GOP Senators To Re-Introduce Anti-Gay 'Religious Freedom' Bill Next Year

[rug]

By CAITLIN MACNEAL
Published DECEMBER 12, 2016, 1:44 PM EDT

The Republican sponsors of a so-called "religious freedom" bill plan on re-introducing the legislation next year in the hopes that Donald Trump's election will boost chances for the bill to be signed into law, Buzzfeed News reported.

The bill, the First Amendment Defense Act, would ban the federal government from revoking tax exemptions from or denying grants to individuals or corporations with religious or "moral" beliefs opposing same-sex marriage.

Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) introduced the legislation last year, and a counterpart measure was filed in the House, but neither bill made it to a full vote in either the House or Senate.

"Hopefully November’s results will give us the momentum we need to get this done next year," Conn Carroll, a spokesman for Lee, told Buzzfeed.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/first-amendment-defense-act-trump

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2802

[nil desperandum]

1. Well

that escalated quickly...I wonder if they'll be so quick to protect those whose morality finds bigotry more than a little distasteful.

[rug]

2. It will be interesting to see if trump's administration actually supports them.

trump has no compass. While he's been mouthing lately the anti-abortion stand, he really hasn't said much about lgbt issues, which this legislation will most immediately impact. I think he'll opt for the most expedient choice. Which may not be supporting this bill.

[nil desperandum]

3. Indeed....

his past behaviors indicate he might be more secular than not, but I'm not certain I get a solid sense of what to expect for the first term from this president.

[pangaia]

27. First term ?

Waaaa....

Is there going to be a second term?

[nil desperandum]

48. I sure as hell hope not...

but who knows, never figured anyone would take him seriously and that didn't work out so well....

[AtheistCrusader]

4. An southern baptist and a mormon working together to promote open bigotry with force of law.

Color me surprised.


Wait wait.. Let me guess. Religion has nothing to do with this.

On September 22, 2016, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump changed his mind and said in a press release, "If I am elected president and Congress passes the First Amendment Defense Act, I will sign it to protect the deeply held religious beliefs of Catholics and the beliefs of Americans of all faiths."

(Linking to the wiki page, because fuck no I'm not linking to his website. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_Defense_Act#Support )

Huh.

Well. Religion probably doesn't have anything to do with this. Almost certainly.

Maybe.

[rug]

5. If you think Catholics, or Baptists, or Mormons are a bigger problem than Republicans,

you're in the wrong place.

What's next to their name is an R not a cross.

[AtheistCrusader]

6. CLEARLY NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.

The correlation is MERE HAPPENSTANCE.

[rug]

7. Tell me, ac, do you prefer an atheist republican or a Catholic Democrat?

[AtheistCrusader]

8. Depends.

One can get away with a lot of fuckery under the cloak of 'X team' or 'Y team' that they might not otherwise get away with.

So depends on what you mean by 'prefer'. Would I VOTE for an atheist republican over a catholic democrat? No.

[rug]

9. Would you help an atheist republican by attacking the religion of a Catholic Democrat?

[AtheistCrusader]

10. Spurious use of 'help'.

Depending on what our hypothetical catholic democrat is up to, I may criticize him or her, and it may be related to political efforts that map to or coincide with his or her faith.

A externality like an opponent might benefit in some small way from that criticism, but I would not classify it as 'help' in the overt, 'I'm going to help your opponent' sort of way.

I'd absolutely help primary the democrat if necessary, even though an incumbent is usually stronger than a replacement. That's a risk I might well take, again, depending on what the hypothetical catholic democrat is up to.

[rug]

11. Spurious use of "spurious".

Here, let me help you. Would you call the Catholic Democrat a bigot and misogynist during his campaign against an atheist republican?

[AtheistCrusader]

12. Is said hypothetical catholic democrat actually being a bigot and a misogynist?

Some of us have principles, you know.

[rug]

13. Let's see what those principles are.

Ayn Rand had lots of principles.

Said hypothetical Catholic Democrat is a practicing Catholic. Period.

Would you call him a bigot, misogynist or enabler?

[AtheistCrusader]

14. Separation of church and state.

As long as XYZ candidate keeps their faith out of politics, I have no issue with it.

If that hypothetical catholic democrat comes out in support of a 20-week anti-abortion bill, or a fetal heartbeat bill, or supports such, that's a bright line he or she should stay the fuck away from, and is going to get a reaction from me, I don't care if they sincerely believe whatever based on their personal religious faith.

So that's an example where your hypothetical catholic democrat might 'get criticized' by me. Yes.

A statistically unlikely scenario, but 5 democrats voted FOR the 20 week abortion ban in Ohio. At least one I know is a catholic, but primary'ing that person in response is a foregone conclusion; term limits means she is ineligible to run again.

[rug]

18. No fetal heartbeat bill in the campaign.

But, some Catholic bishop denounces trump's plan on immigration.

The atheist republican tears the bishop a new one, shouting "separation of church and state". The Catholic Democrat says nothing.

Which do you support?

[AtheistCrusader]

20. Catholics, even the RCC itself seem aligned on the Democratic Party's platform for immigration.

So I don't see this as a useful counter-point for you.

Where there is no contention with my principles... there is no contention with my principles. Yay.

If the RCC's position on immigration looked like the RNC's position, and a catholic democrat shared both on that position, I'd have a problem with it, as a progressive and a democrat, we do NOT share the RNC's position on that issue.


Define 'support'. I would, at first blush of this rapidly evolving analogy, encourage the Democratic candidate to speak up too. It's ok if on this sort of issue, the Democratic candidate and the republican candidate make the same noise about an issue. (In fact, the republican would be the one acting out of character, and would likely suffer blowback from his or her own party)

[rug]

22. The RCC position on immigration predates the DNC's by decades.

So, do you agree with the RCC position only because the DNC has caught up to it?

What other positions of the RCC do you agree with?

As to "support", I have no idea what, if anything, you do other than post on the internet. So, let's take that. Would you cheerlead the atheist republican's attack on a Catholic bishop because the bishop blurred the separation between church and state?

[AtheistCrusader]

24. And it has had centuries to figure out Family Planning, and not only failed, it's

become basically the single biggest problem on the field. (For that issue)

There are a few, but not many. Death Penalty would be one, but the staunch opposition to it by JPII does not pre-date my position on that issue. So who is catching up to whom?

I would not materially support a republican candidate for any purpose.

[AtheistCrusader]

15. An aside, but you bring up Ayn Rand with me a lot. What's up with that?

[rug]

16. You remind me of one of her minor characters.

E.g., "that's a bright line he or she should stay the fuck away from, and is going to get a reaction from me, I don't care if they sincerely believe whatever based on their personal religious faith."

Not up to a Galt monologue but it sounds like something a guy in the back of the bar where John Galt drinks would say.

[AtheistCrusader]

17. I'm sorry that at least 2 of the 5 Democratic Party members that voted for the 20 week abortion bill

in Ohio were Catholics. I'm sure it's just a coincidence.

(I suspect a third, but he doesn't say anywhere I can find it. Yet.)

[rug]

19. Do you support those Democrats' republican opponents in the next general?

[AtheistCrusader]

21. I do not. What a silly question.

[rug]

23. Nothing silly about a fetal heartbeat bill.

If they opposed that bill and the Democrat supported it. Who'd you vote for?

[AtheistCrusader]

25. It's a silly attempt to deny family planning to women.

It is my fervent hope that our party never allow that situation to arise, because those are hazardous waters to navigate. If one of my representatives pulled that shit, I'd have to resort to a primary challenger, recall election, etc.

It is possible to oppose a 'friendly' (I don't consider a democrat that is hostile to progressive principles like family planning 'friendly' at all) without directly supporting an opponent.

[Charles Bukowski]

26. I read stuff like this

and it makes me hate the "I'm not voting for the lesser of two evils" dumbfucks even more.

[rug]

28. Both purists and bigots are poison to the democratic process.

[AtheistCrusader]

29. Like catholic Democrats in the Ohio house that vote to limit a woman's right to choose?

Deffo' poison. Yep.

We can do better.

[rug]

30. More like anti-theist bigots who self-destruct when their candidate loses the primary.

[AtheistCrusader]

31. let me know when you finally meet one.

[rug]

32. I've met several.

[AtheistCrusader]

33. Cool story bro.

Needs more dragons and shit though.

[rug]

34. How many you want

bro.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=110596

[AtheistCrusader]

35. I'd rather see that, than a Democratic politician vote against abortion/family planning.

One spectacular flameout certainly proves your point thought. Bravo.


An aside, why do you suppose that poster called you out? Seems highly specific.

[rug]

36. Trolls are corrosive.

And there are plenty more than one I encounter on a daily basis.

resorting to diversion is a tell.

[AtheistCrusader]

37. You mean diverting back to the other thread fork where Democrats voted for an abortion ban?

You can call it a diversion if you want

Sometimes labeling things is a diversion too
OH SHIT I'M CAUGHT IN A RECURSIVE LOOP SEND HALP

[AtheistCrusader]

38. Say, were you going to revist the other thread fork or are we done wih facts and stuff?

Not sure what stage of denial this has achieved.

[rug]

40. I'm getting ready for court, where there are real facts.

You're lucky you have this much of my attention.

[AtheistCrusader]

44. Spurious use of 'lucky'.

[rug]

39. Trolls are corrosive.

And there are plenty more than one I encounter on a daily basis.

Resorting to diversion is a tell.

[AtheistCrusader]

41. You mean diverting back to the other thread fork where Democrats voted for an abortion ban?

You can call it a diversion if you want

Sometimes labeling things is a diversion too
OH SHIT I'M CAUGHT IN A RECURSIVE LOOP SEND HALP

[rug]

42. Caps is another tell.

I'm glad you consider labeling a diversion. Read how often you label religions.

[AtheistCrusader]

43. Note that I specified 'sometimes'.

You made no such qualifications.

[edhopper]

45. It's a done deal

as well as an end to legal abortion and nation wide gay marriage.

[rug]

46. I don't think they can reverse either. But they'll use it to stir up shit and divide for years.

[edhopper]

47. I think we are two justices away.

And at 4-4, any law they pass won't be overturned.

It's an end to civil rights.