Support NeoGAF

[Wilsongt]

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2016/05/18/3779536/house-defense-lgbt-amendment/

Republican leaders in Congress have quashed a bipartisan attempt to remove the so-called Russell Amendment — a sweeping “religious liberty” provision that would allow federal contractors to discriminate against LGBT employees — from this year’s National Defense Authorization Act.

The defense budget bill now heads to the floor of the House with the anti-LGBT language attached, prompting furious backlash from lawmakers, civil rights groups, and the Obama Administration.

The amendment would effectively overturn President Obama’s executive order protecting LGBT workers in federal contracts — what the Congressional LGBT Equality Caucus described in a statement as "a signature victory of the LGBT equality movement." That order protected LGBT employment rights for 28 million people.

Members of the caucus criticized the amendment’s sweeping language, which makes every contract, subcontract, grant, cooperative agreement, and purchase order awarded by every federal agency eligible for a “religious exemption” from the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Rep. Richard Hanna (R) told the Republican Congressional leaders that the amendment’s vague language “could be exploited as a license to discriminate against LGBT Americans by almost any federal contractor” — not just defense contractors.

The White House released a statement Monday warning that the "religious liberty" amendment was one of many reasons President Obama would veto the bill as it's currently drafted.

The full House approved the bill, along with its anti-LGBT amendment, by a party-line 277-147 vote Wednesday evening.

Both parties are the same if old.

 

[The Jackdog]

Ya know, I work in marketing. Today i visited a school and the kids were doing a bunch of stuff on the civil rights era. Giving little presentations, etc.

Idk why i thought of this, but it just seems so damn bizarre seeing kids learning about history, about a time when we supposedly learned from our mistakes, and then hoping on the news to see history pretty much repeating itself (less violence, im not comparing the struggles, but there are similarities).

And another thing. Id have a lot more respect for these people if they just came out and said what they felt. Stop trying to say perverts are going into the bathroom, stop trying to say youre trying to protect relgious freedom and the sanctity of marriage, just say it. Just say you dont fucking like anyone LGBT. At least then i just think youre an asshole not an asshole and a liar.

Because it takes a real special kind of asshole to say youre too gay to die for our country.

 

[SlickShoesRUCrazy]

Can't ever be said enough, fuck republicans.

 

[NormalFish]

I imagine this is so popular with republicans more because it's something Obama pushed than anything else, but republicans continue to be the party of hate regardless.

 

[Irobot82]

Anyone have a place to read the text of the amendements? The bill is 758 pages long.
This is the bill I think.

The words, gay, lesbian, transgender, religious and religion do not appear in it at all. Am I missing something?

http://docs.house.gov/meetings/AS/AS00/20160427/104832/BILLS-114-HR4909-R000604-Amdt-232r2.pdf

Thanks, why doesn't that appear in what I found I wonder.

And here is the text.

Any branch or agency of the Federal Government
shall, with respect to any religious corporation, religious
association, religious educational institution, or religious
society that is a recipient of or offeror for a Federal Gov-
ernment contract, subcontract, grant, purchase order, or
cooperative agTeement, provide protections and exemp-
tions consistent with sections 702(a) and 703(e)(2) of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e-1(a) and 42
U.S.C. 2000e-2(e)(2)) and section 103(d) of the Ameri-
cans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 USC 12113(d)).

Members of the caucus criticized the amendment’s sweeping language, which makes every contract, subcontract, grant, cooperative agreement, and purchase order awarded by every federal agency eligible for a “religious exemption” from the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

I don't really get this sweeping language part. It sounds to me like you have to be a church, a church school, a company that sells church things a religious society(a cult?)

Edit: To clarify, because I'm pretty sure people will attack me, I don't agree with this legislation. I'm just reading it.

 

[Zornack]

Anyone have a place to read the text of the amendements? The bill is 758 pages long.

http://docs.house.gov/meetings/AS/AS00/20160427/104832/BILLS-114-HR4909-R000604-Amdt-232r2.pdf

The words, gay, lesbian, transgender, religious and religion do not appear in it at all. Am I missing something?

