Catholics/other religious groups -- except for the "right" to discriminate on religious grounds. What else could be referred to here? Trump's website also issued [URL="https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/trump-campaign-announces-catholic-advisory-group"]a press release regarding Trump's new forming of a Catholic advisory board[/URL] to listen to what Catholics care about (the first link in this post), and of the 34 people on the advisory board, who's the first? [QUOTE]The Catholic Advisory Group Members are as follows: 1. Sen. Rick Santorum, Former US Senator and presidential candidate[/QUOTE] [URL="http://www.washingtonblade.com/2016/09/22/santorum-gets-top-billing-trumps-catholic-advisory-group/"]The Washington Blade is a LGBT-focused news site and has a story on this for at least a more local source.[/URL] Google News doesn't have any discussion of the First Amendment Defense Act outside of LGBT-centric sites, so far. However, it's a Friday night, traditionally the perfect time to break unpleasant news you don't want getting a ton of media coverage, because here comes the weekend. (Except now we have the Internet.)

Trump will protect LGBT+ people, they said. Clinton will be worse for them because she isn't a bigoted fuck against Muslims, they said. Well, religious extremism is clearly very alive and well from Christians in the States. Ya'll have a lot more to fear from them, since they have the power.

Trump is going to be a human rights disaster and an embarrassment to America for years to come if he's elected to the office of president. Anyone who willingly supported him will reap their just deserts when the consequences of his presidency start fucking us over.

God, I hope someone assassinates this man. If he doesn't give a shit about the lives of any LGBT people, why should we give a shit about him?

[QUOTE=Dwarfy77;51096206]God, I hope someone assassinates this man. If he doesn't give a shit about the lives of any LGBT people, why should we give a shit about him?[/QUOTE] his VP is just as bad if not worse

Pvt. Martin used trumps "support" of LGBT as a reason why he supported trump. Lmao I want to hear how he defends this shit from him personally.

[QUOTE=Dwarfy77;51096206]God, I hope someone assassinates this man. If he doesn't give a shit about the lives of any LGBT people, why should we give a shit about him?[/QUOTE] As much as you may hate a candidate for their beliefs, it doesn't justify murder.

[QUOTE=joshuadim;51096244]Pvt. Martin used trumps "support" of LGBT as a reason why he supported trump. Lmao I want to hear how he defends this shit from him personally.[/QUOTE] He said he isn't posting about politics until the debates because he doesn't like reading posts that disagree with his views.

[QUOTE=Dwarfy77;51096206]God, I hope someone assassinates this man. If he doesn't give a shit about the lives of any LGBT people, why should we give a shit about him?[/QUOTE] Aside from being morally reprehensible, killing him or threatening violence only makes him a martyr. As for you Trump supporters, what's more important to you; a stable economy, or social conservatism? If you think Trump is your guy as far as economics go, please start reading some credible analysis of his policy. If you're all about social conservatism, you better get used to embracing all of those '-ism' labels you get your kickers in a twist about because Trump and Pence are doing everything they can to double down on all of that shit.

[quote]any action “action against a person, wholly or partially on the basis that such person believes or acts in accordance with a religious belief or moral conviction that marriage is or should be recognised as the union of one man and one woman[/quote] well that's vague enough that radical Islamic terrorism would fall under that bar

I wonder how Milo will feel about this.

[QUOTE=Fort83;51096324]How come Trump supporters don't post in these types of threads? Would love to hear how they'd respond to this.[/QUOTE] They ignore everything that contradicts them

After reading the bill I don't like it. On one hand it limits the power of the federal government to run roughshod over people's religious rights but in that same breath I could argue under this that I have legal right to do all sorts of crazy shit just because I could believe in "traditional marriage." That "act in accordance" is extremely vague, and for whatever benefit this would have for people who are morally opposed to gay marriage, for whatever reason, is outweighed by the severe negative consequences. Of course this news [I]shouldn't[/I] be a surprise to anyone, Trump is like any other political whore pandering for votes and of course the gay vote was never larger than conservative Christians, at least not when you consider how many would actually vote for him. [QUOTE=Kyle902;51095728]Why the fuck do people think that religious freedoms should be more important then human rights?[/QUOTE]Religious freedoms are human rights. [QUOTE=Raidyr;51096270]He said he isn't posting about politics until the debates because he doesn't like reading posts that disagree with his views.[/QUOTE]Or maybe it's emotionally exhausting for him and he chooses not to participate because arguing with the willfully ignorant isn't worth the stress. [I]Maybe.[/I]

I'm not sure how gay people existing intrudes on your religious rights, and how the only way to stop them from oppressing you is to be the biggest piece of bigoted shit possible.

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;51096656]Religious freedoms are human rights.[/QUOTE] oh no a gay couple ordered a cake alert the fucking human rights council

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;51096656]Or maybe it's emotionally exhausting for him and he chooses not to participate because arguing with the willfully ignorant isn't worth the stress. [I]Maybe.[/I][/QUOTE] or he's just attempting to reconcile two mutually contradictory positions whenever he posts - leading to absolute mockery because his reasons for supporting trump are untenable and intellectually and morally bankrupt pretty much all of the trump supporters i have seen tend to be extremely dishonest and hypocrites

[QUOTE=Reds;51096666]I'm not sure how gay people existing intrudes on your religious rights, and how the only way to stop them from oppressing you is to be the biggest piece of bigoted shit possible.[/QUOTE] ive been told by a trump supporter before that accepting the gays if its against the religion is shameful and just means you follow a "cafeteria (religion)"

Every time I see someone going "lets protect traditional marriage", all I think of is marriage from before 1800s, when it was only really used for political and economic means and not love in any ways. Meaning they want to have arranged forced marriage is what I think.