The Republicans are not waiting to try to pass their draconian laws. As Congress adjourns they leave with a hearing on “First Amendment Defense Act” on the calendar.
However, the “First Amendment Defense Act” is wrong! It gives special rights to a special group of people to disobey the law. This bill does what the religious right accuses the LGBT community of doing when we fight for civil rights, to be treated the same as straight people. This bill allows someone or an organization to discriminate just by saying that it is their religious beliefs to discriminate against people, there can be no tests to prove or disprove their beliefs
Not only that but also the bill doesn’t let them discriminate against other people only LGBT people, so it might be against their beliefs for an adoption agency to consider an unmarried woman for adoption but they would have to do it. However, if a gay couple came in they could refuse to let them adopt.
The law would just apply to companies and organizations that receive federal funds. The Daily Signal wrote that,
They also passed in the House the Conscience Protection Act a bill that allow individuals and companies to deny women access to healthcare.
First Amendment Defense Act Gets House HearingI agree, he should have never been fired, what he did on his own time is his business as long as it didn’t carry over to his job. It he treated everyone equally and didn’t discriminate against LGBT or anyone else because of his religious beliefs.
National Religious Broadcasters
By Aaron Mercer
July 15, 2016
Last year, as the U.S. Supreme Court was hearing oral arguments in the Obergefell v. Hodges case that would lead to a judicial fiat re-defining marriage in the United States, one particularly shocking statement came from U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, who told the Justices that tax treatment of religious organizations upholding biblical marriage is "certainly going to be an issue." This week, in an attempt to ensure that the federal government does not discriminate against citizens who sincerely believe that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee held a hearing on a legislative remedy, the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA). This bill, sponsored by Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Rep. Raúl Labrador (R-Idaho), is written to be a shield against attempts by federal government agents to use tax treatment, licensing, grants, and the like to coerce or discriminate against individuals or organizations that merely wish to live in light of their religious convictions on marriage and sexuality.
The hearing witness whose story clearly exemplified the need for such a bill was former Atlanta Fire Chief Kelvin Cochran. Despite a long and stellar record, he was fired from his post by the City of Atlanta after government officials found out that he had written in favor of biblical marriage and sexuality in a private devotional book. In his testimony, Chief Cochran said:
The actions by the City of Atlanta do not reflect American values. The real test of liberty is what happens when citizens disagree on important issues. By terminating me because of my beliefs, the City failed to reflect the true tolerance and diversity that has always set America apart. Instead, the City labeled as outcasts the many diverse people - from Christians to Jews to Muslims - who express their faith's longstanding teachings on marriage.
However, the “First Amendment Defense Act” is wrong! It gives special rights to a special group of people to disobey the law. This bill does what the religious right accuses the LGBT community of doing when we fight for civil rights, to be treated the same as straight people. This bill allows someone or an organization to discriminate just by saying that it is their religious beliefs to discriminate against people, there can be no tests to prove or disprove their beliefs
Not only that but also the bill doesn’t let them discriminate against other people only LGBT people, so it might be against their beliefs for an adoption agency to consider an unmarried woman for adoption but they would have to do it. However, if a gay couple came in they could refuse to let them adopt.
The law would just apply to companies and organizations that receive federal funds. The Daily Signal wrote that,
Conservatives say that after the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling, the religious liberty conflicts have escalated. During questioning for that case, Justice Samuel Alito asked U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, who was arguing in support of same-sex marriage, whether a religious school could lose its tax-exempt status for opposing same-sex marriage. In response, Verrilli said, ‘‘It’s certainly going to be an issue.’’The Republicans bill will make a mockery out of non-discrimination laws, it will allow every bigot to discriminate just by saying these magic words... "It is against my religious beliefs."
Now, more than a year later, conservatives believe legislation is needed to safeguard those with traditional beliefs about marriage and sexuality from being denied federal grants, losing their tax-exempt status, or being otherwise punished by the federal government.
The First Amendment Defense Act would protect a religious school, for example, from losing its tax-exempt status, and prevent a federal employee from being fired for holding traditional views about marriage.
[…]
The legislation would not generally apply to private businesses, such as the bakery run by Aaron and Melissa Klein who refused to make a cake for a same-sex wedding. However, it could affect private businesses that are recipients of federal contracts or grants, licenses, or tax benefits, for example, by preventing the government from taking adverse actions against them for holding traditional views about marriage.
They also passed in the House the Conscience Protection Act a bill that allow individuals and companies to deny women access to healthcare.
U.S. House members in bipartisan vote pass Conscience Protection ActWell first off I would call only having ten Democrats out of a 192 as having bipartisan support. This bill is the Hobby Lobby Supreme Court on steroids. The ACLU has this to say about the bill,
By Catholic News Service
July 14, 2016
WASHINGTON (CNS) -- In a bipartisan 245-182 vote, House members July 13 passed the Conscience Protection Act, which would provide legal protection to doctors, nurses, hospitals and all health care providers who choose not to provide abortions as part of their health care practice.
"We're grateful to House Speaker Paul Ryan for bringing the Conscience Protection Act to a vote, to all the co-sponsors for their leadership, and to those members of both parties who support the civil right of conscience," said Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan of New York and Archbishop William E. Lori of Baltimore in a statement.
The cardinal is chairman of the U.S. bishops' Committee on Pro-Life Activities and the archbishop heads their Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty.
"Even those who disagree on the life issue should be able to respect the conscience rights of those who wish not to be involved in supporting abortion," they said.
The measure, also known as H.R. 4828, also provides "much-needed protection for religious employers," they said. "In light of disturbing recent developments, even churches and religious organizations are being required to cover abortions in violation of their beliefs."
The very next day, the House passed — without so much as a committee hearing to consider it — the Conscience Protection Act. Like FADA, the bill purports to protect religious liberty but in fact empowers discrimination — in this case against women seeking reproductive health care. The bill would dangerously expand the Weldon Amendment, a provision attached to spending bills over the last decade which bars critical federal health and education dollars from any state, local, or federal government body that doesn't allow a health care entity to refuse to provide, pay for, cover, or refer for an abortion. The Weldon Amendment is a barrier to women’s reproductive health that needs to be eliminated — but instead, the House just voted to expand and make it permanent.The ACLU summed it up nicely about both of these bills
The result? The Conscience Protection Act would give employers, health insurance companies, and others even more ways to stand between a woman and the health care she needs. A woman’s boss could deny her comprehensive health insurance that covers abortion services and allows her to make her own personal medical decisions without interference. A Catholic hospital governed by religious directives could refuse to “facilitate” or “make arrangements for” an abortion needed to preserve a woman’s health — something that unfortunately already happens all too often. The problem would only become worse if this bill were to become law. In short, the bill would further undermine women’s access to constitutionally-protected health care.
Religious liberty is a core American value. It guarantees everyone the freedom to believe what they choose and to act on those beliefs, but it does not allow anyone to discriminate against or harm others in the name of religion. Unfortunately, as the House’s actions this week make clear, not everyone in Congress has gotten the message.The Republicans are twisting the meaning of the First Amendment and in doing so they are granting special privileges to a select group of people to discriminate in the name of their god.
No comments:
Post a Comment