Senate adopts GOP change on gay right...

Senate adopts GOP change on gay rights bill

There are 14 comments on the Seattle Times story from Nov 6, 2013, titled Senate adopts GOP change on gay rights bill. In it, Seattle Times reports that:

By voice vote on Wednesday, the Senate approved an amendment from Sens. Rob Portman of Ohio and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire that would prevent federal, state and local governments from retaliating against religious groups that are exempt from the law.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Seattle Times.

Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#1 Nov 6, 2013
If they fail to pass ENDA; then we will need to get a gay exemption on our Income Taxes for being forced to live with partial citizenship rights

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#2 Nov 6, 2013
ANOTHER law respecting an establishment of religion ??!!!???

This is a poisoned pill.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#3 Nov 6, 2013
I need to know more about this amendment. It sounds like yet another pointless exercise in showing the religious community that they've done something for them, even if it changes nothing.

Of course, you see this all the time in politics: Great battle lines are drawn, and it looks like nothing can happen. Then some meaningless phrase is added, and everyone proclaims victory at having protected some special interest against the ravages of the boogeyman hiding in the bill.

The problem is that, every time another bill passes, all of the "extra protections" for religious groups become first draft material for the next state writing a bill. Then a group of legislators produce a side-show about how their favorite religious group will be disenfranchised by the bill. Eventually, a phrase is added providing little, if any, clarification of religious liberty.

Hence, the first marriage equality bills were the cleanest. Since then, more and more verbiage has been added to "protect" religious beliefs. At some point, the bills will be so larded with religious protections that gross discrimination by secular organizations will be tolerated.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#4 Nov 6, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
I need to know more about this amendment. It sounds like yet another pointless exercise in showing the religious community that they've done something for them, even if it changes nothing.
Of course, you see this all the time in politics: Great battle lines are drawn, and it looks like nothing can happen. Then some meaningless phrase is added, and everyone proclaims victory at having protected some special interest against the ravages of the boogeyman hiding in the bill.
The problem is that, every time another bill passes, all of the "extra protections" for religious groups become first draft material for the next state writing a bill. Then a group of legislators produce a side-show about how their favorite religious group will be disenfranchised by the bill. Eventually, a phrase is added providing little, if any, clarification of religious liberty.
Hence, the first marriage equality bills were the cleanest. Since then, more and more verbiage has been added to "protect" religious beliefs. At some point, the bills will be so larded with religious protections that gross discrimination by secular organizations will be tolerated.
The problem I see is that, just like bans on marriage equality or clearly unconstitutional, so are the "extra protections" that are being given to religious institutions in these bills.

The First Amendment is really clear that religious institutions get to do pretty much whatever horrible things they want to do without government "interference". So putting in a bill that religious groups are "protected" is pointless. They already are protected. Period.

It's like passing a law that says you have to be 16 years old to get a driver's licence, and then passing another law that says people over the age of 15 are eligible to apply for a driver's license. Then another law that says if you're less that two years away from turning 18.... It's just pointless prattle to appease idiots.

But I guess that's the direction our government is going anymore, isn't it?

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#5 Nov 6, 2013
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem I see is that, just like bans on marriage equality or clearly unconstitutional, so are the "extra protections" that are being given to religious institutions in these bills.
The First Amendment is really clear that religious institutions get to do pretty much whatever horrible things they want to do without government "interference". So putting in a bill that religious groups are "protected" is pointless. They already are protected. Period.
It's like passing a law that says you have to be 16 years old to get a driver's licence, and then passing another law that says people over the age of 15 are eligible to apply for a driver's license. Then another law that says if you're less that two years away from turning 18.... It's just pointless prattle to appease idiots.
But I guess that's the direction our government is going anymore, isn't it?
Yes, but the protections for the religious institutions do not apply to their charitable and for-profit affiliates. And the religious fanatics are trying to extend protections to them (i.e., hospitals, colleges, office parks, apartment buildings).

And the Holy Grail is a law that allows anyone to discriminate against anyone else if they claim religious reasons.

The people promoting these laws, of course, don't intend to let just any religious people discriminate against others. But the unintended consequences will be devastating.

Since: Nov 09

Columbus OH

#6 Nov 6, 2013
These amendments are nothing but legalized hate. Religious institutions should not be allowed to fire GLBT individuals just because they do not like them. That is main reason why the law is needed to begin with.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#7 Nov 6, 2013
These laws whittle away at the 1st Amendment.

And there's more ...

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/gay/TCDMDQG5N...

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/gay/TCRDIU0VH...

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#9 Nov 7, 2013
The senate passed ENDA 64-32

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#10 Nov 8, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
The senate passed ENDA 64-32
I nice gesture but it will never reach the floor in the House.

The Senate passage gives the GOPs bragging rights for 2014.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#11 Nov 8, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
I nice gesture but it will never reach the floor in the House.
The Senate passage gives the GOPs bragging rights for 2014.
Actually, it gives the Democrats bragging rights. For the GOP, it will be a covert talking-point only for non-public consumption.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#12 Nov 8, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
I nice gesture but it will never reach the floor in the House.
The Senate passage gives the GOPs bragging rights for 2014.
Let's hope they ARE stupid enough to brag about it. Employment non-discrimination has greater support than marriage equality, and it's gaining all the time. The more they think that moaning about not being able to return us to the Dark Ages, the fewer votes they'll get from the undecided crowd.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#13 Nov 8, 2013
Their bragging about blocking the "gay onslaught" will play very well in the Red States.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#14 Nov 8, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
At some point, the bills will be so larded with religious protections that gross discrimination by secular organizations will be tolerated.
Sounds more like the gay organizations. Why don't you try to get the supreme court to do away with part or all of the 1st amendment.
Big win if you can.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#15 Nov 8, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Sounds more like the gay organizations. Why don't you try to get the supreme court to do away with part or all of the 1st amendment.
Big win if you can.
The problem is that each new legislated "protection" actually undermines the First Amendment.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News 60 Percent: Record Number Of Americans Support ... 11 min Wondering 362
News Is Polygamy the Next Gay Marriage? (Sep '14) 11 min Pietro Armando 5,751
News Republic of Ireland votes for equal marriage 11 min The Branch 159
News National Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual And Transgender... 12 min Abe 3
News Why I'll be voting 'No' to same-sex marriage, e... 13 min lides 2,563
News Ireland same-sex marriage 14 min Imprtnrd 379
News Longmont valedictorian silenced over speech dis... 15 min Gremlin 29
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 15 min Wondering 21,834
Are the mods fair and balanced? 20 hr Friend of Poof1 842
More from around the web