Video & Multimedia
Related: About this forumPic Of The Moment: Well That Didn't Take Long
DAY AFTER: Religious Leaders Send Letter To Obama Ask For Exemption From Discriminating Against LGBT
Follow @demunderground
underpants
(182,769 posts)Better be careful and avoid the danger zone
MADem
(135,425 posts)Now poor Kenny looks like the devil!
MADem
(135,425 posts)to people re: their health care and this movie of the same name from the Reagan era...
We're under attack!!!!!
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)littlemissmartypants
(22,632 posts)Thanks EarlG. Spot on. F*ck Jesus.
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)Don't you love how he's always clean, coiffed and white?!?!
When the guy they idolize was probably dirty, a scrounge and "of color"!
Stonepounder
(4,033 posts)There is a very simple response from Obama.
"While I support your religious beliefs and your ability to fire LGBT employees for their sexual orientation, you will need to be respectful of my beliefs. If you choose to discriminate against LGBT employees, I will immediately close out all of your government contracts and you and your subsidiaries will be barred from bidding on future contracts so long as your choose to discriminate against LGBTs."
Sincerely,
Barack Obama
Blus4u
(608 posts)....contracting with religious organizations, and if so, why?
Tax exempt status for religious organizations should be revoked.
They preach politics from the pulpit or act as lobbying organizations.
Period..
Peace
littlemissmartypants
(22,632 posts)Please explain. I am under the impression that it bloody well is...am I wrong?
Stonepounder
(4,033 posts)Obama issued an Executive Order forbidding discrimination against LGBT for government contractors. Now several of them are claiming that it is against their 'sincerely held religious beliefs' to not discriminate against LGBT. Of course the fact that this was the same tired, shopworn argument used against integeration in the 50-60's totally escapes the current crop of numbskulls.
So this issue is separate from the women's health mandate in the ACA.
However, they are using the SCOTUS decision to try and allow them to discriminate. Of couse next we'll get someone claiming that they want to discriminate against Muslims, Atheists, Jews, etc.
Stonepounder
(4,033 posts)Closely held is a somewhat nebuluous term. In the HL ruling it was defined as '5 or fewer shareholders holding more than 50% of the stock'. Of course that part is subject to change without notice. The point is that SCOTUS allowed 'sincerely held religious beliefs' to trump Federal Law. And not by a church, but by a corporation. That is the ghastly part of the ruling.
wandy
(3,539 posts)Next, it will be something about religion and just about any thing else.
Finlay it will be something just about anything that hurts the profit margin.
Its not all that hard to see the direction this is headed in.
kairos12
(12,852 posts)Supreme Court
Rethugs
Corporations
Tikki
(14,557 posts)Tikki
olegramps
(8,200 posts)onehandle
(51,122 posts)One is about the hatred of teh gay.
One is about the hatred of teh woman.
LEAVE SCOTUS ALONE!
lark
(23,091 posts)Such fools and tools are those felonious five. This was 100% predictable. Waiting for 7th Day Adventist to file a lawsuit against providing any surgical or blood transfusion benefits.
ailsagirl
(22,896 posts)But then, you always do.
skypilot
(8,853 posts)Are these Faith-Based Partnership people whining that they won't be able to help the needy and less fortunate unless they are able to discriminate against LGBT people? Are they implying that LGBT people are incapable of helping those in need or are they threatening to withhold their services from those people if they have to work alongside LGBT people? Seems to be some very nasty passive-aggressive shit going on here--all dressed up in "nice" language.
On Edit: Of course, they are probably just afraid of losing government/tax-payer money so they are rushing in to try to make their case.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)aint_no_life_nowhere
(21,925 posts)They're people, human beings. They exist in this society, like it or not. Doctors who provide healing services to LGBT people or anyone are just helping people survive, not making a statement in support or against any group. While personally I have no hatred towards or desire to discriminate against any group, even if I did I wouldn't see the provision of services to them as condoning whatever they do. Lawyers and doctors for example are not supposed to choose which individuals they would prefer to serve. They serve the public at large. Why do these assholes who want to refuse services to LGBT individuals have to be so totalitarian?
bluevoter4life
(787 posts)William769
(55,145 posts)Cha
(297,154 posts)WCLinolVir
(951 posts)July 1, 2014
The Honorable Barack Obama
President of the United States of America
The White House
Washington, DC 20500
by email, c/o Melissa Rogers, Executive Director, White House Office of Faith-Based
and Neighborhood Partnerships
Dear Mr. President,
As religious and civic leaders who seek to advance the common good, we write to urge you to include a religious exemption in your planned executive order addressing federal contractors and LGBT employment policies.
We have great appreciation for your commitment to human dignity and justice, and we share those values with you. With respect to the proposed executive order, we agree that banning discrimination is a good thing. We believe that all persons are created in the divine image of the creator, and are worthy of respect and love, without exception. Even so, it still may not be possible for all sides to reach a consensus on every issue. That is why we are asking that an extension of protection for one group not come at the expense of faith communities whose religious identity and beliefs motivate them to serve those in need.
Americans have always disagreed on important issues, but our ability to live with our diversity is part of what makes this country great, and it continues to be essential even in this 21st-century. This ability is essential in light of our national conversation on political and cultural issues related to sexuality. We have and will continue to communicate on these broader issues to our congregations, our policymakers and our nation, but we focus
here on the importance of a religious exemption in your planned executive order disqualifying organizations that do not hire LGBT Americans from receiving federal contracts. This religious exemption would be comparable to what was included in the Senate version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which passed the Senate with a strong, bipartisan vote.
Without a robust religious exemption, like the provisions in the Senate-passed ENDA, this expansion of hiring rights will come at an unreasonable cost to the common good, national unity and religious freedom.
When you announced the White House Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships, you said the following:
the particular faith that motivates each of us can promote a greater good for all of us. Instead of driving us apart, our varied beliefs can bring us together to feed the hungry and comfort the afflicted; to make peace where there is strife and rebuild what has broken; to lift up those who have fallen on hard times.
We could not agree with you more. Our identity as individuals is based first and foremost in our faith, and religious beliefs are at the foundation of some of Americas greatest charities and service organizations that do incredible good for our nation and for the world. In fact, serving the common good is one of the highest expressions of ones religious liberty outside of worship. The hiring policies of these organizationsChristians, Jewish, Muslim and othersextend from their religious beliefs and values: the same values that motivate them to serve their neighbors in the first place.
Often, in American history--and, indeed, in partnership with your Administration--government and religious organizations have worked together to better serve the nation.
An executive order that does not include a religious exemption will significantly and substantively hamper the work of some religious organizations that are best equipped to serve in common purpose with the federal government. In a concrete way, religious organizations will lose financial funding that allows them to serve others in the national interest due to their organizational identity. When the capacity of religious organizations is limited, the common good suffers.
But our concern about an executive order without a religious exemption is about more
than the direct financial impact on religious organizations. While the nation has undergone incredible social and legal change over the last decade, we still live in a nation with different beliefs about sexuality. We must find a way to respect diversity of opinion on this issue in a way that respects the dignity of all parties to the best of our ability.
There is no perfect solution that will make all parties completely happy.
As we know you understand, a religious exemption in this executive order would not guarantee that religious organizations would receive contracts. Instead, a religious exemption would simply maintain that religious organizations will not be automatically disqualified or disadvantaged in obtaining contracts because of their religious beliefs.
Mr. President, during your first presidential campaign you were asked your views on same-sex marriage. You responded: I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God's in the mix I am not somebody who promotes same-sex marriage.
You justified withholding your support for same-sex marriage, at least in part, by appealing to your Christian faith. Yet you still believed you could serve your country, all Americans, as President. Similarly, some faith-based organizations religious identity requires that their employees share that identity. We still believe those organizations can serve their country, all Americans, in partnership with their government and as welcome members of the American family.
This is part of what has been so powerful about religious liberty in our nations history.
Historically, we have been reticent as a nation to use the authority of government to bless some religious identities and ostracize others. We live in a blessed nation, constantly perfecting its fundamental ideal that no matter what god you pray to, what you look like, or who you are; there is a place in this nation for you if you seek to serve your fellow Americans.
Religious organizations, because of their religious faith, have served their nation well for
centuries, as you have acknowledged and supported time and time again. We hope that religious organizations can continue to do so, on equal footing with others, in the future.
A religious exemption in your executive order on LGBT employment rights would allow
for this, balancing the governments interest in protecting both LGBT Americans, as well
as the religious organizations that seek to serve in accordance with their faith and values.
Sincerely,
Dr. Joel C. Hunter
Senior Pastor, Northland, A Church Distributed
Fr. Larry Snyder
CEO, Catholic Charities USA
Kathy Dahlkemper
County Executive, Erie County PA
Former Member of Congress
Dr. Rick Warren
Senior Pastor, Saddleback Church
Gabe Lyons
President, Q Ideas
Dr. Stephen Schneck
Director, Institute for Religion & Democracy
The Catholic University of America
Michael Wear
Consultant
National Faith Vote Director, Obama for America 2012
Stephanie Summers
CEO, Center for Public Justice
Rev. Noel Castellanos
CEO, Christian Community Development Association
D. Michael Lindsay
President, Gordon College
Andy Crouch
Executive Editor, Christianity Today
Stephan Bauman
President and CEO, World Relief
Jenny Yang
Vice President for Policy & Advocacy, World Relief
Bill Blacquiere
President and CEO, Bethany Christian Services
jase024
(3 posts)so, they can't help people if they have to be fair about who they hire? what a crock!
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)No.
Love,
The President
olegramps
(8,200 posts)libodem
(19,288 posts)[img][/img]
Billy Budd
(310 posts)MH1
(17,600 posts)That's what it looks like in this context. Does seem appropriate.
BlueMTexpat
(15,366 posts)this graphic posted on FB and gave it a "Like" there ... I should have known it was one of yours!
You continue to do us proud!
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)trade agreements will nullify all regulations that hurt the bottom line.
Read this: https://wikileaks.org/tisa-financial/press.html