DAY AFTER: Religious Leaders Send Letter To Obama Ask For Exemption From Discriminating Against LGBT

[kpete]

Hobby Lobby Is Already Creating New Religious Demands on Obama
Faith leaders friendly to the administration are asking for an exemption from a forthcoming gay-rights order.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/07/hobby-lobby-is-already-creating-new-religious-demands-on-obama/373853/

..........................

TPM LIVEWIRE

Post-Hobby Lobby, Religious Orgs Want Exemption From LGBT Hiring Order

The day after the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby ruling, a group of religious leaders sent a letter to President Barack Obama asking that he exempt them from a forthcoming executive order that would prohibit federal contractors from discriminating against LGBT people.

The letter, first reported by The Atlantic, was sent on Tuesday by 14 representatives, including the president of Gordon College, an Eric County, Pa., executive and the national faith vote director for Obama for America 2012, of the faith community.

"Without a robust religious exemption," they wrote, "this expansion of hiring rights will come at an unreasonable cost to the common good, national unity and religious freedom."

........................................

The letter didn't mention the Hobby Lobby decision directly. But one of the signees, Michael Wear, the Obama 2012 veteran, told The Atlantic that the court decision meant the administration would need to address such concerns.


MORE:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/religious-groups-lgbt-hiring-hobby-lobby

[leftstreet]

1. OMG I thought this was the Onion, or the Rude Pundit...

or something

[MohRokTah]

2. And the people screaming "hair on fire" and "hysteria" yesterday will respond to this how?

I know.

They'll ignore it.

[Ilsa]

29. Right, the ladies were all aflutter and getting the vapors

over nothing this week, right?

Here comes the Roberts Opus Dei theocracy. Everyone must follow the bullshit wing of the RCC now.

[Hekate]

46. I was so aflutter I haven't stopped clutching my pearls yet

Wakey-Wakey, DUers. This applies to everyone.

[Ilsa]

48. Rich, white, heterosexual Christian men can breathe a

Sigh of relief if they don't have any womenfolk they care about.

[BootinUp]

69. We need a picture/caricature for them.

Ballet dancing or fiddling while the world crumbles.

[herding cats]

3. I'm sure Justice Scalia is thrilled by this news.

These is the type of discrimination he and his cohorts expect to be coming down the pike. Were relying on coming down, actually.

The door has been opened and now we all have to deal with the repercussions of this flawed decision.

[kpete]

5. And, from the Department of I Fucking Told You So,

here come the Christofascists to ask for a conscientious objection to ____________________________
__________________ __________________ (fill in the blanks).


peace to you herding cats

btw - have you ever been successful at cat herding?
i can't even imagine HOW?

kp

[herding cats]

12. Yep. Totally expected and only the tip of the iceberg.

Wait and see, this is a ruling that is going to keep on causing problems for decades to come. Just like was predicted if the it was passed.

Herding cats is not for the faint of heart. Success varies depending on the herd you're trying to bring in. I've had some successes worth crowing about, and I have the battle scars to show from those victories! For the most part they tend to want to laze about in a sunbeam, or scatter all over and hiss and swipe at each other. Which makes getting them moving in a forward motion extremely frustrating at times.

[Louisiana1976]

51. True. Companies will want to be able to do anything on religious grounds.

[RKP5637]

90. Yep, SCOTUS has now established precedent for all types of inequality, persecution and

intolerance based on all types of religions. What damn fools.

[kardonb]

53. waitand see

this politically charged SCOTUS is herding us back to the middle ages .At least , all of us "womenfolk " .

[obxhead]

108. All of us.

This was just the opening act. We will bow before whichever beliefs they choose to follow from their religion in the end. Not all the beliefs and values, just the ones they want.

This will be an equal opportunity destruction of society. Men, women, children, any and all races.

[Aerows]

26. Yep - From the Department of anyone could have Fucking Told You so. n/t

[RKP5637]

85. We MUST have term limits for SCOTUS to purge idiots from such power. It is really a stupid

model, anyone, in a democracy so F'en special they serve for life. What a bullshit system.

[Ilsa]

32. Yep. They chipped away at the "weakest link,"

Now they are going after gay rights, and by June 30 2015, public stoning and female genital mutilation will be approved by the Roberts court.

[LiberalLoner]

95. +1

[calimary]

37. Yep. I can't believe there are people who didn't see this coming.

As I said in another thread: think termites. Think rats. Think bugs. How do THEY get in and take over your whole house? They find some teeny tiny opening or crack somewhere. And that teeny tiny opening or crack doesn't remain teeny or tiny for long. You start with a teeny tiny hole. And they can thus find a way in. And soon enough, that teeny tiny hole becomes the Holland Tunnel.

And I like that wording of yours, kpete! "The Department of I Fucking Told You So." MAN, does THAT ever tell it.

[blkmusclmachine]

27. Those 5 black-robed Theocrats KNEW this would result. Nothing, and I mean NOTHING, can any longer be

safeguarded against some rightwing bozo's so-called "religious freedumb." Question is, WHOSE "religious liberty" trumps...the wanna-be discriminator, or the would-be disciminatee?!?!

[herding cats]

49. It's a shame this suit wasn't brought forth by a Scientology group.

It would have been slapped down by them so fast it would have made your head spin. That this is about furthering an ideology in America, not upholding the laws, is obvious.

[mindwalker_i]

40. He should have

... and outline of a penis with a halo embroidered onto his robe.

[herding cats]

50. OMG!

That's hilarious! I totally agree.

[mindwalker_i]

62. I looked for something like that on The Google

but didn't find it. Admittedly, I didn't look very long

It would make a good symbol for the Republican party too.

[pangaia]

81. a VERY SMALL LIMP PENIS, at that.

[valerief]

60. His insurance-paid Viagra is given him a happy hard-on. nt

[RKP5637]

82. Exactly! It is causing the divisions, hatefulness and inequality Scalia and his ilk love. The

decision was meant to cause crap like this, expect more and more.

[winter is coming]

4. Gosh, I'm so surprised.

[Glorfindel]

6. Surprise, surprise, surprise! Who'd a-thought it?

And of course they want to keep their exemption from taxes, too. Is this a GREAT country, or what?

[Warren Stupidity]

7. Of fucking course. Tip of the iceberg. Perhaps the worst SCOTUS decision in decades.

God commanded us to be fuckwits, so fuckwits we must be.

Ethics and morality are independent of this so called "god". Obviously.

We are in a dangerous place.

[thesquanderer]

41. "worst SCOTUS decision in decades"? Nope. See Bush v. Gore.

And as a bonus, if that one hadn't gone the way it did, neither would a case like Hobby Lobby, since the makeup of the court would be different.

[Warren Stupidity]

92. bush v gore set no legal precedents.

[thesquanderer]

94. True, but it yielded two Justices who set plenty

*including* Hobby Lobby, Citizens United and others.

(not to mention crashing the economy, killing thousands of Americans and many more Iraqis in an unprovoked war, etc.)

[WinkyDink]

105. It didn't have to, now, did it?

[Warren Stupidity]

107. We could just start walking backwards to every event in the universe that preceded

Bush v Gore and start blaming those events too. But that would be absurd. Bush v Gore did not establish a legal precedent, this decision did. The scope of these two decisions are entirely different.

Bush v Gore intervened in a presidential election, and was an outrage, but that decision established no new constitutional law. Sure you can go ahead and blame everything else that happened afterwards on that decision including hobby lobby, but again, that is a bit ridiculous, and is outside the scope of constitutional law. You might as well go back and blame it all on Marbury v. Madison 'cause without that there would be no Bush v Gore.

Hobby Lobby has set new law, it has, although limited for now, turned the first amendment on its head with respect to religious freedom and individual rights, establishing for the first time a right to impose religious beliefs on others.

[WinkyDink]

109. I think you know what I meant, to wit: Bush was such a DISASTER, beginning with, literally, a

disaster on 9/11/01, going on to the dead and maimed American s and Iraqis, to the busted Clinton surplus, to the Roberts Court, that the illegal selection of Bush was PER SE enough of a bad penny that no Right-Winger has needed to TRY to cite the court-case as precedent. Not when so much has gone their way.

MUCH of what is currently crap can be traced back directly to that SCOTUS crime. I don't need to go back to Nixon, let alone the 19th C.

Bush Legacy: The Supreme Court
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/BushLegacy/story?id=6597342
Yet Bush leaves office later this month with one enduring, undeniable legacy: He made a lasting impact on the Supreme Court. History may judge him harshly on many levels, but no historian will be able to write that George W. Bush was unable to deliver on his campaign promises when it came to the court.

In ways that will be felt for decades, his nominations of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito will have a pronounced impact on the law and society.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And THAT is why we have Hobby Lobby today. Because of Bush v. Gore.

[BootinUp]

70. It really is, I am no historian but I would say worst in 100 years.

[octoberlib]

8. Omg. They didn't waste any time. This makes me sick.

Or even sicker , I should say. What's next?

[pinto]

9. Slippery slope. And this comes before the Exec Order has even been detailed.

Not a good sign.

Meanwhile the House obstructs ENDA while obstructing full disclosure on lobbyist-paid House member travel.

[Bluenorthwest]

10. Faith in action. The Faith Community exists only in the negative, they are against this, against

that. They don't even bother to live by their own professed faiths, they want to control other people and that's all it is.

And to those who have been promoting anti gay and anti choice religious figures here for moths, congratulations, you are getting what you so devoutly wanted.

[leftstreet]

14. And they didn't have to prove their Bible outlaws birth control

Which I don't get. They'd have had an easy time asking to be exempt from taxes collected for Drone use, because their Bible specifically says no killing

So I guess it's just whatever anyone 'believes'

[theHandpuppet]

16. I'll tell you, blueNW...

You and I have been battling these issues on DU for years now. I don't even want to hear squat from the apologists and there were plenty of them here. I hope they're happy now. We knew exactly what was going to happen.

[Dawson Leery]

30. That "negative" faith in action has much to do with the decline

of religious affiliation in America.

Note that this past decade saw a massive decline in membership to the Roman Catholic Church and Evangelical/Born Again stall (slight decline of 5% in the past 2 years). The RC and and snake handling, tongue speaking fundies have been the most active in politics.

[Aerows]

96. I'm disgusted.

I wish I could be more articulate, but I'm so pissed about this decision and the repercussions that I can hardly conjure a thought that doesn't include obscenities, profanities and general "fuck you's" to the Roberts court.

[theHandpuppet]

97. I wish I knew more about the impeachment process

I have five nominations I'd volunteer right now!

[Enthusiast]

100. Me too.

I'm saying fuck a lot.

[theHandpuppet]

11. You knew this was coming, people

AND IT DID.

[kpete]

13. ad nauseam

First women.

Then gays.

Then blacks.

Then anyone who isn't Christian.

Then _____________________________

__________________________________
(fill in the blanks)

[el_bryanto]

17. the wrong kind of Christian. nt

[Enthusiast]

102. Exactly.

It has happened before.

[theHandpuppet]

18. As I said yesterday, the Hobby Lobby case was just the shot across the bow

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.

-- Pastor Martin Niemöller

[Louisiana1976]

52. That's one of my favorite quotations. It is so true.

[Miss_Underestimated]

74. Bush's Faith-Based Initiative may have been the shot across the bow - merging of religion & state

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_Office_of_Faith-Based_and_Neighborhood_Partnerships

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/president-george-w-bush-announces-plan-for-faith-based-initiatives

IMHO, SCOTUS decision is building on the attrition of separation of church & state.

[tridim]

23. Atheists are definitely at the top of their list.

Nothing is "worse" than an atheist to these haters. We're worse than Satan.

[rvt1000rr]

44. As an atheist, I have always thought

that it is more socially acceptable to be a Satanist rather than an atheist, because, that way, at least you believe in something supernatural.

[RKP5637]

88. We've seen where this takes countries, one, then the next and the dominoes all fall ... such great

examples in history and now as to what happens to countries when control freaks, the religious and authoritarians rule. Great job, SCOTUS, ripping the democracy apart, making freedom and equality a cruel joke.

[el_bryanto]

15. The Obama administration is unlikely to grant that exemption

The case will go to the courts, assuming they think they can win.

It's hard to say what will happen in the courts - the language specifically references discrimination on the grounds of race (saying that this shouldn't be allowed to excuse that), but does not mention discrimination based on gender or sexual orientation.

Depressing how fast that particular shoe fell.

Bryant

[MohRokTah]

21. The argument is pretty weak for them, though.

Nobody has a constitutionally guaranteed right to a government contract and the government has every right to place restrictions on those who bid for government contracts.

Again, though, it would come down to which Anthony Kennedy shows up for arguments.

[el_bryanto]

22. Nods - and . . . this group may not sue

Reading the article these are moderate religious types who are requesting it, I don't know if they have the will to pursue this to the bitter end. That said, some of the names on the list could go further, and even if this particular group doesn't some one probably will.

Bryant

[Volaris]

47. THIS.

Is by far, one of the most insightful statements regarding the Bench in a long, long while.
Good on you for picking up on it.

[riqster]

19. Waiting for the scoffers to apologize for pooh-poohing our concern.

[blkmusclmachine]

31. I'm pretty sure sock puppets do write on these type of websites. They may even carry water for the

Administration...

[jeff47]

76. It's only 4 methods!! And they can still buy them!!!

Just thought I'd fill in for the "scoffers", since they haven't shown up yet.

[riqster]

84. Whatta guy!

[dsc]

20. the version of ENDA that passed the Senate already has a massive exemption

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/04/14/enda_s_religious_exemption_is_too_broad_to_truly_protect_lgbt_workers.html



Yet the religious exemption in ENDA opens the door for religiously affiliated organizations to engage in employment discrimination against LGBT people—for any reason.

This exemption is so broad that it could leave a transgender doctor at a hospital or a gay food-services worker at a university without protection from workplace discrimination. Given the protections LGBT people are increasingly gaining under Title VII in the courts, it seems absurd that the price for explicit inclusion in federal law should be a religious exemption that creates a lesser standard for sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination.

[theHandpuppet]

24. This crap has been ongoing for a long time

(My frustration and anger is not at you, btw, but this whole damn mess)

I don't know how many times I brought up the "religious liberty" challenges to ENDA here over the past year but it was like shouting in an echo chamber.

You want to read one the responses? Check out my last post in this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4368738

[Jack Rabbit]

25. Swimming in a fiery lake you-know-where, Jerry Falwell is grinning like a Cheshire cat right now

We are all going to have to address such concerns.

[Aerows]

28. I'd show you a picture of my shocked face

but it is not any different from my not shocked face at this situation.

[blkmusclmachine]

33. With Hobby Lobby, the U.S. Constitution is trumpable to every far rightwing whim. Somehow, I know

this is an intended result, and so did the Fascist 5 on the SCOTUS when they cracked out their illogical decision this week.

[MohRokTah]

36. See what happens when that theocracy camel gets his nuse under the tent?

Here comes the rest of the camel.

[arcane1]

34. Fine. Cancel their federal contracts.

What assholes

[Justice]

56. They can forfeit the government contracts, just like the Hobby Lobby employees are supposed to quit.

[arcane1]

61. Yep. If they don't like the law, take their business elsewhere.

[treestar]

77. Yes, the fact they are federal contractors

Means they could not win their case. They can get jobs elsewhere. The federal government does not have to hire people who discriminate.

[Ilsa]

35. I hope PBO tells them they don't have to apply for federal contracts

if they choose to be bigotted, misogynistic fuckwits.

[MohRokTah]

39. Any order that contains such an exemption would be a waste of time.

It would mean no contractor could ever be held to the non-discrimination standard.

And religious organizations receiving funds for a faith based services branch CANNOT force their faith on others.

[stage left]

38. They certainly didn't waste any time.

I hope the President tells them no, in no uncertain terms.

[LiberalArkie]

42. Next, it will be what faith you belong to.

I remember back in the 60's and 70's when I filled out applications there was a spot for religion and denomination.

I worked at several places in my youth and only Baptists worked at those places.No Catholics, Pentecostals, Jews, Mormons, Etc ever were accepted for employment.

I really believe that is what it is heading towards. Bring us back to the good old days.

[RKP5637]

87. No colored people allowed, no LGBT, no women rights, only this religion, yep, oh the

good old days ... that, is exactly where we are headed with some of the damn fools on the supreme court who are unfit to serve.

[NealK]

43. K&R

[cantbeserious]

45. And So It Begins - The Inexorable Slide Toward Theocracy

eom

[AndyTiedye]

79. Theocracy is the Only Sure Way to Keep Away 99%ers with Pitchforks

The USSC decision may signal that the die has been cast in favor of theocracy by TPTB.
Obviously the Koch brothers and their ilk have been pushing for this for some time,
but not all of the 1% were willing to go that route.

The recent discussion of "pitchforks" may well indicate that the powers that be have come to a consensus
that a hard "christian" theocracy is the only way to keep the 99% at bay permanently. That it would.
No theocracy has EVER fallen to a popular uprising.

[Tommymac]

106. Disagree.

The Holy Roman Empire was taken down by the Reformation. If that was not a popular uprising, I don't know what was. It took several centuries for it all to play out - many of the popular uprisings were crushed, but in the end the Catholic Church's secular power was pretty much nullified in at least 50% of the Western World. They won a lot of the battles but eventually lost the war.

[redqueen]

54. Well who could've seen that coming?!

[Justice]

55. Easy solution, based on Hobby Lobby decision

If a company wants to discriminate based on LGBT status, they don't have to be a government contractor! You know, just give up the government contract and only do private contracts where you can avoid the executive order!

Just like telling a Hobby Lobby employee to go get a job elsewhere if they don't like the policies of the company!

[Louisiana1976]

57. Excellent post. K&R

[bl968]

58. A 28th Amendment would fix all this mess.

We need a 28th Amendment to the Constitution - All rights specified in the Constitution of the United States and all Amendments thereto shall apply to Natural Persons only.

We can call it the Commonsense clause.

[valerief]

59. Here comes the tidal wave of totalitarianism. nt

[muntrv]

63. Being that they are federal contractors, I don't want my taxes paying for discrimination.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

64. That was a sewer level decision,

and now we're seeing the consequences. I wasn't even this disgusted after the 2000 bs re the recount. This was extraordinary in its duplicity and brutality.

[City Lights]

65. No one could have predicted...

[riverbendviewgal]

66. Is America becoming the new Hitler Germany?

It looks like it. I am thankful I do not live in the USA..

[BootinUp]

67. Fuck No Bigots!

[TheKentuckian]

68. Yup, they will exploit the hell out of this cancer and spread it until it infects the whole body.

They will ride the religious aspect as far as it goes and then put employers in a position to dictate life choices to everyone, probably using the Wealthcare and Profit Protection mandate as precedent as they twist everything into a cruel mockery.

[Duval]

71. Why am I not surprised? n/t

[cstanleytech]

72. Are these organizations taking federal money for contracts?

If not then why even ask for the exemption and if they are then just tell them their contract is terminated if they dont want to abide by this rule, simple solution imo.

[Bickle]

73. My religion says

I need to beat conservatives and theist until they're liberal atheists. Where's my exemption from legal or civil consequences?? Because I figure I can get in a lot of training between now and the 2016 GOP convention in order to maximize my effectiveness.

Two can play these games

[nolabear]

75. This is horrendous and perhaps what's needed. Just get it right the hell out there.

And VOTE THE BASTARDS OUT. Ruth Ginsberg may well retire as this heats up, and Dems damn well better vote to win elections, because the cost is madness. GOTV!

[TexinD]

78. Disgusting

Its sicking... that the USA is forgetting what it is about. Freedom, liberty for all.

Not: Freedom for Christian whites only.

[Arugula Latte]

80. Religion and its resulting idiocy and corruption = Scourge of humanity

[RKP5637]

93. Religion, the source of so much hatred in mankind, eons of hatred established by religion. n/t

[bvf]

83. My Gawd.

That took about a minute and a half, didn't it?

The floodgates arguers are absolutely right.

[sadoldgirl]

86. Yes, this was inevitable.

The next step for the SCOTUS will be to deny marriages of gays and lesbians, then the decision against Roe vs Wade, then creationism for schools, etc; all of that to protect "the peoples" tradition or religious freedom. What is so hard for me to understand that on the Huff. Post a lot of women defended this last decision, and they were not necessarily from the South! We CANNOT allow the Senate to go in 2014!

[Bluenorthwest]

89. Notice that the concept of simply not taking business one objects to does not cross their greedy

minds.

[etherealtruth]

91. By design

All by design

[1StrongBlackMan]

98. From what I understand ...

the anti-discrimination Executive Order can only be applied to organizations that contract with the federal government, so the answer should go something like this:

Dear Religious Organizations,

NO.

Love,

President Obama

If they wish to be bigoted, they can do so without federal funding ... and oh, yeah, that includes tax exempt status.

I suspect that if the federal government removed federal funding, including tax exempt status from religious organizations that refuse to follow the law ... we would, soon, see a sudden "enlightenment" among our religious organizations.

[riversedge]

110. Regarding your last paragraph--I fear that the SC

would somehow say OK to the discrimination

[ismnotwasm]

99. Assholes

State here---->

Church way over there-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------On and on and so forth-------------------------->



Why is this so hard to understand?

[Rex]

101. But but but...the SCOTUS apologists on DU are saying we have no right to be mad!

No doubt they will ignore this thread, since it goes against their narrative.

[L0oniX]

103. Pandora's box has been opened.

No offense intended to Pandora.

The box does look a little odd though...

[Anewhope32]

104. Dependency

If people were to pay for their own health insurance rather than have employers or government be responsible for paying, then this would all be a mute point when it comes to the birth control issue. People could shop for the plan they want. When it comes to discrimination, if the government stopped enforcing anti discrimination laws then market forces could work to stop discrimination in a way that might benefit everyone. If we don't like a place that clearly discriminates then we don't shop there or even live by there if that makes a difference. If we see a place that is more inclusive we can direct our business there. The marketplace is a much better enforcer of rights than government. I see a lot of comments on these boards that are in essence saying just that without realizing it. Take away the religious exemptions and most of anything else that puts government in a position to decide whether someone or some organization/corporation can do a certain thing or not. This works with gay marriage too. Why does the government have to sanction marriage? If we want to have a civil contract between two people of any kind that is bound to laws concerning divorce and marriage, then fine but if a group, ie a church wants to call marriage something that is only between a man and woman and another group or church wants a different definition then so be it. Those groups will also be subject to market forces in membership and fund-raising.