Another impending EO. This time LGBT rights

[Wells]

I thought we were just labelling things with Buzzwords that have no real bearing on anything.

If you're struggling to see how the GOP platform is anti-gay then there is no force in this life or the next that can help you understand.

[Orbitus]

I thought we were just labelling things with Buzzwords that have no real bearing on anything.

Again, Republicans have this in their party platform. And Trump said he was going to nominate supreme court justices to overturn Obergefell V Hodges. You obviously don't live in reality.

[PassingBy]

So a law that will allow businessmen to refuse to provide services that violate their religious beliefs is a bad thing why?

And how does it discriminate anyone if you have a choice to go and have the service from someone that has different religious beliefs?

Wasn't everyone applauding the designer that refused to dress Trump's wife for being so brave and all?

There is nothing wrong with a gay only, or women only, or black only, or comix nerd only service in my opinion.
If a gay owned enterprise decides that they don't want to serve overly religious people that consider homosexuality a sin - it is up to them to decide.
If a christian owned enterprise doesn't want to participate in something that is against their religious beliefs - it is up to them to decide.

Unless we are speaking about medical aid, or state provided services - I don't see a problem.

[Spriggs]

ABC is reporting on it now.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump...ry?id=45209220

[Wyrt]

Yay, Jim Crow for gay people!

[Powerogue]

We're legalizing discrimination with a religious exemption now? Good thing there's no line as to what constitutes a "true religion." I hereby declare the existence of Meism, with the only core doctrine being that it's fine to discriminate against every idiot who thinks this is a good idea.

There is nothing wrong with a gay only, or women only, or black only, or comix nerd only service in my opinion.
If a gay owned enterprise decides that they don't want to serve overly religious people that consider homosexuality a sin - it is up to them to decide.
If a christian owned enterprise doesn't want to participate in something that is against their religious beliefs - it is up to them to decide.

Yeah, wasn't it great when blacks had services set aside all for themselves, like their own water fountains?

[Bullettime]

We're legalizing discrimination with a religious exemption now? Good thing there's no line as to what constitutes a "true religion." I hereby declare the existence of Meism, with the only core doctrine being that it's fine to discriminate against every idiot who thinks this is a good idea.

Satanists have been planning to make them pay for implementing this when and if it was. Gorsuch has even made it a point to try to remove certain religions, like Satanism, from the list of recognized religions and has been a supporter of this policy as well.

[PassingBy]

Yeah, wasn't it great when blacks had services set aside all for themselves, like their own water fountains?

You do understand the difference between institutionalized government segregation and a private business having a right to choose who to provide their services to?

My only beef with that law would be that it is just about religion, while I think that any business has a right to choose whom to serve and whom not.

[Orbitus]

So a law that will allow businessmen to refuse to provide services that violate their religious beliefs is a bad thing why?

And how does it discriminate anyone if you have a choice to go and have the service from someone that has different religious beliefs?

Wasn't everyone applauding the designer that refused to dress Trump's wife for being so brave and all?

There is nothing wrong with a gay only, or women only, or black only, or comix nerd only service in my opinion.
If a gay owned enterprise decides that they don't want to serve overly religious people that consider homosexuality a sin - it is up to them to decide.
If a christian owned enterprise doesn't want to participate in something that is against their religious beliefs - it is up to them to decide.

Unless we are speaking about medical aid, or state provided services - I don't see a problem.

So you are fine if a small town with 1 bank, 1 gas station, and 1 grocery store being able to discriminate based on their sexuality using a bullshit religion? Instead of you know, following the first and 14th amendments? I mean we already removed the "separate but equal" bullshit when the South was Desegragated. I mean they had whites only lunch counters until blacks did a sit in at the lunch counters.

- - - Updated - - -

You do understand the difference between institutionalized government segregation and a private business having a right to choose who to provide their services to?

My only beef with that law would be that it is just about religion, while I think that any business has a right to choose whom to serve and whom not.

Yeah, you are forced to serve everyone, not just people the same color of the rainbow that you are. Fuck your religion.

[Deleted]

Any viable sources? Sorry if I have a problem trusting a progressive rag with anything trump related

Look at it as alternative facts, that way you can trust it, right?

[Super Kami Dende]

Again, Republicans have this in their party platform. And Trump said he was going to nominate supreme court justices to overturn Obergefell V Hodges. You obviously don't live in reality.

Considering he literally said that since it had gone through the Supreme Court it was set in stone and he wasn't changing it and on top of his Supreme Court choice, I would ask what reality you live in.

