Obama to sign order barring federal discrimination against gays

[Scott]

For those that are interested in developments in the US on gay rights, here is a story of some interest:

Obama to sign order Monday barring federal discrimination against gays

By Jeff Mason

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama will sign an executive order on Monday barring federal contractors from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, the White House said on Friday.

The order does not include new exemptions for religious organizations, a fact that was cheered by gay rights activists.

Some religious leaders had pressed Obama for added flexibility in executing the rules, but senior administration officials said that had not been granted.

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-sign-order-monday-barring-federal-discrimination-against-015216051.html

[Scott]

This must be a terrible blow (no pun intended) to the religious right.

[squarethecircle]

Well I read that 45% of the American population believes (on the basis of religion) that allowing for official recognition of same-sex marriages - or presumably anything involving same-sex relations - violates their religion. This is getting into sticky territory as you either have to say: (1) 45% of the American population has backwards religious beliefs that should be overridden in anything involving federal taxpayer money (nearly half of which they presumably contributed), or (2) there has to be some sort of compromise where people who have a religious or similar objection to this shouldn't have it forced on them.

I'm aware of the similar arguments about slavery and the Bible, etc., but think there are other arguments against considering same-sex relations or anything like this as the same as the "normal" baby-making opposite sex ones, basically involving the fact that they are "natural" but serve a different purpose in the species, such as cultural preservation rather than species preservation. Make sense?

[Scott]

No, it doesn't make sense to me, but I'll read after I've had my morning coffee.

Right now not much is making sense!

[onthemoon]

Well I read that 45% of the American population believes (on the basis of religion) that allowing for official recognition of same-sex marriages - or presumably anything involving same-sex relations - violates their religion. This is getting into sticky territory as you either have to say: (1) 45% of the American population has backwards religious beliefs that should be overridden in anything involving federal taxpayer money (nearly half of which they presumably contributed), or (2) there has to be some sort of compromise where people who have a religious or similar objection to this shouldn't have it forced on them.

I'm aware of the similar arguments about slavery and the Bible, etc., but think there are other arguments against considering same-sex relations or anything like this as the same as the "normal" baby-making opposite sex ones, basically involving the fact that they are "natural" but serve a different purpose in the species, such as cultural preservation rather than species preservation. Make sense?

If the religion violates Federal Law, it should be outlawed. If I found a religion that specifically allows rape, I don't think that I will get any exception.

There are many non-baby-making opposite sex couples. Many by choice. Should they be forcibly divorced?

[squarethecircle]

"If the religion violates Federal Law, it should be outlawed. If I found a religion that specifically allows rape, I don't think that I will get any exception.

There are many non-baby-making opposite sex couples. Many by choice. Should they be forcibly divorced?"

Nope but there does remain that fundamental distinction between same-sex and opposite-sex pairings. They both are natural (exist in nature), but the former obviously serves a different purpose than procreation. It does seem rather self-righteous and know-it-all to suggest that 45% of the US populace has religious beliefs that are so repugnant they should be over-ridden with federal law. That is essentially what McBummer's fan club and the rest of people who insist that same-sex couples should be treated exactly the same as opposite-sex couples are saying.

[sustento]

No-one is suggesting that 45% of the US populace has religious beliefs that are repugnant. No-one is trying to stop that 45% practising their beliefs. What they're saying is those minority religious beliefs should not affect the lives of people who don't share them.

BTW if you want to be taken seriously it would probably be better if you stopped using childish words like 'McBummer'.

[CharlieH]

Post removed.

11) Do not post slurs, degrading or overly negative comments directed towards Thailand, specific locations, Thai institutions such as the judicial or law enforcement system, Thai culture, Thai people or any other group on the basis of race, nationality, religion, gender or sexual orientation.

[sustento]

Bye

[Loptr]

Amazing how 1.6% of the population in the US can now dictate social norms... I have a feeling all these executive orders will be reversed once the current rogue administration is unseated...

http://time.com/2987183/gay-census-bisexual-cdc/

Edited July 21, 2014 by Loptr

[sustento]

Amazing how 1.6% of the population in the US can now dictate social norms... I have a feeling all these executive orders will be reversed once the current rogue administration is unseated...

http://time.com/2987183/gay-census-bisexual-cdc/

Serious question. Can you explain to me why ending discrimination against a particular group of people is 'dictating social norms'?

[robblok]

So basically they are saying to religious schools that they would have to accept gays working there ? I understand that there should be equality for all but this goes against their religion.

Hard topic.. one side of me says like sure they should be allowed to work there, other side says but this is a private organisation that has different values.

Then again else you could also bar non whites from working at certain places as the discrimination is the same. Real tough.

But in reality i think it would still be easy for religious schools and others just to find other grounds not to employ someone. I mean there are ways around this.

*edit*

Why would one want to work somewhere where they just don't like you for whatever reason. I mean can't be good for the work atmosphere.

And no this is no anti gay rant, I am pro gay rights and all and an atheist just can see problems here.

Edited July 21, 2014 by robblok

[Loptr]

Amazing how 1.6% of the population in the US can now dictate social norms... I have a feeling all these executive orders will be reversed once the current rogue administration is unseated...

http://time.com/2987183/gay-census-bisexual-cdc/

Serious question. Can you explain to me why ending discrimination against a particular group of people is 'dictating social norms'?

You asked, so don't complain at my answer...

First, before I get attacked as a homophobe, I believe in live and let live... You don't mess with me, I won't mess with you...

When 1.6% of the population can force the other 98.4% of the population to accept and condone what most consider deviant behavior based on their religious values, does it really serve to population as a whole? Especially with how vocal the LGBT lobby has become in the US about their 'rights' in recent years... A government, nor it's people should allow such a minority to dictate policy and/or social norms...

[Scott]

Nobody is dictating anything to anybody. The legal system assures equal treatment. Nobody is making you like people who are gay, but you cannot discriminate against them. There is a big difference.

The problem for many religious groups and their affiliated charities and activities isn't that they don't hire gays, it's that someone who is doing a perfectly acceptable job is outed and then fired.....the only reason is that they are gay or suspected of being gay.

Why would I even consider messing with you. If we met maybe we would be friends, maybe not. Maybe we would have mutual interests. The topic of sexuality might never come up.

I have some very personal experience with this.

[rijb]

Religions don't make a lot of sense when it comes to defining deviant behavior.

Love and sex is bad. But, beheading, stoning, and self-martyrdom is ok.

[sustento]

Amazing how 1.6% of the population in the US can now dictate social norms... I have a feeling all these executive orders will be reversed once the current rogue administration is unseated...

http://time.com/2987183/gay-census-bisexual-cdc/

Serious question. Can you explain to me why ending discrimination against a particular group of people is 'dictating social norms'?

You asked, so don't complain at my answer...

First, before I get attacked as a homophobe, I believe in live and let live... You don't mess with me, I won't mess with you...

When 1.6% of the population can force the other 98.4% of the population to accept and condone what most consider deviant behavior based on their religious values, does it really serve to population as a whole? Especially with how vocal the LGBT lobby has become in the US about their 'rights' in recent years... A government, nor it's people should allow such a minority to dictate policy and/or social norms...

Sorry but I still don't understand this. Who is forcing you to 'accept and condone' what you consider to be 'deviant behaviour'?

As far as I can see from reading the article all that's happening is that the federal government is saying that if you want federal contracts you have to treat all your employees equally regardless of their sexual orientation.

If that's a problem for you then don't apply for federal contracts.

[robblok]

Nobody is dictating anything to anybody. The legal system assures equal treatment. Nobody is making you like people who are gay, but you cannot discriminate against them. There is a big difference.

The problem for many religious groups and their affiliated charities and activities isn't that they don't hire gays, it's that someone who is doing a perfectly acceptable job is outed and then fired.....the only reason is that they are gay or suspected of being gay.

Why would I even consider messing with you. If we met maybe we would be friends, maybe not. Maybe we would have mutual interests. The topic of sexuality might never come up.

I have some very personal experience with this.

That is something I would be against and agree that should be stopped. For teachers on religious schools in an example function I can see the friction. But the situation you are describing is unacceptable.

[squarethecircle]

Only thing to add is that I've seen the federal discrimination rules being abused, eg: I previously worked on a federal project in the US and had a subordinate submitting blatantly falsified documentation. I submitted the paperwork with the form used to report fraudulent paperwork (a federal offense) but was told by my superiors not to do this, as the employee was a black man and they said he would file a discrimination complaint whereby we'd have to go through a whole second process to prove we weren't discriminating before we could institute the fradulent paperwork review. So effectively the man's status helped him get away with blatantly bad behavior. Likewise I've met a couple of nasty bullies who were either female or gay and can see them abusing this. But still the fact that it can or will be abused doesn't mean that it shouldn't be in place.

[Jingthing]

Great news from the Abraham Lincoln of American gay civil rights -- President Obama.

I don't have any interest in arguing with people who think granting full legal civil rights is ever a bad thing.

Especially now that we've won this one. Nothing to discuss. Done deal.

More issues to come

[squarethecircle]

"I don't have any interest in arguing with people who think granting full legal civil rights is ever a bad thing.

Especially now that we've won this one. Nothing to discuss. Done deal."

I don't think anyone on here doesn't support the federal discrimination ban, but it bothers me the way the supporters of the current POTUS seem to consider their views as morally superior and simply ignore any dissent as below them - this is more like a moral crusade than something based on logic, reason, and compassion. This is the exact same objection I have to the religious right, who feel that they are doing the work of God and do not listen to any criticism.

Also I recall reading about the Log Cabin Republicans who have sometimes taken apparently self-defeating viewpoints - such as supporting Mitt Romney despite his opposition to a bill like this (which the LCR would support) - since they don't have the same crusading attitude and found that other issues (such as economic reform and national defense) were more crucial to the country at that time.

[sustento]

"I don't have any interest in arguing with people who think granting full legal civil rights is ever a bad thing.

Especially now that we've won this one. Nothing to discuss. Done deal."

