I applaud Obama for this action. While I may not support him on some issues and
may criticize him heavily on some of his other policies, in this I am in
complete agreement with him. Good job. He earned back a small bit of my respect
that he had lost.
If a religious organization wants to provide services to the poor, then why
don't they avoid federal entanglements and do it on their own? No one
forces anyone to take a federal contract. Or perhaps, this is about
money. The "free" money from the government means everything.
Is this designed to destroy charitable religious groups so that government
becomes the only charity and the only religion? This order can only be resolved
in litigation. The cost of litigation will damage the efforts of religious
charities and schools. Eager, opportunistic lawyers will be happy to handle the
prosecution on behalf of those that believe they are offended, but charitable
institutions are not in the business of paying attorneys as part of the cost of
doing business. When is enough, enough? How many laws are needed to
protect every perceived micro-offense?
Great, now will he have time to sign an executive order to secure the border?
The issue regarding qualification for employment is whether the person can
properly do the job, NOT what that person's sexual orientation may be. The
so-called "faith" organizations and employers merely want a license to
exercize prejudicial discrimination and bigotry. They should not get it.
This is no surprise, since he's the same president who has issued more than
three times the number of executive orders of all the previous presidents
combined. What is m most worrisome to me is how easily the other branches of
government have let the current president trample the constitution and
seperation of powers innumberable times in his quest for hegemony, thereby tying
a very dangerous precedent.
Worst President Ever.
Hey cool cat, Ronald Regan had 381 executive orders, Bill Clinton had 364,
George W Bush had 291, and Barack Obama? Currently about 183. He's not 3
times as many as all his predecessors, not even as many as any one of the last
"This is no surprise, since he's the same president who has issued more
than three times the number of executive orders of all the previous presidents
combined."This is inaccurate.Number of Executive
Orders IssuedBarack Obama : 183George W. Bush: 291Bill
Clinton: 364George Bush Sr.: 166Ronald Regan: 381Source:
@Cool Cat Cosmo: "This is no surprise, since he's the same president
who has issued more than three times the number of executive orders of all the
previous presidents combined."I think you've been
misinformed. 15,227 executive orders have been signed since George
Washington.183 by Obama.Here are the last four presidents, for
a realistic point of reference.166 - George H. W. Bush364 -
William J. Clinton291 - George W. Bush183 - Barack Obama
It absolutely horrifies me that so called "religious" organizations
would be allowed to discriminate. Where does this put us when you have
religions that can tout they don't believe in "mixing" races and
therefore won't hire (or will fire) a mixed race person? I've always
felt religion is about love and tolerance.. apparently this is not the case.
Judgmental, cruel behavior is what is being exhibited. Makes me reconsider my
church (though not my beliefs).P.S. Thanks everyone for correcting
cool cat. So easy to listen to Kay Granger (Republican from Texas) who
originated the chain email letter than checking Snopes to see if the rumor is
true. I do my best to make it a habit to check my facts.
The number of executive orders any president signs is irrelevent. It is the
content of those orders that matter.A president may sign a thousand
executive orders that have little or no impact. Another president may only sign
a few, but they radically change how government works.It is just
silly to suggest that one president is better or worse than another based solely
on the number of orders he signed. It is like saying one president hiked taxes
10 times for a total of 2% while another only hiked them twice for a total of
5%. Which is worse the guy who raised taxes 10 times or the guy that only raised
them twice?These are the political games that people play to sway
Folks, we are acting like we are surprised he did this. Hang on to your hats,
the next couple of years will be filled with ugly, blatant agenda pushing.
Somehow people will still approve of what he did as a president. I guess that is
why CNBC exists though.
"The number of executive orders any president signs is irrelevent."IF Obama had issued the most executive orders than previous GOP
presidents, you can bet that it would be VERY relevant.
These executive orders are timely when a few private sector members are doubling
down in a show of in your face defiance to assert a right to discriminate on the
basis of faith. That manifestation of anti-government loathing is about much
more than sexual orientation. It's a threat to the rule of law that has to
Instead of fighting for the right to take federal money and discriminate at the
same time, these outfits can wean themselves of one or the other. Or both. Or
are the 'nonprofits' otherwise motivated?