[kail]

You do understand the difference between institutionalized government segregation and a private business having a right to choose who to provide their services to?

My only beef with that law would be that it is just about religion, while I think that any business has a right to choose whom to serve and whom not.

"Seperate but equal"...

If you are open to the public, you are open to the public. Legalizing discrimination can and will put someone at an unnecessary inconvenience. Not everywhere is a sprawling city with numerous options. You can deny service to someone for a million reasons, but you can't do so on the premise of race, gender, religion, etc.

- - - Updated - - -

ABC is reporting on it now.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump...ry?id=45209220

What is it with Trump wanting to bait the Judicial Branch against him?

- - - Updated - - -

I don't think Trump is going to attack the gays. It's like everyone is trying to get the gays fired up, but there's no reason for them to be so.

Hard to tell with this guy tbh. Too many times he says one thing, week+ later say/does something else.

- - - Updated - - -

Is this even something Trump can actually do with an EO?

Until enough lawsuits happen that make it to higher courts. Or it will simply be struck down from the start as unconstitutional.

[PassingBy]

Yeah, you are forced to serve everyone, not just people the same color of the rainbow that you are. Fuck your religion.

What is it with "liberals" and the urge to force everyone to do as they see "fair", even better to force everyone to think and speak the way they see "fair".
And then you will accuse Trump of being a nazi, yeah.

It is just funny that you find a place of business not serving someone being a worse option than federal government forcing people to act against their beliefs under the fear of prosecution.

In a made up world, where people live in small towns with 1 bank, 1 gas station and 1 grocery store, while not being able to get out of that small town, since it is situated on an isolated island people will have real problems, outside the fact that the local baker doesn't want to provide cakes for their gay wedding.
In real world the people will just bring their money to the other place of business that is less picky. And this place of business will be more successful than the one that is picking whom to serve.

I am quite sure you were praising the celebs that turned down the invitation to perform at Trump's inauguration, weren't you? People that refuse to serve Trump supporters, or make dresses for his wife? In my opinion that is their right.
As well as it is the right of an overly religious baker to not serve gay weddings.

Simple as that.

[Sett]

He didn't remove Obama's LGBT stuff because any religious freedom stuff they pump out will nuke it. Simple. Anyone thinking he is 'pro'-LGBT is completely out of touch with reality. Look at his VP, look at his cabinet, look at the GOP's stance on the LGBT community.


Trump speaking out about the Orlando shooting was expected. Of course any candidate running would openly tell the press they disapprove of a mass shooting. In office though? Revoking rights and making them second-class citizens? That's different.

[Hiricine]

The reason the Right is supposed to talk about religion in this context is as a backdoor to use the courts to fight an administration that is taking away property rights. Now that they're the man, they really should just be arguing that property owners can tell anyone to fuck off for any reason.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

Why do I have the feeling this is yet another hoax?

[Cthulhu 2020]

You do understand the difference between institutionalized government segregation and a private business having a right to choose who to provide their services to?

My only beef with that law would be that it is just about religion, while I think that any business has a right to choose whom to serve and whom not.

And for as much as Republicans want to keep government out of as much as they can, they want private businesses to supply a lot of essential services. Might suck if the only grocer in a small town doesn't like the cut of your jib and refuses you groceries, eh?

[Darsithis]

This has gone back and forth a few times. So far, Trump and his administration have vowed not to overturn Obama's executive order banning workplace discrimination on the basis of sexuality in federal jobs (though privately, companies still have the right).

If this were to be signed, I know that it would be challenged legally. Part of the First Amendment, as stated in there (and anyone who actually reads their history) is that it protects you if you can prove you are substantially burdened by the law in the pursuit of your religious freedoms. No one is burdened, in any way, by ringing up someone's purchases at the store who is a man married to another man. No one is burdened by knowing that someone had sex outside of marriage. No one is burdened by providing access to health insurance that carries provisions for contraception or abortion; your only responsibility is to provide the insurance, what it covers isn't your problem.

This would be challenged on so many levels it's not funny.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Why do I have the feeling this is yet another hoax?

Because anything that happens that makes Trump look bad is fake news, at least to people who like to keep their ears warm by putting their hands over them.

[PassingBy]

And for as much as Republicans want to keep government out of as much as they can, they want private businesses to supply a lot of essential services. Might suck if the only grocer in a small town doesn't like the cut of your jib and refuses you groceries, eh?

What if the only grocer in a small town doesn't like the fact that I am openly supporting Trump and he thinks that he is Hitler?
Will that make my grocery problem any less of a problem?

Or if he refuses the service using any other excuse that doesn't involve religion?