Leaked Draft of Trump’s Religious Freedom Order Reveals Sweeping Plans to Legalize Discrimination

originally posted by: yeahsurexxx
a reply to: SaturnFX

Then you take your money and go to the next place. Problem?

Yep! Enact all the laws you want, if you insist on dining somewhere thats against you or your "ilk", theres no stopping them from spitting in your food.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: rickymouse

The guy across the street is a staunch Republican. He's a retired local police officer living high off the hog with his HUGE pension after only 20 years. He's living the life of Reilly. He's very outspoken and against ALL forms of socialism. He just can't stand it when taxes are taken from one person to be giving to someone else. Well anyway, he's ultra conservative and very much against all things homosexual.

And then, wait for it....

His daughter turn out to be gay!!! And now he has done complete about face. WT-EFFF!!! He's now all pro-gay. I guess when it's other people's daughters let the cannons fly.

That is the way it is in the world. The thing is, his pro-gay status now coupled with his pushy personality will probably steer more people away from becoming gay than if he was anti-gay. His daughter revolted against him because of his attitude, maybe she will decide to become heterosexual now that he went overboard on gay.

originally posted by: olaru12
Can you imagine the Happy dancing over at the DNC.

It's almost as if the GOP wants to lose in 18.

Don't ignore the elephant in the room.

The bill was introduced by Congressman Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on March 11, 1993. A companion bill was introduced in the Senate by Ted Kennedy (D-MA) the same day. A unanimous U.S. House and a nearly unanimous U.S. Senate—three senators voted against passage[2]—passed the bill, and President Bill Clinton signed it into law.

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: xuenchen

The oval office is now a colander.
Leaks like a sieve.

a reply to: olaru12

If Trump drafted this himself, then he's doing what he does best. Make an extremely unreasonable deal and then compromise afterwards.

I know it's very see through but that's how the world works. Like it or not.

originally posted by: SaturnFX

originally posted by: notsure1
a reply to: olaru12

Yeah god forbid someone object to something. People should have the right to say no I wont maryy you go somewhere else.

No You cant use the girls restroom because You have a penis.

Just looks like we are getting more freedoms back to me.

No, we dont serve food to "your kind" here.

Exactly. How long before were back there again.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: rickymouse

The guy across the street is a staunch Republican. He's a retired local police officer living high off the hog with his HUGE pension after only 20 years. He's living the life of Reilly. He's very outspoken and against ALL forms of socialism. He just can't stand it when taxes are taken from one person to be giving to someone else. Well anyway, he's ultra conservative and very much against all things homosexual.

And then, wait for it....

His daughter turn out to be gay!!! And now he has done complete about face. WT-EFFF!!! He's now all pro-gay. I guess when it's other people's daughters let the cannons fly.

OR... he was faced to deal with and understand that perspective. Why in the world would you be against someones personal growth?

a reply to: yeahsurexxx

Remember "Whites only" bathrooms? Lunch counters? Schools?

a reply to: Sillyolme

I can only see liberals doing that tbh.

There's a lot of hate and it isn't coming from the right.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: rickymouse

The guy across the street is a staunch Republican. He's a retired local police officer living high off the hog with his HUGE pension after only 20 years. He's living the life of Reilly. He's very outspoken and against ALL forms of socialism. He just can't stand it when taxes are taken from one person to be giving to someone else. Well anyway, he's ultra conservative and very much against all things homosexual.

And then, wait for it....

His daughter turn out to be gay!!! And now he has done complete about face. WT-EFFF!!! He's now all pro-gay. I guess when it's other people's daughters let the cannons fly.

OR... he was faced to deal with and understand that perspective. Why in the world would you be against someones personal growth?

Because they can't entertain the fact that peoples viewpoints can be subjective to their new found reality. People like that have a mind that works in binary code.

It's quite tragic.

originally posted by: TheTory
To keep the government out of my conscience is a good thing. No one should be legally bound to operate against his conscience. That isn't the government's decision.

This is such a great comment.

I'm assuming by your ID that you are a Brit and y'all have different laws there re: speech, but here in the U.S., one thing that always escapes our Alt-Left is that there are no laws against "hate speech". Here in America, our Constitution protects freedom of speech and freedom of thought.

In the public forum (it should be noted that ATS is a privately owned entity and can make their own rules) I can like you or dislike you for whatever reason I choose. Further, I can tell you I like you or dislike you for whatever reason I choose so long as I don't threaten your personal being.

There are no laws against hurting someone's feelings.

If I don't like you because of your sexuality, religion, race, hair color, nationality (everyone hates people from Lichtenstein, right?) or for reasons I can't even define -- that is my right as an American citizen. The Thought Police on the left would like you to think otherwise.

There are already a mountain of laws on the books prohibiting discrimination against people (unless you're a straight White Christian of course) for any reason where employment, education, and access to most services are concerned. But to the chagrin of the American Left, cases of actual "discrimination" are extremely rare in this country so they have to go looking for them.

That usually leads them to some tiny family-run cake shop owned by --- Drum Roll Please! -- straight White Christians, who they will then mercilessly persecute (sue, bankrupt) for simply exercising their First Amendment Rights and following their religious convictions.

I'm not religious myself, and I couldn't care less what people do in private (as long as no one gets hurt), but I know the real agenda of the Left and am not fooled. They won't be happy until everyone is terrified to have an original thought.

originally posted by: notsure1
a reply to: olaru12

Yeah god forbid someone object to something. People should have the right to say no I wont maryy you go somewhere else.

No You cant use the girls restroom because You have a penis.

Just looks like we are getting more freedoms back to me.

Yes stepping on others freedoms gives more freedoms to you. Oh yeah that's right you haven't lost any freedoms. Also the highly under educated citizens of this nation need to learn the founders didn't want religious law in America. The sooner we drive all religion out of government the better.

Who among thinks that this is real?

If it is real and was enacted as an Executive Order..... Who thinks it it would EVER get past any US Court???

Hell, Trump had an Executive Order stopped by the court that simply said that he was going to follow the law.

a reply to: neo96

Don't ignore the elephant in the room.

The only elephant in the room is that you don't read your own links. The law you linked only applies to the government and not the people because the SC found it to be unconstitutional.

RFRA was held unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court, as applied to the states in the City of Boerne v. Flores decision in 1997, which ruled that the RFRA is not a proper exercise of Congress's enforcement power. However, it continues to be applied to the federal government—for instance, in Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal and Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.. These cases did not consider whether Congress was violating the Anti-Establishment Clause if it carves out exemptions based on religious laws from federal laws and regulations that it itself has authorized.

So if this one was unconstitutional then the one dimwit wants to pass will be unconstitutional as well.

a reply to: buster2010

Gun control is unconstitutional.

Doesn't matter.

The first and fourteenth still stand and it does nothing to take away from.

The civil liberties religious folks have.

Don't have to like it.

But THERE IS NOTHING you can do to stop their FREE EXERCISE OF.

a reply to: SBMcG

I'm a Canadian. Like the UK, the Canadian government is strict when it comes to hate-speech, and the populace is mostly left-wing. Despite the laws of my home country I am a proponent of unbridled free speech and thought.

I'm not religious either. But religious freedom allows me to not believe and act according to my own conscience as much as it does those who do believe.

In Canada, and I think in the US, systemic discrimination and racism takes the form of 'positive' discrimination. 'Negative' discrimination is in short supply. I think the Left requires the negative discrimination in order to justify their own race theories, identity politics, and systemic racism, which they have already codified into law.

originally posted by: SBMcG

originally posted by: TheTory
To keep the government out of my conscience is a good thing. No one should be legally bound to operate against his conscience. That isn't the government's decision.

This is such a great comment.

I'm assuming by your ID that you are a Brit and y'all have different laws there re: speech, but here in the U.S., one thing that always escapes our Alt-Left is that there are no laws against "hate speech". Here in America, our Constitution protects freedom of speech and freedom of thought.

In the public forum (it should be noted that ATS is a privately owned entity and can make their own rules) I can like you or dislike you for whatever reason I choose. Further, I can tell you I like you or dislike you for whatever reason I choose so long as I don't threaten your personal being.

There are no laws against hurting someone's feelings.

If I don't like you because of your sexuality, religion, race, hair color, nationality (everyone hates people from Lichtenstein, right?) or for reasons I can't even define -- that is my right as an American citizen. The Thought Police on the left would like you to think otherwise.

There are already a mountain of laws on the books prohibiting discrimination against people (unless you're a straight White Christian of course) for any reason where employment, education, and access to most services are concerned. But to the chagrin of the American Left, cases of actual "discrimination" are extremely rare in this country so they have to go looking for them.

That usually leads them to some tiny family-run cake shop owned by --- Drum Roll Please! -- straight White Christians, who they will then mercilessly persecute (sue, bankrupt) for simply exercising their First Amendment Rights and following their religious convictions.

I'm not religious myself, and I couldn't care less what people do in private (as long as no one gets hurt), but I know the real agenda of the Left and am not fooled. They won't be happy until everyone is terrified to have an original thought.

That was f#cking awesome. Thank you from a Brit.

originally posted by: TheTory
a reply to: SBMcG

I'm a Canadian.

a reply to: dfnj2015

I'm a Canadian.

And?

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
a reply to: olaru12

If Trump drafted this himself, then he's doing what he does best. Make an extremely unreasonable deal and then compromise afterwards.

I know it's very see through but that's how the world works. Like it or not.

I think I can see how the Trump WH wants to work. Bring back discrimination against homosexuals and minorities.

Haven't we been thru this once before. imo...this isn't going to help Trump politically at all except from the far right.