Trump Signs Religious Liberty Executive Order

Post Reply New Topic

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-signs-order-aimed-at-allowing-churches-to-engage-in-more-political-activity/2017/05/04/024ed7c2-30d3-11e7-9534-00e4656c22aa_story.html?utm_term=.9e055d428925

In all honesty, I am confused as to the real premise. Is it mostly about lobbying, those "religious freedom" laws, dismantling separation of place of worship and state?

Contrary to what Trump says, fundies were never oppressed by the Johnson Amendment. But now, said fundies can advocate for striking down the rights of anyone they despise without fearing for their tax exempt status.

ACLU not suing.

http://time.com/4768295/aclu-donald-trump-religious-liberty-executive-order/

Perhaps one possibility is the Jedi order can help the Democrats defeat the emperor and the republicans

After seeing such a disgusting miscarriage of justice (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... l-verdict/), I can't say I'm disappointed.

Homophobia = bad, yes... but forcing someone to commit a perceived sin (thus ironically causing emotional distress in the other direction) = equally bad.

Well, if churches are going to get into the business of political advocacy, they should pay tax just like any other business. If a church organization is getting a "free ride" courtesy of the tax payers it should return the favor by being organizationally silent on matter of politics. Of course the individual members or congregants as such have the same rights as everyone else, so individually they can advocate political positions. Each church member should speak for himself on political matters and not advocate the spiritual authority of the organizations. That means priests should speak for themselves and not in the name of God or the name of Rome.

be

Oh, this again. Why couldn't they just STFU and make a cake for the nice lesbian couple, take the money and be happy?

What one believes on their own should not made company policy in a professional service environment. No miscarriage of justice, they decided to enforce their beliefs on others through the policy of their company and lost when they got taken to court for it.

The upside though, is that this Executive Order essentially allows me to justify being a complete prick to some annoying Fundie by claiming that it is a moral obligation to do so as a 'Satanist'.

^ Is this what the bottom line of Trump's EO is? Flower shops and priests can refuse to assist in gay marriages on the grounds that it's against their religion? Or some medical organizations can refuse to participate in abortions on the grounds that it's against their religion?

^Strawman 101.^

Last I checked, all the bakers did was turn them down as reasonably as possible; there was no "being a complete prick," etc.

Why couldn't the couple have just gone to a different bakery instead of causing such a convoluted ruckus?

And to quote one comment on another news site:

What's to say that a black or racially mixed couple wouldn't be turned away? After all, there are nutso fundie churches that still defend segregation as God's will. Should they have to just suck it up, and go somewhere else? The insult was not that they had to take the effort to find another cake maker, but that they were perceived as something less, either genetically (in the case of the hypothetical black or mixed race couple), or morally (in the case of the gay couple). Public access to a business means all the public.

So let me get this straight, if I walk into a store and the clerk is from the God Hates Freaks club, they have a right to deny me from being a customer?

Had the couple requested a non-wedding-related cake, I'm sure the bakery would've complied (as many Christian beliefs have no issues with doing general business with LGBT people; just business that specifically supports said orientation).

Denying (a) specific request(s) =/= denying the customer(s) in general.

I'm still trying to see the necessity of this EO since some states - Arizona, Mississippi and Texas - already passed laws that says religious businesses can refuse service to gay folks.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pos ... ay-people/

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/arizona-bil ... e-to-gays/

http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/national-i ... 48444.html

Why should someone have to deny who they're in love with? Would an interracial couple be expected to just say that they want a cake, and not a wedding cake, or otherwise be denied?
But really, I fail to see how someone could imagine themselves committing a sin for making a gay couple a wedding cake, even if the baker was homophobic for religious reasons. I seriously that a God who became human, then was nailed to a cross to die a shameful, prolonged death for humankind's sake, would hold a cake against anyone, even if homophobia was at all justified (it isn't).

I think that won't last too long...contravenes a number of federal civil rights laws