I don't think anyone on here doesn't support the federal discrimination ban, but it bothers me the way the supporters of the current POTUS seem to consider their views as morally superior

Don't you think that a ban on discrimination is a morally superior attitude to take?

[squarethecircle]

"Don't you think that a ban on discrimination is a morally superior attitude to take?"

Yes but that doesn't mean becoming self-righteous or not consider why people might have the opposite opinion. For one the Judeo-Christian tradition is what the west for all its goodness is rooted in - though the scientific revolution, enlightenment, secularism, etc. are what keeps it strong - so I wonder if there is a way to honor that as well. Such as by creating a separate category for same-sex unions, keeping marriage between a man and a woman but having a category of unions with full rights. Only problem with this is it reeks of "separate but equal" but at least it is a starting point.

[Jingthing]

"Don't you think that a ban on discrimination is a morally superior attitude to take?"

Yes but that doesn't mean becoming self-righteous or not consider why people might have the opposite opinion. For one the Judeo-Christian tradition is what the west for all its goodness is rooted in - though the scientific revolution, enlightenment, secularism, etc. are what keeps it strong - so I wonder if there is a way to honor that as well. Such as by creating a separate category for same-sex unions, keeping marriage between a man and a woman but having a category of unions with full rights. Only problem with this is it reeks of "separate but equal" but at least it is a starting point.

Not sure what you're on about. The debate of civil unions vs. same sex marriage in the U.S. is OVER. It's relevant in other countries, like Thailand, the U.S. is way beyond that.

[squarethecircle]

"Not sure what you're on about. The debate of civil unions vs. same sex marriage in the U.S. is OVER. It's relevant in other countries, like Thailand, the U.S. is way beyond that."

Not so sure about that. I am voting Republican in the next election but think it may be 2020 before we get some relief. Maybe in California or the like but where I come from in the Bible Belt (ironically far more accepting than you'd expect, friends who are a same-sex couple in Alabama report the last time they got harassed was when they visited NYC) and I bet they will have a compromise there. Unless it's forced down from the federal level which I will vote against and - seeing as nearly half of the US population has fundamental objections to it - I don't see it being as accepted as you say. I certainly hope not just for the simple fact that it is force-feeding one person's morality on other people.

[sustento]

Unless it's forced down from the federal level which I will vote against and - seeing as nearly half of the US population has fundamental objections to it - I don't see it being as accepted as you say. I certainly hope not just for the simple fact that it is force-feeding one person's morality on other people.

As opposed to force-feeding religious beliefs on people who aren't adherents of that particular religion?

[squarethecircle]

Unless it's forced down from the federal level which I will vote against and - seeing as nearly half of the US population has fundamental objections to it - I don't see it being as accepted as you say. I certainly hope not just for the simple fact that it is force-feeding one person's morality on other people.

As opposed to force-feeding religious beliefs on people who aren't adherents of that particular religion?

Both are equally distasteful but at the moment seems like the other side is in power and quite self-righteously forcing its views on others. No problem with same-sex rights or the like but think forcing the gay marriage thing from the federal level is just as bad as, say, preventing it from the federal level.

[sustento]

I live in England. Here the argument is over.

We've had civil partnerships since 2004 and same-sex marriage since March of this year. The skies haven't fallen. Christians still go to church. No-one who doesn't want a gay marriage has been forced to take part in one.

The Netherlands have had same sex marriage for 13 years now. The place hasn't fallen apart either. There again they are one of the most secular countries in Europe who conduct their affairs using logic rather than religion.

[sean in udon]

As far as I can see from reading the article all that's happening is that the federal government is saying that if you want federal contracts you have to treat all your employees equally regardless of their sexual orientation.

If that's a problem for you then don't apply for federal contracts.

In the midst of the (unfortunately predictable) debate about gay/lesbian relationships and religion, a post that gives an accurate and simple précis of the information in the op.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[Jingthing]

All state bans on same sex marriage will be declared unconstitutional by the supreme court within 5 years max. Maybe even one year. This will in effect mandate legalization in all states. Instantly. The sky won't fall. Not even in Mississippi. Forget about an alternative civil union path in the U S. That is simply off the table.

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Edited July 22, 2014 by Jingthing

[sustento]

Unless it's forced down from the federal level which I will vote against and - seeing as nearly half of the US population has fundamental objections to it - I don't see it being as accepted as you say. I certainly hope not just for the simple fact that it is force-feeding one person's morality on other people.

As opposed to force-feeding religious beliefs on people who aren't adherents of that particular religion?

Both are equally distasteful but at the moment seems like the other side is in power and quite self-righteously forcing its views on others. No problem with same-sex rights or the like but think forcing the gay marriage thing from the federal level is just as bad as, say, preventing it from the federal level.

There's been relatively little religious persecution in the USA since 1776. On the other hand intolerance and persecution of gay folks has been and still is widespread.

Maybe the gay folks just want the scales to be a little more level?

Maybe the religious folks are getting a bit annoyed that their grip on other people's rights and freedoms is lessening?