The issue is with their exclusion. The amendment would overrule the executive order issued by Obama which requires contractors with the government to provide protection for LGBT employees, making those protections no longer required.

 

[Wilsongt]

Anyone have a place to read the text of the amendements? The bill is 758 pages long.
This is the bill I think.

The words, gay, lesbian, transgender, religious and religion do not appear in it at all. Am I missing something?



Thanks, why doesn't that appear in what I found I wonder.

And here is the text.





I don't really get this sweeping language part. It sounds to me like you have to be a church, a church school, a company that sells church things a religious society(a cult?)

Edit: To clarify, because I'm pretty sure people will attack me, I don't agree with this legislation. I'm just reading it.

with respect to any religious corporation, religious
association, religious educational institution, or religious
society

This is a pretty broad net, in my opinion, and has been used in so many of the other anti-LGBT pieces of legislation out there. Not to mention, the CRA doesn't cover gender identity or sexual orientation.

 

[Irobot82]

This is a pretty broad net, in my opinion, and has been used in so many of the other anti-LGBT pieces of legislation out there. Not to mention, the CRA doesn't cover gender identity or sexual orientation.

Agreed the CRA needs to be updated.

Do you know of any court cases ongoing to finished that attempt to broaden or more narrowly define these type of laws?

http://docs.house.gov/meetings/AS/AS00/20160427/104832/BILLS-114-HR4909-R000604-Amdt-232r2.pdf



The issue is with their exclusion. The amendment would overrule the executive order issued by Obama which requires contractors with the government to provide protection for LGBT employees, making those protections no longer required.

But only for churches and church type organizations to do that to people, right?

 

[Wilsongt]

Agreed the CRA needs to be updated.

Do you know of any court cases ongoing to finished that attempt to broaden or more narrowly define these type of laws?

I would say every single religious freedom bill and anti-transgender bill currently out there will eventually lead to LGBT being added as a protected class at the federal level. And when/if that happens, you can thank the Republicans for it, ironically.

 

[Irobot82]

I would say every single religious freedom bill and anti-transgender bill currently out there will eventually lead to LGBT being added as a protected class at the federal level. And when/if that happens, you can thank the Republicans for it, ironically.

I'm sure it will happen and hopefully within the next year but do you think these religious exemptions will still stand?

Why are we going government contracts to churches and religious organizations?

In what capacity will a religious organization need w contract from the government?

That's a damn fine question. Do we do that or like others have posted, is this just a way to allow discrimination through "religion"

Catholic Church collects $1.6 billion

The Church and related Catholic charities and schools have collected more than $1.6 billion since 2012 in U.S. contracts and grants in a far-reaching relationship that spans from school lunches for grammar school students to contracts across the globe to care for the poor and needy at the expense of Uncle Sam, a Washington Times review of federal spending records shows.

Government excess at it's finest.

 

[DragonSworne]

Why are we going government contracts to churches and religious organizations?

In what capacity will a religious organization need a contract from the government?

 

[Wilsongt]

Why are we going government contracts to churches and religious organizations?

In what capacity will a religious organization need a contract from the government?

I would assume during states of emergency. Though, I am sure their hate of LGBT people would be trumped by their love of that free sweet, sweet federal money.

 

[rrs]

Why are we going government contracts to churches and religious organizations?

In what capacity will a religious organization need a contract from the government?

Bibles or other religious works?

 

[Somnid]

Republican leaders in Congress have quashed a bipartisan attempt...

So it's not bipartisan?

 

[Fugu]

Why are we going government contracts to churches and religious organizations?

In what capacity will a religious organization need a contract from the government?

This isn't what that means. It means that they'll provide an exemption for any behavior that corresponds with the doctrine of any federally-recognized religion.

 

[raphier]

Bibles or other religious works?

Graveyard maintenance

 

[Wilsongt]

So it's not bipartisan?

Remember, it apparently only takes one dem or one republican to make something bipartisan nowadays.