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

[KitSileya]

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

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 Erie County, Pa., executive and the national faith vote director for Obama for America 2012, of the faith community.

...

The White House announced in June that Obama would issue an executive order forbidding contractors that receive federal funding from discriminating based on sexual orientation or gender equality after the House had stymied ENDA. The White House declined to comment to The Atlantic on the Tuesday letter and did not immediately respond to TPM's request for comment.

As those of us "with a dog in the fight" (and many great allies besides) saw the moment the Hobby Lobby decision was delivered, this isn't a problem for women only, nor is it "just 4 types of BC", or just "our hair on fire hysterics". This decision is a wedge that will ultimately allow corporations to discriminate at will. And it won't just be health care that will be denied - they are basically using the Hobby Lobby decision to get to discriminate on a much wider basis. Sexual orientation, gender equality now, religion next, perhaps? Will they claim that hiring non-Christians are against their beliefs and so refuse to hire atheists, Muslims, Pastafarians?

I, and many with me, will be eagerly awaiting the apologies from those posters who claimed that this was a small matter, and that women shouldn't "by hysterical" or "run around with their hair on fire".

[blkmusclmachine]

1. "Hobby Lobby" is a deathstrike at the very concept of democratic republic.

[KitSileya]

2. Honestly, it was very disappointing seeing so many defending the Hobby Lobby decision on DU

Minimizing the far-reaching consequences of this decision seems easy to do for misogynists and those who think "women's matters" are insignificant, but I am willing to bet that that is partly why the Scrotum 5 chose to open the crack with a decision about something that only affects people with uteri. Too many men (and some women who privilege men's pov) have disregarded the Hobby Lobby decision because it doesn't affect them - they don't think things that only affect women are as important as what also affect them (even though not only women have uteri, of course.) The corporate rats on the Supreme Court knew very well that not enough people would care about the decision - that many would in fact defend it. And with their "this is not a precedent for these things" Rat 5 have drawn the path for challenges on exactly those things for which it is supposedly not a precedent.

And all those who minimized and defended the decision should be posted on a wall of shame here on DU. Too bad you can't call out other DUers - but hey, maybe since it will affect QUILTBAG people, many of whom are men, perhaps now they'll care? Or will they enact Rev. Niemöller's second stanza as they did his first?

[theHandpuppet]

3. Well said

Totally agree with you. I will say, however, that there are a number of us in the LGBT community who have been very vocal on this matter, including William 769 and myself.

[KitSileya]

6. Oh, I am certainly not discounting you!

Too many QUILTBAG people will be doubly or triply hit by this ruling. I was just musing whether straight men who minimized the ruling when it only hit women (really, persons with uteri) would care if it started being a problem for men too, albeit men belonging to minorities, or whether they would continue saying, "What business of mine is it
So long they don’t take the yam
From my savouring mouth?"

[Buns_of_Fire]

8. A "very specific ruling" that "may not be used as precedent" tends to mean

"look, we know this is a dumbass decision but we don't want to be called on it for the rest of our lives because we're the Supremes and you're not so stop saying that."

[theHandpuppet]

9. And it took less than 24 hours for it to be used as precedent

But of course, they already knew that.

[riderinthestorm]

4. At least the bigots are publicly naming themselves.

[KitSileya]

5. They are indeed.

But as I said, I call for all those who minimized this decision to come and apologize. If not, I support a wall of shame on DU for this.

[theHandpuppet]

10. That would be really nice but I'm not holding my breath

But I'm remembering their names.

[no_hypocrisy]

7. I always believed that bigoted religious organiations (and now corporations)

would not stop at "certain forms" of birth control.

[etherealtruth]

11. Sadly, this was part of the "plan"

Most of us saw how detrimental and far reaching the ruling was (except for of course the hair nan fire and you can buy your own BC idiots).

Granting any kind of rights that should be unique to individuals is beyond frightening when these rights are conferred to corporations.

All people that are discriminated against based on religious doctrine should be terrified and all people of intelligence should be outraged.

I am

[Bluenorthwest]

12. I'm hoping to see an end to the promotions of anti choice and anti gay religious figures here in GD

I think the dangers of such people outweigh any pretty press releases they might put out like perfume sprayed in the air to cover the stench of their flatulence.

[theHandpuppet]

13. +1

ANY religious leader against the basic civil and human rights of women and gays should not be touted on a progressive forum, including this one.