JoeBlow: "IF Obama had issued the most executive orders than previous GOP
presidents, you can bet that it would be VERY relevant."Yes,
I'm sure that some conservatives would be playing that political
game...just like liberals would be downplaying the numbers and saying they
don't matter.It is kind of like what the media and liberals are
now doing with all Obama's negative numbers. If Bush (or any GOP president)
had the current unemployment rate, the current GDP growth rate, or the current
negative poll numbers as Obama now does; it would be on the front page of all
the newspapers and leading every evening newscast. Instead stories that speak
truth to the current economic malaise are buried on page 12 if they exist at
@Cocosweet:"Where does this put us when you have religions that can
tout they don't believe in "mixing" races and therefore won't
hire (or will fire) a mixed race person?"Do you know of any
religions that object to mixing of races? So maybe your point is moot.In my hometown there was this one family of John Birchers. (They thought
there was a commie conspiracy to take over the government). Our country
proposed being incorporated. So the wife comes over and talks to my mom. She
was up in arms. She said, "This is a step towards world government. People
will be getting shot in the streets."Well the county
incorporated and no one is getting shot in the streets yet. So let's allow
faith based charities to continue as they always have and see if all of a sudden
religions objecting to mixed races show up. If not, Cocosweet, will you
apologize for stumbling over your stereotypes?
A small percent of Evangelical Christians oppose interracial marriages (Comes
from Christianity Today article). Example : Only recently did Bob Jones
University remove it's rule against interracial dating.The
point I was trying to make is anyone can come up with a religion, make up their
own belief system, and hide behind it. As for religious charities?
They can do as they will, but if they want Federal money they are going to have
to follow the rules.Finally, I wasn't talking about charities, rather
Fed contractors who can hide behind religion to justify pretty much any behavior
Mikhail,"....When is enough, enough? How many laws are needed to
protect every perceived micro-offense?"______________________________These two executive orders affirm
existing laws prohibiting discrimination which is anything but a
“micro-offense.” In contrast to Obama, Lincoln had far less legal
grounds for his most notable executive order that we know of today as the
Emancipation Proclamation. If the Federal Government doesn’t lead by
example, I wouldn't expect the rest of the country to just automatically
put its own house in order.
""This kind of thing is chilling for religious organizations," said
Stanley Carlson-Theis, founder and president of the Institutional Religious
Freedom Alliance, "--- Do you even understand how
"chilling" it is for LGBT people to know that so-called
"religious" people want to discriminate against them? To know that you
can lose your job because your "religious" boss doesn't like your
being LGBT? Talk about "chilling".No organization should be
exempt from non-discrimination laws. None."The big question is:
How far does religious hiring go?" --- How about just accepting
the best qualified candidate? Is that so difficult?
@Mikhail wrote: "When is enough, enough? How many laws are needed to protect
every perceived micro-offense?""Micro-offense"? If you
were denied employment simply because your employer didn't like your sexual
orientation, I don't think you'd call it a "micro-offense."
Cocosweet,"....I wasn't talking about charities, rather Fed
contractors who can hide behind religion to justify pretty much any behavior
precisely the mindset I feared that the ill-considered Hobby Lobby ruling might
unleash. The ink is barely dry on the court ruling and here we already have
faith leaders asking for a specific exemption for religious organizations. I
hope the President’s executive orders send the message that being awarded
a government contract is not an entitlement and certainly is not going to allot
preferential consideration based on religious beliefs.
The left wants to frame everything in terms of hate, bigotry, and other phobias
to prove that anyone who objects to some kind of behaviour (i.e.
is...gasp..."judgemental") is completely irrational.If you
don't want to uproot the definition of marriage so that it becomes
meaningless...then you are just homophobic. If you don't want to pay for
someone's abortion because you think that killing a baby is wrong...then
you just hate women and you are imposing your religious beliefs on others. If
you don't want to deal with the "in your face" exhibition of the
gay lifestyle in your workplace...then you are a bigot.See the
@JoeCapitalist2 wrote: "If you don't want to uproot the definition of
marriage so that it becomes meaningless...then you are just homophobic. If you
don't want to pay for someone's abortion because you think that
killing a baby is wrong...then you just hate women and you are imposing your
religious beliefs on others. If you don't want to deal with the "in
your face" exhibition of the gay lifestyle in your workplace...then you are
a bigot.See the pattern."I do see the pattern. When
you, JoeCapitalist2, want to argue against something, you do so using strawman
Why hasn't anybody asked the big question, which is:Since when
can a US President enact a law simply by signing an executive order?The faith based organizations should challenge what Obama has done in court.
I 100% guarantee that in less than 10 years LDS Temples will be "forced"
to be open to everyone - no more commandments to be followed or recommends
needed. Barack and the left will "force" Churches to abandon their
beliefs ...it is happening as we speak. America is no longer a free country and
we twice elected the guy to make it that way!!! Welcome comrade!!
Red shirt: he's not enacting a law. As head of the executive branch, he is
tasked with overseeing how the executive branch and the agencies under it
operate. As such, he made a decision not to reward those that discriminate by
giving them federal money or contacts. Perfectly legal, no constitutional
overreach as some would claim, no new laws being made.
Understands Math: "When you want to argue against something, you do so using
strawman language."I don't think that word (strawman) means
what you think it means. A strawman is something that does not exist.I have read hundreds of times on this forum messages from people on the left
who call anyone who opposes SSM homophobic. They accuse anyone who is religious
who doesn't want to pay for abortion drugs as misogynists and anyone who
thinks homosexual acts are sinful, bigots.Where is the strawman in
"I 100% guarantee that in less than 10 years LDS Temples will be
"forced" to be open to everyone"I would certainly take
that bet and give you odds.You, and many others are quick to take
something reasonable (no discrimination in government contracts) and take it to
an unrealistic extreme.(LDS temples without restrictions)Just like
gun control. You believe that those who support universal background checks
(reasonable) want to see a complete gun ban (unreasonable).You do
not give the American people much credit.
I'm struggling to reconcile the faith-based organizations' objections
to hiring LGBT people with their widely touted "love the sinner, hate the
sin" philosophy, which, even though flawed, makes a valid distinction
between the actor and the act. Personnel decisions are made for people, not
actions. If they truly loved the sinners, they would hire them, not
discriminate against them.By the way, don't Christians see all
humans as inherently sinful? Why do these organizations raise such a fuss about
just one kind of (perceived) sin and not others? Why don't they consider
whether job applicants are gluttons, sloths, greedy, proud, or envious in their
hiring decisions as well? To be concerned only about certain sins when there
are so many to choose from is the worst form of discrimination and certainly
RedShirt,"Why hasn't anybody asked the big question, which
is:Since when can a US President enact a law simply by signing an
executive order?The faith based organizations should challenge what
Obama has done in court."______________________________Aren’t you one of the conservatives in here who lectures the left on how
we need to read the Constitution?Executive orders (which have been
issued by every President starting with Washington) have the force of law under
power granted the President under the Constitution or pursuant to enforcement of
an Act of Congress. It is the DUTY of the President to enforce the law. The
President can in fact be impeached for NOT using the powers of office to enforce
the law.Bill Clinton issued the executive order banning employment
discrimination based on sexual orientation. Both GW Bush and Barack Obama have
continued the policy. This particular case has to specifically with
discrimination against gay employment as a criterion in awarding Federal
contracts.Faith leaders can pursue litigation if they so choose.
To "Craig Clark" where does it say that in the Constitution. Where does
it state that the President can.Maybe you need to read the
Constitution since what you claim IS NOT IN THERE.
re:JoeBlowActully Joe I give about 40% of the American people loads
of credit for still wanting and valueing freedom ...oh and understanding
actually what it is and why it is important. It is the other 50% + that scares
me. When I see a president erasing our freedoms at the rate it is currently
happening - especially with Obamacare - and I see the low info crowd that
worhips the man even though they have no idea what his policies are nor do they
care so long as the free stuff keeps coming - that is when I can easily see
religious freedoms as I mentioned being erased by your lefties in a decade from
now. Look around Joe - law suits are everywhere from the Little Sisters Of the
Poor to Hobby Lobby deserate to try to hang on to those faith based freedoms
that are the core and center of their lives. As far as gun control
goes - those of us who "actually" own guns and understand the second
amendment also understand the stated goal of the left to make America a "gun
free" nation. Better spend more time checking out your own party leaders and
what they are saying Joe.
@patriot"I 100% guarantee that in less than 10 years LDS Temples will
be "forced" to be open to everyone "There is no logical
reason to believe that. @Lagomorph"Why do these
organizations raise such a fuss about just one kind of (perceived) sin and not
others?"It's so easy to focus on the subset of sins that
oneself is not particularly susceptible to committing.@RedShirtThere's been over 10,000 executive orders... this isn't something
new. If the entire concept of them were an issue it'd have gone through the
courts by now.
If I am correct in my political governance understandings, these presidential
orders all go away if the next president says so. Because Congress did not
write these things into law, they are only a presidential order until the next
president reverses it.Obama, and America, would be better off if the
president would simply work the system the way it was meant to be
worked...through Congress. if Congress disagrees, then it is time to start
compromising, wheeling and dealing. But because Obama insists on his way only,
Congress cannot negotiate with him (remember his statement that Republicans can
come along for the ride but they'll have to sit at the back of the bus?).
getting a federal student loan or contract with the federal govt is going to be
impossible in the near future the way Barack is "reshaping America"
unless you are god-less, faith-less, and most certainly NOT a member of any
organization that opposes BIG BROTHER. Every time I watch the "Hunger
Games" I am reminded of the chilling message of the movie because I see the
same spying, intimidating, threats, and other "Communist Party" like
tactics from the Obama White House and his hirlings as they play out every week.
The America people have to "take back" their country and
freedoms and it all starts in a few months with the mid-term elections. This
country has NEVER been more divided and polarized since the Civil War and that
is on purpose - following the Obama playbook (Rules For Radicals).
re:FatherOfFourname some of the things you oppose from Barack policy
wise. Obamacare?The Economy and energy production?Foreign policy?I guess I am suspecious about your "real"
Apparently I was misinformed, after doing a bit more research. Apologies;
however, the fact remains that the president continues to flaunt the laws of the
land, ignoring the constitution when he sees fit, and he is out of control.
@joeWhen you make comment like "If you don't want to deal with
the 'in your face' exhibition of the gay lifestyle in your
workplace." Your own words define your motivations no other commentary is
necessary. No matter how much you try to stand this on its head you are
not the victim you are taking part in holding others down.
@joe capitalist So when you say "the "in your face"
exhibition of the gay lifestyle in your workplace," are you talking about
doing their paperwork, taking lunch, having a picture if their significant other
on their desk, talking with their coworkers about their weekend or any of
hundrads of things we all, gay and hetro, do at work? What exactly does "gay
lifestyle" mean to you?
Seperation of Church and state. Isn't that always what the secular left
wants? So, if consistent, they would not want government interfering with faith
based organizations any more than they would want faith based organizations
interfering in government. Right? How come I think they don't see it that
@SCfan"they would not want government interfering with faith
based organizations"It's not about government interfering
with faith based organizations. It's about faith based organizations
seeking federal dollars from executive agencies to provide services ON BEHALF OF
the Federal Government. Allowing faith-based organizations to make employment
decisions based on their religious beliefs for those employees who deliver the
services they have contracted with the US Government to provide is a violation
of the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment. This executive order does not
force any faith based organization to hire LGBT for jobs within the organization
NOT RELATED to the service they have contracted to provide. For example, a
Catholic organization that has contracted with the US government to provide
medical services for the VA cannot discriminate in hiring LGBT to preform that
service but they CAN discriminate in hiring in one of their Church run hospitals
that is not affiliated with the contract to the VA.
@sc fanReligious organizations that take funding from the goverment
choose to "entangle" themselves with the goverment. You cannot take the
publics money dedicated to offering assistance to the public then refuse to
serve them. If religious organizations don't want entanglement don't
take goverment money it's not complicated.
SCfan said:"Seperation of Church and state. Isn't that always what the
secular left wants? So, if consistent, they would not want government
interfering with faith based organizations any more than they would want faith
based organizations interfering in government. Right? How come I think they
don't see it that way?If the faith based organizations would
pay for the charity services themselves, instead of holding their hand out for
money from the federal government, (not a religion) to use for their charity and
take credit for. Then these same religious groups complain about conditions for
the use of that money, and want to be able to discriminate against Americans
based on their religion while fulfilling a civil contract. It's
really straight forward. Pay for your charity, discriminate all you want. If we
the people are paying, than you follow our rules.@Patriot. When did
the government force the LDS church to allow African Americans into your Temple?
The Federal Government - and Obama in particular - are treading on dangerous
ground here. When the government begins to dictate to churches and faith-based
groups how they operate and whom they hire, then we have all but lost freedom of
religion. If one follows these "executive actions" to their logical
conclusion, