Democrats continue assaults on First Amendment- 2 bills pass in DC

[Cryptic]

"sctatch a DC liberal, find a fascist- or a maoist, and in one case, a crack head"

Bill number one prohibits any employer from terminating an employee because they have had an abortion: http://lims.dccouncil.us/Download/31673/B20-0790-Introduction.pdf

Of course, any means religous schools, churches, mosques and temples must retain people who are not openly opposed to their teachings, but also openly violate their teachings.

Bill number two repeals the exemption that religous orgainizations and schools have had regarding purported discrimination against homosexuals: http://lims.dccouncil.us/Download/31754/B20-0803-Introduction.pdf

No doubt "discrimination" will be broadly defined. Not only will religous schools be forced to retain people openly opposed to their teachings, but they could well be forced to etablish homosexually oriented clubs etc.


For the First Amendment to have any real meaning (and forced subserviance to the State is not "real meaning"), religous groups must be free to select their own represenatives, teachers and also be free to preserve the internal intergrity of their teachings. Why cant DC Democrats understand that?

 

[iliveonramen]

"sctatch a DC liberal, find a fascist- or a maoist, and in one case, a crack head"

Bill number one prohibits any employer from terminating an employee because they have had an abortion: http://lims.dccouncil.us/Download/31673/B20-0790-Introduction.pdf

Of course, any means religous schools, churches, mosques and temples must retain people who are not openly opposed to their teachings, but also openly violate their teachings.

Bill number two repeals the exemption that religous orgainizations and schools have had regarding purported discrimination against homosexuals: http://lims.dccouncil.us/Download/31754/B20-0803-Introduction.pdf

No doubt "discrimination" will be broadly defined. Not only will religous schools be forced to retain people openly opposed to their teachings, but they could well be forced to etablish homosexually oriented clubs etc.


For the First Amendment to have any real meaning (and forced subserviance to the State is not "real meaning"), religous groups must be free to select their own represenatives, teachers and also be free to preserve the internal intergrity of their teachings. Why cant DC Democrats understand that?

Neither one of those bills would be supported by any fascist state ever.

Also, the court system is in place in order to check the constitutionality of laws. If the courts see either as infringing on the 1st amendment they will be overturned.

 

[sawdust]

"sctatch a DC liberal, find a fascist- or a maoist, and in one case, a crack head"

Bill number one prohibits any employer from terminating an employee because they have had an abortion: http://lims.dccouncil.us/Download/31673/B20-0790-Introduction.pdf

Of course, any means religous schools, churches, mosques and temples must retain people who are not openly opposed to their teachings, but also openly violate their teachings.

Bill number two repeals the exemption that religous orgainizations and schools have had regarding purported discrimination against homosexuals: http://lims.dccouncil.us/Download/31754/B20-0803-Introduction.pdf

No doubt "discrimination" will be broadly defined. Not only will religous schools be forced to retain people openly opposed to their teachings, but they could well be forced to etablish homosexually oriented clubs etc.


For the First Amendment to have any real meaning (and forced subserviance to the State is not "real meaning"), religous groups must be free to select their own represenatives, teachers and also be free to preserve the internal intergrity of their teachings. Why cant DC Democrats understand that?

Dog and pony show. Those issues are currently civil and could be settled in a lawsuit with punitive damages.

 

[tres borrachos]

"sctatch a DC liberal, find a fascist- or a maoist, and in one case, a crack head"

Bill number one prohibits any employer from terminating an employee because they have had an abortion: http://lims.dccouncil.us/Download/31673/B20-0790-Introduction.pdf

Of course, any means religous schools, churches, mosques and temples must retain people who are not openly opposed to their teachings, but also openly violate their teachings.

Bill number two repeals the exemption that religous orgainizations and schools have had regarding purported discrimination against homosexuals: http://lims.dccouncil.us/Download/31754/B20-0803-Introduction.pdf

No doubt "discrimination" will be broadly defined. Not only will religous schools be forced to retain people openly opposed to their teachings, but they could well be forced to etablish homosexually oriented clubs etc.


For the First Amendment to have any real meaning (and forced subserviance to the State is not "real meaning"), religous groups must be free to select their own represenatives, teachers and also be free to preserve the internal intergrity of their teachings. Why cant DC Democrats understand that?

Christonacracker, are they going to ever work on anything worthwhile in that cesspool known as DC?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

"sctatch a DC liberal, find a fascist- or a maoist, and in one case, a crack head"

Bill number one prohibits any employer from terminating an employee because they have had an abortion: http://lims.dccouncil.us/Download/31673/B20-0790-Introduction.pdf

Of course, any means religous [sic] schools, churches, mosques and temples must retain people who are not openly opposed to their teachings, but also openly violate their teachings.

Bill number two repeals the exemption that religous orgainizations and schools have had regarding purported discrimination against homosexuals: http://lims.dccouncil.us/Download/31754/B20-0803-Introduction.pdf

No doubt "discrimination" will be broadly defined. Not only will religous [sic] schools be forced to retain people openly opposed to their teachings, but they could well be forced to etablish [sic] homosexually oriented clubs etc.


For the First Amendment to have any real meaning (and forced subserviance [sic] to the State is not "real meaning"), religous [sic] groups must be free to select their own represenatives [sic], teachers and also be free to preserve the internal intergrity [sic] of their teachings. Why cant [sic] DC Democrats understand that?

I think what we are seeing here are some desperate last gasps from a party that knows that it is soon to be rendered irrelevant, at least temporarily. In another election cycle or two, if current trends hold, the Democratic party will have no meaningful power at all at the national level, and it will probably be many years before it ever does again. I think they are desperate to do something, anything, with what little power they have remaining, before they lose it entirely.

 

[Paschendale]

If your religion is based on hating women and gays, then your religion is paltry and unworthy of recognition. Shouldn't the important teachings of these employers (who shouldn't be making any decisions about hiring or firing based on a person's personal life) be about compassion, charity, and kindness, rather than outdated sexual mores?

 

[Risky Thicket]

"sctatch a DC liberal, find a fascist- or a maoist, and in one case, a crack head"

Bill number one prohibits any employer from terminating an employee because they have had an abortion: http://lims.dccouncil.us/Download/31673/B20-0790-Introduction.pdf

Of course, any means religous schools, churches, mosques and temples must retain people who are not openly opposed to their teachings, but also openly violate their teachings.

Bill number two repeals the exemption that religous orgainizations and schools have had regarding purported discrimination against homosexuals: http://lims.dccouncil.us/Download/31754/B20-0803-Introduction.pdf

No doubt "discrimination" will be broadly defined. Not only will religous schools be forced to retain people openly opposed to their teachings, but they could well be forced to etablish homosexually oriented clubs etc.


For the First Amendment to have any real meaning (and forced subserviance to the State is not "real meaning"), religous groups must be free to select their own represenatives, teachers and also be free to preserve the internal intergrity of their teachings. Why cant DC Democrats understand that?

THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS!

If places of worship are about anything they are about discrimination. They can't let anyone just run around out there proclaiming the faith while having unmissionary position sex and having sex for fun. It's up to religious institutions to judge and then punish the feck out people.

If a woman gets pregnant and she isn't married she needs to have "Whore" tattooed on her forehead and then she needs to be booted from the place of worship. Men as always have a right to deny being involved and they don't need to worry about it. Besides if the woman had not have dressed slutty men wouldn't have wanted to fornicate with her.

If a woman is raped by her favorite uncle and is too traumatized to tell her husband, her mother (the uncle's sister) or go to the police or to the hospital or doctor in her little town in Oklahoma well, that's her own fault. Besides in most cases they'd lovingly encourage her to have the baby and welcome it into the family. You know her mama and everyone at her place of worship would be thrilled. No one would mind. Except when people started gossiping about the fact that she was probably asking for it because she used to wear a two piece bathing suit and sun in the backyard. The slut. She should have been fired from working at the church school office anyway, once they found out her brother was a homosexural. She'll probably take a long weekend to St. Louis and get an abortion anyway.

What business is it of the government anyway? Religious institutions don't pay taxes. Religious institutions successfully lobbied hard to be written out of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Why should they have to put up with homos and slutty women?

Places of worship are not about love and acceptance and hope. They are about discrimination. They are about enforcing the message of no racial mixing, no women on top, no women having an equal voice, no women being in control of their own bodies and non acceptance of people who express the sexual proclivities that they were born with. They against abortion and against hiring people involved in abortion. They are about not helping mothers and families who chose not to abort.

It isn't about love, or peace, or acceptance. Hell no! It's about being able to judge and punish as guaranteed by the 1st Amendment. (Of course the 1st Amendment does not apply to Sharia because none of the people who signed the Declaration of Independence were Muslims.)

 

[Bob Blaylock]

If your religion is based on hating women and gays, then your religion is paltry and unworthy of recognition. Shouldn't the important teachings of these employers (who shouldn't be making any decisions about hiring or firing based on a person's personal life) be about compassion, charity, and kindness, rather than outdated sexual mores?

Not nearly as much so as any ideology that is so heavily based on determining what people are going to be allowed to believe, what beliefs they may express and practice, and with whom they may or must associate or not associate.

 

[Risky Thicket]

Christonacracker, are they going to ever work on anything worthwhile in that cesspool known as DC?

My guess is that some Dems are fed the **** up with all the religious based pandering the GOP is doing. Both sides are wrong and two wrongs don't make a right. Religious organizations expect to be exempt from taxes and in some cases exempt from the law and yet some religious extremists want to push the government into championing the 1st Amendment for religions. Seems some Dems see the hypocrisy in it and feel that they can use it bring the relationship between the GOP and right wing religious extremists to light.

I understand the strategy, if that is what these Democrats are doing. The VAST majority of Americans are not right wing religious extremists. The GOP cannot seem to escape the grip of Teabaggers and/or religious extremists; they are anymore pretty much the same people.

The nation is bogged down in endless wars and a crap economy and a slow recession recovery. Meanwhile Congress is obsessed with passing laws related to sex: abortion and same sex marriage and the right to discriminate against people who don't conform to a small group's narrow religious views about sex.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

…two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[rocket88]

Christonacracker, are they going to ever work on anything worthwhile in that cesspool known as DC?

Democrats are apparently warming to their role in the minority. This is what a minority does - come up with strange ideas that have no chance of ever passing to buddy up with their basest base. The problem comes when that minority then becomes the majority and tries to "govern" like that.

I'm not actually sure how any employer would know if an employee had an abortion unless it was pretty late term. There are already privacy laws surrounding your healthcare.

 

[Cryptic]

THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS!

If places of worship are about anything they are about discrimination.

Very true.

In a free society (as oppossed to the society envisioned in DC), a huge variety of free citizens are free to form a dazzling variety of private groups for all kinds of "discriminatory" purposes.

Places of worship are not about love and acceptance and hope.

What these private groups are, or are not, is really not important. What is important is that they be allowed to set their own internal standards.

What business is it of the government anyway?

In a free society, such things are no business of the government. Why cant these Democrats understand that?

If a woman is raped by her favorite uncle and is too traumatized to tell her husband, her mother (the uncle's sister) or go to the police or to the hospital or doctor in her little town in Oklahoma well, that's her own fault. Besides in most cases they'd lovingly encourage her to have the baby and welcome it into the family. You know her mama and everyone at her place of worship would be thrilled. No one would mind. Except when people started gossiping about the fact that she was probably asking for it because she used to wear a two piece bathing suit and sun in the backyard. The slut. She should have been fired from working at the church school office anyway, once they found out her brother was a homosexural. She'll probably take a long weekend to St. Louis and get an abortion anyway.

Could you send this uhmmm..... "material" to the DNC? Who knows, maybe their speech writers will use it verbatim in 2016.
http://www.democrats.org/

 

[tres borrachos]

Democrats are apparently warming to their role in the minority. This is what a minority does - come up with strange ideas that have no chance of ever passing to buddy up with their basest base. The problem comes when that minority then becomes the majority and tries to "govern" like that.

I'm not actually sure how any employer would know if an employee had an abortion unless it was pretty late term. There are already privacy laws surrounding your healthcare.

I'm also trying to figure out how an employer would know about an abortion. HIPAA privacy rules are pretty strict.

You're right about what the minority party does. The GOP did the same thing when they were in the minority. "Look, my constituents! I proposed a bill! It will never pass, but it was fun and it's what you want. Yay me."

Term limits would be really nice.

 

[Cryptic]

I'm also trying to figure out how an employer would know about an abortion. HIPAA privacy rules are pretty strict.

Probably the only way would be if she told them.

A good scenario would be a disenchanted teacher in a religous school directly telling the adminsitration that she had an abortion, and then daring them to do something about it. The school would then be forced to retain somebody in open defiance of their teachings.

Of course, if I worked at PETA, told them, say, that I just went trapping for furbearers and things went "great", thenI told them that I intended to keep working for PETA as a "trapping typist", DC Democrats would loudly call for my head.

 

[Risky Thicket]

Very true.

In a free society (as oppossed to the society envisioned in DC), a huge variety of free citizens are free to form a dazzling variety of private groups for all kinds of "discriminatory" purposes.


What these private groups are, or are not, is really not important. What is important is that they be allowed to set their own internal standards.

In a free society, such things are no business of the government. Why cant these Democrats understand that?

Could you send this uhmmm..... "material" to the DNC? Who knows, maybe their speech writers will use it verbatim in 2016.
Democrats.org

In the past I was once a card carrying Libertarian. These days I am an Independent because I find I agree with a few ideas that aren't libertarian. I am not a Republican nor am I a Democrat. Being an Independent I don't disagree with everything from either party, though I am discovering that I can accept less and less of it.

If a recognized religious organization decides that ALL people within that religion must live totally and completely naked. I doubt people who support the OP would be so enthusiastic about supporting naked people for God eating at the neighborhood McDonalds.

It has long been a concern to me that religions in America can and most definitely DO discriminate against people who are disabled. Now religions want to discriminate against people who are pregnant or people who are gay. While doing that religions have become very involved in government, all the while being exempt from taxes. About a month ago I saw a huge and very nice gym that is owned by a church. Church members can join and pay monthly rate that is less than what would be comparable at Gold's Gym.

Some branches of some religions want to and are attempting to build religious empires, with restaurants and Starbucks and you name it. They are now demanding ALL the rights and privileges under the Constitution while being allow to undercut local business due to huge financial and tax advantages and they want to be exempt from making real contribution to the community at large.

 

[Cryptic]

If a recognized religious organization decides that ALL people within that religion must live totally and completely naked. I doubt people who support the OP would be so enthusiastic about supporting naked people for God eating at the neighborhood McDonalds.

This is a faulty analogy. McDonalds is under no obligation to accomodate them.

But, the same group of say, naked new agers is free to state that in order to participate in their private services, one must be "sky clad". Likewise, I cannot object if they kick me out for wearing clothes, or if they kick me out failing to affirm their new age beliefs.

It has long been a concern to me that religions in America can and most definitely DO discriminate against people who are disabled. Now religions want to discriminate against people who are pregnant or people who are gay. While doing that religions have become very involved in government, all the while being exempt from taxes. About a month ago I saw a huge and very nice gym that is owned by a church. Church members can join and pay monthly rate that is less than what would be comparable at Gold's Gym.

I think you have a valid point. Subjectively, I dont like the presentation of these churches and I dont worship there. Objectively, such individual churches, should have their tax exempt status re-examined to see if their main purpose is a church or a business.

At the end of the day, however, DC has no more right to force churches to hire those who violate their beliefs than Alaska can force PETA to hire trapping afficionados.

 

[Taylor]

Some branches of some religions want to and are attempting to build religious empires, with restaurants and Starbucks and you name it. They are now demanding ALL the rights and privileges under the Constitution while being allow to undercut local business due to huge financial and tax advantages and they want to be exempt from making real contribution to the community at large.

They aren't trying build "religious empires" so much as trying to attract younger churchgoers who tend to like/prefer these larger churches. And, just because they sell coffee or have a gym doesn't necessarily mean that it's tax-free (and in the case of gyms, it appears that those churches who have tried to claim tax-exempt status have lost in court). But to the larger point, if a particular service is run like a business, it should be taxed as such.

 

[Hard Truth]

"sctatch a DC liberal, find a fascist- or a maoist, and in one case, a crack head"

Bill number one prohibits any employer from terminating an employee because they have had an abortion: http://lims.dccouncil.us/Download/31673/B20-0790-Introduction.pdf

Of course, any means religous schools, churches, mosques and temples must retain people who are not openly opposed to their teachings, but also openly violate their teachings.

Bill number two repeals the exemption that religous orgainizations and schools have had regarding purported discrimination against homosexuals: http://lims.dccouncil.us/Download/31754/B20-0803-Introduction.pdf

No doubt "discrimination" will be broadly defined. Not only will religous schools be forced to retain people openly opposed to their teachings, but they could well be forced to etablish homosexually oriented clubs etc.


For the First Amendment to have any real meaning (and forced subserviance to the State is not "real meaning"), religous groups must be free to select their own represenatives, teachers and also be free to preserve the internal intergrity of their teachings. Why cant DC Democrats understand that?

FALSE.
Your claims about the nature of these proposed laws is contradicted by the links you provide.

The first linked bill prohibits discrimination against any worker due to their, or their dependent's, "reproductive health decision making."

The second linked bill removes exemptions allowing religiously affiliated educational institutions (only)to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. It does not apply to other religious institutions. I doubt that it would apply to priests, ministers, nuns etc. that are employed by the church rather than the school.

Both of these bills should be supported to protect worker privacy. Employers should not be able to stick their noses into people's private lives and discriminate against them for their choices or preferences.

We need a federal law protecting nearly all workers (with only a few exceptions) from discrimination due to their off-work activities when they do not impact the employee's ability to do their job properly. Otherwise workers lose their right to first amendment free expression and their right to privacy.

 

[Cryptic]

FALSE.
Your claims about the nature of these proposed laws is contradicted by the links you provide.

The first linked bill prohibits discrimination against any worker due to their, or their dependent's, "reproductive health decision making."

The second linked bill removes exemptions allowing religiously affiliated educational institutions (only)to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. It does not apply to other religious institutions. I doubt that it would apply to priests, ministers, nuns etc. that are employed by the church rather than the school.

Both of these bills should be supported to protect worker privacy. Employers should not be able to stick their noses into people's private lives and discriminate against them for their choices or preferences.

We need a federal law protecting nearly all workers (with only a few exceptions) from discrimination due to their off-work activities when they do not impact the employee's ability to do their job properly. Otherwise workers lose their right to first amendment free expression and their right to privacy.

Actually.....

My claim at bill number one stands based on your own quote: The first linked bill prohibits discrimination against any worker due to their, or their dependent's, "reproductive health decision making."

Your claim about number two, is correct in a hair splitting way. I should delete "religous orgainizations" while keeping "religous schools". Too bad your observations do not in any way change the fact that both laws will, in all probability, be found unconstitutional.

We need a federal law protecting nearly all workers (with only a few exceptions) from discrimination due to their off-work activities when they do not impact the employee's ability to do their job properly. Otherwise workers lose their right to first amendment free expression and their right to privacy.

So PETA cant fire me for recreationally trapping furry animals- right? I mean, I dont do it at work. Of course, retaining me with my "I trap" facebook page might dilute their message.

If I want to work for a non profit, I need to play by their rules- period. It does not matter whether it is PETA, a church, or the hindu temple.

 

[ludin]

"sctatch a DC liberal, find a fascist- or a maoist, and in one case, a crack head"

Bill number one prohibits any employer from terminating an employee because they have had an abortion: http://lims.dccouncil.us/Download/31673/B20-0790-Introduction.pdf

Of course, any means religous schools, churches, mosques and temples must retain people who are not openly opposed to their teachings, but also openly violate their teachings.

Bill number two repeals the exemption that religous orgainizations and schools have had regarding purported discrimination against homosexuals: http://lims.dccouncil.us/Download/31754/B20-0803-Introduction.pdf

No doubt "discrimination" will be broadly defined. Not only will religous schools be forced to retain people openly opposed to their teachings, but they could well be forced to etablish homosexually oriented clubs etc.


For the First Amendment to have any real meaning (and forced subserviance to the State is not "real meaning"), religous groups must be free to select their own represenatives, teachers and also be free to preserve the internal intergrity of their teachings. Why cant DC Democrats understand that?

will never pass the senate or the house. dead in the water.

 

[Hard Truth]

will never pass the senate or the house. dead in the water.

They are local laws for Washington, DC.

 

[ludin]

Neither one of those bills would be supported by any fascist state ever.

Also, the court system is in place in order to check the constitutionality of laws. If the courts see either as infringing on the 1st amendment they will be overturned.

yea you want to know how long that process takes? more so you want to know how long it will take to get to the SCOTUS and then many more months before
they actually rule on whatever one knew to begin with.

 

[Cryptic]

will never pass the senate or the house. dead in the water.

I thought DC laws stood unless rejected by both the Senate and the House. Am I mistaken?

 

[Hard Truth]

Actually.....

My claim at bill number one stands based on your own quote: The first linked bill prohibits discrimination against any worker due to their, or their dependent's, "reproductive health decision making."

Your claim about number two, is correct in a hair splitting way. I should delete "religous orgainizations" while keeping "religous schools". Too bad your observations do not in any way change the fact that both laws will, in all probability, be found unconstitutional.



So PETA cant fire me for recreationally trapping furry animals- right? I mean, I dont do it at work. Of course, retaining me with my "I trap" facebook page might dilute their message.

If I want to work for a non profit, I need to play by their rules- period. It does not matter whether it is PETA, a church, or the hindu temple.

The first bill does not apply to abortion only, it also prevents employers from interfering with their employees decision to have a child, use contraception, or obtain fertility treatment. Employers have a right to control their employees behavior while they are at work. They do not have a right to interfere with their most personal decisions and invade their bedrooms and doctor's offices when they are off-duty.

Workers in religiously affiliated schools such as math teachers, janitors and others who are not involved in proselytizing, preaching or religious instruction should not be obligated to conform to their employer's taboos. One person's rights end where another person's rights begin. Worker's right to privacy, free expression and self determination trumps employer's rights to impose their beliefs on others. The only reasonable exceptions are for the key people who represent their employer. That could include CEOs, public information officers and religious officials who are involved in proselytizing, preaching or religious instruction such as priests, monks, ministers and nuns.

To address your example, an ordinary PETA employee who traps animals and is even public about it does not harm PETA unless he identifies himself as a PETA representative as part of his trapping activity or advocacy. Few people would support giving PETA the right to inspect their employee's homes and fire a worker if they own any leather goods or eat meat. Allowing a religious group to interfere with private medical decisions is equally egregious.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

At the end of the day, however, DC has no more right to force churches to hire those who violate their beliefs than Alaska can force PETA to hire trapping afficionados.

Not having the legitimate authority to do something has not been very much of a deterrent to government, especially at the federal level.