• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Wow. The "First Amendment Defense Act" is a piece of work

shira

shira

Diamond Member
Oh, man, just came across the "First Amendment Defense Act." With a name like that, what sort of language would you guess it contains? Hint, it was sponsored by Mike Lee in the Senate and Raul Labrador in the House, in response to the Kim Davis "I should be allowed to NOT perform my sworn government duty to issue marriage licenses, without losing my job, if I think gay people are sinners" anti-same-sex-marriage-license case.

A fair-minded guess would be that this proposed law would protect those whose religious beliefs conflict with their official duties. So, for example, a Muslim government employee who worked at a cafeteria could refuse - without fear of negative repercussions - to serve prepare or serve pork. THAT would be at least fair (even if such protections would lead to chaos).

But, no, that's not what the FADA is about. It DOES offer protections, but not for refusing to do some of your government duties on the basis of religious beliefs. No, what the FADA does is protect you if you refuse - for religious reasons or any other "moral conviction" - to do any government work in support of same-sex couples specifically. Got something against heterosexual couples? Sorry, the FADA doesn't protect you. Are you that Muslim cafeteria worker who doesn't want to handle pork? Sorry, the FADA doesn't protect you. The FADA's actual name SHOULD be the "You-don't-have-to-provide-any-government-services-to-same-sex-couples Protection Act." Here is the most relevant section of the act:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Federal Government shall not take any discriminatory action against a person, wholly or partially on the basis that such person believes or acts in accordance with a religious belief or moral conviction that marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or that sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage.
Click to expand...

And here is a more substantial article on the FADA.
 
How about

"If your religious convictions will not allow you to perform your government duties you should not seek that government position or if already in position you should immediately resign your position."
 
Republicans need to drop their phony "moral" crusade. This is pandering for votes at its worst. As you said, at least if it had included protections for all beliefs. Still wrong, if you can't do the job you shouldn't take it. But it at least would have been somewhat defensible.
 
So if your religion says you can't marry people who divorced in the past, you should permit that as well.
 
Sigh, I remember the good old days when secret govt forces would just make political loudmouthassholes disappear...
 
Hugo Drax said:
So if your religion says you can't marry people who divorced in the past, you should permit that as well.
Click to expand...
Not according to the FADA. The FADA says you can refuse to do federal government work only for people who are:

  • In a marriage consisting of other than one man and one woman.
  • Having sex outside of a one-man/one-woman marriage
So refusing to do government work for divorced/re-married people wouldn't be protected.
 
Oyeve said:
Sigh, I remember the good old days when secret govt forces would just make political loudmouthassholes disappear...
Click to expand...
I hate the atfa itchba who declines marriage for same sex couples as much as the next free thinker, but read your post and think about the silencing of opposition that has occurred by despotic regimes throughout history. It's a slippery slope when you start shutting people up, choosing to ignore them is a win-win for everybody...
 
BoberFett said:
Republicans need to drop their phony "moral" crusade. This is pandering for votes at its worst. As you said, at least if it had included protections for all beliefs. Still wrong, if you can't do the job you shouldn't take it. But it at least would have been somewhat defensible.
Click to expand...

Crap, I have to agree with you.
 
PliotronX said:
I hate the atfa itchba who declines marriage for same sex couples as much as the next free thinker, but read your post and think about the silencing of opposition that has occurred by despotic regimes throughout history. It's a slippery slope when you start shutting people up, choosing to ignore them is a win-win for everybody...
Click to expand...

I think (hope) you missed the sarcasm.
 
Rather than a First Amendment Defense Act, I think I'm just going to stick with the First Amendment. It's not perfect, but it's worked well enough for 200+ years.
 
shabby said:
Moron's are a tough bunch to understand.
Click to expand...

Religious morons especially.

It's amazing how many people have thrown their hands up and quit when, in talking about the Kim Davis debacle, I'd ask them to try a little empathy by replacing Kim with a devote muslim, and the marriage license with a dog license.

"Now, you are not a muslim, but go to get a license for that new dog of yours because that's the law." Clerk says dogs are unclean, Koran says so, I won't violate the Koran, etc etc. Just too much for the indoctrinated to handle apparently.

I should amend that, one guy didn't give up and run, he tried to explain to me that because christians were in this country first, my example was a "non sequitor." I ended that one.
 
Last edited:
kage69 said:
Religious morons especially.

It's amazing how many people have thrown their hands up and quit when, in talking about the Kim Davis debacle, I'd ask them to try a little empathy by replacing Kim with a devote muslim, and the marriage license with a dog license.

"Now, you are not a muslim, but go to get a license for that new dog of yours because that's the law." Clerk says dogs are unclean, Koran says so, I won't violate the Koran, etc etc. Just too much for the indoctrinated to handle apparently.

I should amend that, one guy didn't give up and run, he tried to explain to me that because christians were in this country first, my example was a "non sequitor." I ended that one.
Click to expand...

That reminds me of a clip of Huckabee being asked a similar question because of all his support for Kim Davis. He just kept avoiding answer the question (is about the Muslim woman serving alcohol).
 
And yet there are millions of Christians who don't have a problem with gay marriage and women having abortions, but have a real problem with holier-than-thou religious fundamentalist zealots that simply can't mind their own damn business.
 
The GOP seems to specialize in "symbolic" legislation which appeals to its base and has no chance of passing. Reminds me of the flag burning amendment and a whole host of other things past and present.
 
shira said:
Oh, man, just came across the "First Amendment Defense Act." With a name like that, what sort of language would you guess it contains? Hint, it was sponsored by Mike Lee in the Senate and Raul Labrador in the House, in response to the Kim Davis "I should be allowed to NOT perform my sworn government duty to issue marriage licenses, without losing my job, if I think gay people are sinners" anti-same-sex-marriage-license case.

A fair-minded guess would be that this proposed law would protect those whose religious beliefs conflict with their official duties. So, for example, a Muslim government employee who worked at a cafeteria could refuse - without fear of negative repercussions - to serve prepare or serve pork. THAT would be at least fair (even if such protections would lead to chaos).

But, no, that's not what the FADA is about. It DOES offer protections, but not for refusing to do some of your government duties on the basis of religious beliefs. No, what the FADA does is protect you if you refuse - for religious reasons or any other "moral conviction" - to do any government work in support of same-sex couples specifically. Got something against heterosexual couples? Sorry, the FADA doesn't protect you. Are you that Muslim cafeteria worker who doesn't want to handle pork? Sorry, the FADA doesn't protect you. The FADA's actual name SHOULD be the "You-don't-have-to-provide-any-government-services-to-same-sex-couples Protection Act." Here is the most relevant section of the act:



And here is a more substantial article on the FADA.
Click to expand...

WHAT! No protection for refusing inter-racial couples marriage licenses? I am ashamed of these half way measures.
 
Darwin333 said:
How about

"If your religious convictions will not allow you to perform your government duties you should not seek that government position or if already in position you should immediately resign your position."
Click to expand...

Religious freedom and free speach should allow practise of your idiotic religion and to voice absurd opinions, but not dictate them to others.
 
This is why the VETO exists.

On another note, all this "religious freedom" bullshit is just that...bullshit. I say that as a very religious person myself. This has NOTHING to do with preserving one's freedom of religion/conscience. I cannot fathom just how the phrase "religious freedom" got so twisted in the past few years. This is all about imposing your view on others.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top