Oh, fuck... There used to be a line between Church and State.. no more.

[yuiyoshida]

Link to tweet

http://thehill.com/regulation/administration/354263-sessions-issues-religious-liberty-guidance-to-federal-agencies
snip:
“Supreme Court has held that the government’s interest in addressing sexual-orientation discrimination is not sufficiently compelling to justify an infringement on the expressive association rights of a private organization.”

Link to tweet

[Turbineguy]

1. Guidance for discrimination?

Sounds like a bit too much G.U.B.M.I.N.T. R.E.G.U.L.A.T.I.O.N. to me!

It's a slippery slope. Once you start regulating how to discriminate, where will it end?

[yuiyoshida]

2. God, I hate these people (Republicans)

with a passion...

[Plucketeer]

23. You are NOT alone!

Not like I had to tell you that. I'm not a BIT religious - but I find myself wishing I could believe there IS a HADES to commit these idiots to!

[SCantiGOP]

21. As a devout Pastafarian

I warn you not to make disparaging comments about rigatoni or angel hair.

[progressoid]

22. I met a gluten-free Pastafarian once.

Wouldn't shut up about it. Kept trying to convert me and get me to eat at her church.

No thanks! Sacrilege!

[SCantiGOP]

27. A gluten-free Pastafarian?

That is blasphemy towards our Holy Noodlyness.

[Major Nikon]

3. I'm not sure when that time was

Throughout US history, the church as always tried to obliterate that line and have been successful on countless occasions.

[Lyricalinklines]

4. So now discrimination based on Christianity will be tested....

...in Court system. This country was founded on freedom from religion so how the f*=k is this going to go through the court system with the changes of the last 9 months? Guess the focus to filling judge positions nationwide before government positions, changing prosecuting attorneys and such really has been about ultimate "control and power". Dark money is happy today.

Weeping for the direction I see these actions taking our country.

[Dustlawyer]

24. Here is the Gorsuch "strict constructionist" test.

He wants to rule in favor of religious discrimination, but this prohibition IS in the Constitution!

[Lyricalinklines]

31. I believe it IS in the Constitution, I get from your reply you....

...

I believe it IS in the Constitution, I get from your reply you..


...believe it's in the Constitution. However I also see plenty of evidence the current administration/GOP/their money backers believe differently. Their aggressive confrontations, both social and political, seem to be heading many issues toward the courts for redefining. I suspect they're intending to force redefining Constitution interpretations at the court levels the divisive issues that currently plague society. Doing so, of course gains in their favor, would give them legal backing to assert their ultra conservative agenda of reversing progression of equality issues (not limited to gender/race/sex/creed) while also increasingly push the corporate agenda of "money matters first because money matters most". Trump has historically used the court tactics professionally so it seems likely he'd try the same to push his political agenda.

The current administration has been filling empty judge positions with ultra conservatives. Ultimately, Gorsuch on Supreme Court seems likely to lean heavily conservative on issues he gets to opine. Thus, just as they've done with gerrymandering, they've stacked the deck, so to speak. Dems knew it was happening, we said as much when the GOP locked out Merrick Garland from continuing consideration. Just as they've done with their contribution to 'fixing elections', imho, they've orchestrated themselves to be in a position to reverse what they see as unconstitutional progress. Albeit, illegally. Democrats don't see the progress as unconstitutional, certainly! It's obvious GOP does.

IMHO, nothing can be figured to be out of reach concerning this administration, nor the GOP. GOP has for decades been working to reverse social opinion/acceptance of progress regarding equality issues again, regarding gender, race, sexuality, etc. And trump has shown he'll curry favor with whatever/whomever he can use to assert his own agenda. They and their money backers are hungrier than ever to feast on voters fears that jobs will disappear if they don't get their way - tax reform, health care, environmental, economic, foreign affairs, etc.

Enough politicians are working for corporations instead of the majority of voters who 'voted' them in...yet, when one knows the race is fixed then one can except the need to represent the majority any further



Check spelling note that makes me laugh: "Gorsuch" shows option to change as "Grouch" .
I don't know about anyone else, but I find this funny. Each. And. Every. Time. and welcome the levity. Gorsuch may be considered well spoken by some, but his opinion causes changes which result for many in grouchiness. My momentary pettiness. Ty.

[Dustlawyer]

32. Yes it is an ill wind blowing with what hey have done with their SCOTUS and court maneuvers.

Sad that it will take a lot of very bad rulings to wake (hopefully) average Americans up to the importance of the Supreme Court. If we lose another Justice we are royally screwed. As it stands Kennedy better wake up to what is happening. With Citizen's United they jumped the shark and demonstrated they are bought off in some fashion. John Roberts doesn't seem to care about his Court's legacy Thomas through his wife and Koch speaking fees. Alito is just an sniveling, evil bastard.

It may take some really bad rulings to start and sustain waves of demonstrations and protests. The corporations control all branches of government to a greater or lesser degree. Another Scalia type will solidify their hold on the court for generations.

Go Notorious RBG!!!! I mean, Keeping going Notorious RBG!!!!

We need to hire private investigators to dig up dirt on these ultra conservative Supremes. Anyone that uptight has got to be, in their private life, a super freak!

[Lyricalinklines]

34. I LOVE Ruth and Sonia and Elena!

How ironic that we've come to a point that we are counting on justices who are women to preserve our country and it's achieved progress since 81 with Sandra Day O'Connor's appointment.

I think I'll never understand how Citizens United stood to become law, even given Koch. I've come to consider I'm not capable of understanding how ones greed can out weigh honor for America and Americans.

As you state, generations will be adversely affected. The tipping point for at least 85 percent of Americans working for more than simple existence seems will come down to the supreme court. Our fore bearers struggled in ways many of us can't begin to understand so we could enjoy better. Greed has corrupted and will steal the very ground worked so hard to build the life we live.

At this point, it seems any dirt on those in 'authority' and claiming Christian/republican/conservative, etc is twisted - even lied about to cover up - to be seen as false while thrown in with chaotic actions that the actual dirt revelation is lost in general. It's happened so much over the past year in particular that many have learned to watch the edges of the created chaotic coincidences for the information meant to be buried in the upheaval. It's unreal, yet investing in thinking it's unreal means getting buried in the dirt flung!

There are many who are woke. We need enough...just enough. We can't put an exact number on what enough is nor become complacent that enough has been achieved. Never again can complacency become the norm.

[Dustlawyer]

35. Love those three women too!

We will need many more than the ones currently awake in order to attack the root cause of the money in our politics. They have spread so much money already, and it is but a fraction of what they will spend and do to maintain their grip on our politicians and control over our government.

[Lyricalinklines]

36. Yes. I concur, more is needed...

... money, awake individuals, resistance.

Onward.

[KY_EnviroGuy]

5. Would be nice to see....

a bunch of progressive businesses refusing to sell goods and services to churches. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

That would be my second choice after eliminating their tax exempt status.

[Duppers]

25. THIS 🔼

Very logical. Thank you.

[standingtall]

6. Which supreme court? A state supreme court? or the U.S supreme court?

What is meant by the supreme court held the governments interest? How? Was there a hearing? If so what was the vote count? Seems to me this would've been big news if there was a hearing and we would've heard about it before now. I guess there is other ways they could've held up the governments interest like refusing to hear the case.

[yuiyoshida]

7. You could read the article

http://thehill.com/regulation/administration/354263-sessions-issues-religious-liberty-guidance-to-federal-agencies

[standingtall]

17. I did it didn't say

at best it sounded like Jeff Sessions opinion rather than an absolute fact. He could be right because republicans have to much power in the justice system still it's premature to say the supreme court has upheld the policy of the Trump administration.

[yuiyoshida]

18. Knowing Republicans they will try to bribe or

Threaten those supreme court Judges...

[MadLinguist]

29. I believe the article was referring to the upcoming US Supreme Court case, the baker vs gay couple

In the case which is on the US supreme court's docket, the Department of *Justice* filed an amicus in favor of the wedding cake baker not to be compelled to create a wedding cake for a gay couple in Colorado on the grounds that his religious beliefs should be reason enough for him to refuse his services to the couple. In the article cited in the OP Sessions was crowing over the brief that his very own DOJ filed on behalf of the baker, as if he had already won and will be able to spread this ruling over everything is sight like marvelous margarine.

Here's a Washington Post article on the case
[link:https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/in-major-supreme-court-case-justice-dept-sides-with-baker-who-refused-to-make-wedding-cake-for-gay-couple/2017/09/07/fb84f116-93f0-11e7-89fa-bb822a46da5b_story.html?utm_term=.ddd4b5b1e79f|]

[SCantiGOP]

8. How long before

we can start stoning people to death whom we consider to be sinners?
Although they may decide that sinners must be shot instead of stoned due to the Sacred Amendment.

[yuiyoshida]

9. They don't need a gun,

they can just fire you for being a different Religion, and what comes next? Sexual and Racial Discrimination.

Or NOT hire you at all.. "I noticed on your application you didn't fill in your religion you are"

"Because its none of your business, respectfully, sir"

" No, so tell me"

" I am buddhist"

" Okay you can go, we don't hire Towel Heads here..."

[BigmanPigman]

10. Have you seen the Ron Reagan ads about keeping religion out of

politics? I donated and requested that my donation be used for more ads.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_From_Religion_Foundation

[Nevernose]

11. This is great news!

Because, under my deeply held religious beliefs, I don’t believe in the authority of the FBI, the DOJ, or Jeff Motherfucking Sessions, so I can do whatever the fuck I want, I guess. That’s Imperial Wizard Jeff’s expert legal opinion in a nutshell, right?

[yuiyoshida]

12. I think the answer is ...

Its fine if you are A CHRISTIAN, god forbid that you are not...
That means if you are Jewish, or Hindu, or Buddhist or Wiccan or don't believe in anything at all... You can be discriminated against.

NO SOUP FOR YOU!!!

[Nevernose]

13. Yeah, I always forget to read the details

I imagine one has to be the “right kind” of Christian, too. Identifying the correct Christianity is probably like guessing the number Jeff Sessions is thinking of.

[yuiyoshida]

14. oh no, its quite clear

You have to be a fundamentalist Christian..

Now, if you happened to be Buddhist like me? I am sure there is a place where the rest of us are burned at the stake.

[keithbvadu2]

28. "that the government sanction of a religion was, in essence, a threat to religion"

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/americas-true-history-of-religious-tolerance-61312684/?no-ist=;

Madison also made a point that any believer of any religion should understand: that the government sanction of a religion was, in essence, a threat to religion. "Who does not see," he wrote, "that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects?" Madison was writing from his memory of Baptist ministers being arrested in his native Virginia.

[safeinOhio]

15. Don't worry, next it'll be one

Christian sec gets to discriminate against another one's dogma. Welcome to the new Northerern Ireland or the 100 year war.

[yuiyoshida]

16. Noticed you have the Dali lama...

some day that image, may be against the law to post... or any other religious figure other than their Christian god.... I guess that means they will be blowing up Buddhist Statues just like that sect of Muslims that blew up those thousand year old statues in India.

[safeinOhio]

19. My point is it will most likely

Back fire on them. Me personally, I'm not big on symbols, more of a Taoist and " the Tao that is spoken of, is not the Eternal Tao".

[workinclasszero]

20. But..but...

We were assured by Susan Sarandon ,Jill Stein,TYT, and Jackpine assholes that both parties are exactly the same!

[keithbvadu2]

26. So would you want the gov't running your church?

So would you want the king running your church?

http://www.gocomics.com/wizardofid/2003/07/13

[LostinRed]

30. Well they just paved the way for sharia law

They are so afraid of sharia law (which is what they want just the Christian version) but they just opened the door to any religious policy being upheld so grab your stones kids let go get some sinners

[raven mad]

33. I think I'll just start pretending I do NOT live in the U.S.

Heck, 2/3 of the time the Republicans don't think we do, so no great loss.