Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

"Concerned Women" thanks Bush for ENDA veto pledge (Bush strikes GLBT community again)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 12:17 PM
Original message
"Concerned Women" thanks Bush for ENDA veto pledge (Bush strikes GLBT community again)
Edited on Tue Oct-23-07 12:22 PM by Bluebear
CWA Thanks President Bush for ENDA Veto Pledge


Contact: Natalie Bell, 202-488-7000 ext. 126

WASHINGTON, October 23 /Christian Newswire/ -- Concerned Women for America (CWA) thanks President Bush for signaling a likely veto should the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) be approved in Congress this week. Matt Barber, CWA's Policy Director for Cultural Issues, said, "This dangerous bill :scared: would pit the government directly against the free exercise of religion, a situation which is unconstitutional on its face. Members of Congress should join the President and exercise their sworn duty to defend the U.S. Constitution by voting 'no' on ENDA."

Matt Barber, of Concerned Women


The Executive Office of the President issued the following Statement of Administration Policy today:

H.R. 3685 would extend existing employment-discrimination provisions of Federal law, including those in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, to establish "a comprehensive Federal prohibition of employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation." The bill raises concerns on constitutional and policy grounds, and if H.R. 3685 were presented to the President, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.

H.R. 3685 is inconsistent with the right to the free exercise of religion as codified by Congress in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). The Act prohibits the Federal Government from substantially burdening the free exercise of religion except for compelling reasons, and then only in the least restrictive manner possible. H.R. 3685 does not meet this standard. For instance, schools that are owned by or directed toward a particular religion are exempted by the bill; but those that emphasize religious principles broadly will find their religious liberties burdened by H.R. 3685.

A second concern is H.R. 3685's authorization of Federal civil damage actions against State entities, which may violate States' immunity under the Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The bill turns on imprecise and subjective terms that would make interpretation, compliance, and enforcement extremely difficult. For instance, the bill establishes liability for acting on "perceived" sexual orientation, or "association" with individuals of a particular sexual orientation. If passed, H.R. 3685 is virtually certain to encourage burdensome litigation beyond the cases that the bill is intended to reach.

Provisions of this bill purport to give Federal statutory significance to same-sex marriage rights under State law. These provisions conflict with the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as the legal union between one man and one woman. The Administration strongly opposes any attempt to weaken this law, which is vital to defending the sanctity of marriage.

http://www.earnedmedia.org/cwatwo1023.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Deep13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 12:22 PM
Response to Original message
1. My religion requires me to shoot Fundies on sight.
If we followed that logic we would still have slavery.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 01:13 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. You said it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 01:16 PM
Response to Original message
3. They know how to twist reality into a bizarre poorly framed rendition.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftHander Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 01:24 PM
Response to Original message
4. Policy Director repsonds to why....HE is in charge.
"Our organization is run by men because who better to help ease the minds of concerned women than men? Women should not be bothered with the details of policies and directives that take away from their duties in the home, birthing and rearing children. Our family values require that women remain the beautiful objects to support our maleness. It is a original American and Christian value. You are a cute little thing please spin around and go bring me some more coffee..."

:sarcasm:

We really live in bzzarro world.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
terrya Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 01:50 PM
Response to Original message
5. I thought religious organizations were exempt from ENDA.
Bull and shit. They have bent over backwards to exempt religious entities from ENDA.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 05:47 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. evening kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 02nd 2024, 05:30 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC