Another impending EO. This time LGBT rights

[Masark]

I see no problem? Gay men will still be able to sleep with other men. Same for lesbians. You can get an abortion, just not at 8 months.

1. And they will be able to be fired from their jobs, evicted from their homes, and denied services from both businesses and government.

2. Nor at 8 weeks, under the laws being passed right now.

But what's the issue?

[Orbitus]

If that executive order is indeed true, this part should worry just about everyone: "Persons and organizations do not forfeit their religious freedom when providing social services, education, or healthcare".

So basically I can refuse to provide life-saving treatment to say a white Christian individual if I used the utterly idiotic religious freedom clause?

Pardon my language but what fucking insane drivel is this!?

It is either Trump bullshit, or Bannon bullshit. Going to go with Bannon. Because he can use that to further his white supremacist bullshit.

[Sesshou]

Except there have been, are, and will be medical emergencies in which an abortion is necessary.

There are noted cases of catholic hospitals letting the mother die to save the baby and cases where both died due to care not given to the mother.

Currently we can save the life of a child even against a parents protest if they are Jehovah's witnesses. Laws like these would complicate that and do absolutely nothing to benefit healthcare and as such "religious freedom" shouldn't exist in a healthcare setting, period.

Ok, but that is a separate issue entirely (which I'm not fine with either). That is refusing to offer a specific service to everyone, and is not at all the same thing as refusing to offer any service to anyone of a specific race / sexual orientation / etc.

[Azadina]

Ok, but that is a separate issue entirely (which I'm not fine with either). That is refusing to offer a specific service to everyone, and is not at all the same thing as refusing to offer any service to anyone of a specific race / sexual orientation / etc.

To continue on this slightly. If person can't perform their job because of religion, then it's either; 1. time do drop the religion, or 2. time to find another job they can do.
If abortions are part of being a doctor, then one should either not be a doctor, or actually do their job. Otherwise I could just get a job and claim it's my religion, that I don't have to work at the job for my pay. About just as legitimate.

[Kujako]

Oh god no. No. Don't ever do this. "No taxation without representation". Do you really want churches to have a say in lawmaking?

Are you trying to claim that clergy are prohibited from voting in the US?

[jackofwind]

Are you trying to claim that clergy are prohibited from voting in the US?

Individuals voting is a lot different than churches endorsing things.

[Darsithis]

Are you trying to claim that clergy are prohibited from voting in the US?

An individual voting is not a church.

Obviously pastors and the like vote for the candidate that they feel represents their religion to the fullest. That's still not the same as the church doing so.

[Kujako]

An individual voting is not a church.

Obviously pastors and the like vote for the candidate that they feel represents their religion to the fullest. That's still not the same as the church doing so.

Yes... and we tax corporations, and they don't get a vote. Saying that they lack representation is disingenuous. Well unless they're in DC.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/0...t-order-234617

Pushing aside the fact that Politico tries yet again to paint Trump in a bad light, I'm still glad they realize that the evangelical right is going to face a tremendous amount of resistance even within the Trump administration.

We won't have a LGBT EO anytime soon.

[fumblz]

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/0...t-order-234617

Pushing aside the fact that Politico tries yet again to paint Trump in a bad light, I'm still glad they realize that the evangelical right is going to face a tremendous amount of resistance even within the Trump administration.

We won't have a LGBT EO anytime soon.

Was there, or was there not an EO that was leaked to the general public, before Trump caved?

[Zandalarian Paladin]

Was there, or was there not an EO that was leaked to the general public, before Trump caved?

There was an independent who wanted to push a project related to this, but it was removed quickly and never ended in Trump's hands.

From the article:

They described it as one of about 200 executive orders that were contemplated during the transition — some by outside groups, others by transition officials — and that it was never intended to be signed, even without pushback from Kushner, Ivanka Trump or anyone else.

[BiggestNoob]

Of course Trump wants religion to have more power and money in politics. His personal brand of heresy basically worships money.

This is misleading. Firstly, the amendment doesn't apply only to religion. Secondly, religious tax exempt organizations can discuss politics and issues and have a clear favorite short of explicitly endorsing a candidate. Thirdly, this law is almost completely unenforced because it's basically unenforceable (and tons of non-religious organizations use their tax exempt funds for this purpose).

I don't see a benefit in repealing it unless it's being abused against certain political opponents by AGs via selective enforcement.

[mvaliz]

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.

It won't be an "attack on gays" just as he now declares his lockdowns are not "muslim bans" as per Guliani admitting when Dump wanted his muslim ban without wanting to call it a "Ban on Muslims".

Dump will not attack gays/womens rights head-on. He will instead pursue what he will call "Religious Freedom" for people/corporations to descrimin... I mean... be able to choose whom not to serve based on their own phobi.... I mean... what their religious beliefs say.

So, when confronted - Dump will say he's not attacking gays or womens rights... when of course he is simply putting into law several things that just HAPPEN to allow the ability for everybody else to have the back-door right to do the very dirty work he doesn't want to do himself.

- - - Updated - - -

We won't have a LGBT EO anytime soon.

As I wrote above, it will not be a direct attack using those words - but rather a bullshit "Religious freedom" EO that will allow a number of bullshit ideas to go forward - with descrimination against LGBTQ, as well as womens rights being a "side-product" of it - without ever even to write those very words into the law itself.

[Wyrt]

It won't be an "attack on gays" just as he now declares his lockdowns are not "muslim bans" as per Guliani admitting when Dump wanted his muslim ban without wanting to call it a "Ban on Muslims".

Dump will not attack gays/womens rights head-on. He will instead pursue what he will call "Religious Freedom" for people/corporations to descrimin... I mean... be able to choose whom not to serve based on their own phobi.... I mean... what their religious beliefs say.

So, when confronted - Dump will say he's not attacking gays or womens rights... when of course he is simply putting into law several things that just HAPPEN to allow the ability for everybody else to have the back-door right to do the very dirty work he doesn't want to do himself.

This is pretty much how republicans act in general. They put laws or policies out that primarily affect 1 target group, but hide it behind something else. That way when called out on being bigots they have plausible deniability since they didn't directly attack the group.

[Spiffums]

It's alarming how much these executive orders seem to be able to do.

Everyone was ok with it when it was Obama wielding his pen and phone.

[The Mayor]

Yeah I mean its just an anti-gay party with complete control over the federal government.

Fake news is your god now, you've succumbed to the madness.

[Swizzington]

Everyone was ok with it when it was Obama wielding his pen and phone.

Obama made less executive orders per year than any president since 1880 or something.

[Deleted]

Have this leaked information been confirmed, or is it just like the golden shower stuff?

[Shadowferal]

Ivanka Trump, Jared Kushner stopped reversal of LGBT workplace protections: report

Senior Trump adviser Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump helped stop a potential executive order from President Trump that would have overturned Obama-era workplace protections for LGBT people, Politico reported Friday.

The executive order would have reversed a President Obama order banning contractors from discriminating against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.

According to the report by Politico, Kushner and Ivanka Trump, who are married, have been past supporters of gay rights and lobbied for President Trump to issue a statement promising to uphold Obama's 2014 order.

------------------

They keep this up Bannon will have them "liquidated" or whatever the term is these days.

[Spectral]

Similar I mentioned in another thread:

I'm actually kind of amazed how controversial this is. It wasn't long ago at all that the mainstream Democrat politician position was to be formally against gay marriage. This was more or less immediately followed (maybe circa 2012) with the acceptable mainstream Democrat position being that of course gay marriage has always been a constitutionally protected right that we just never noticed, but that of course no private citizen would be legally compelled to violate their religious beliefs around the matter. Within three years from at, we arrived at a point where saying that the proverbial baker should not be compelled on threat of government force to bake a cake for the proverbial gay wedding was obviously a radical, extremist, hateful position.

This is a bit different from workplace discrimination, but it's still kind of odd to see it as extremist to suggest that maybe the government shouldn't punish employers for failing to be sufficiently accommodating to transexuals.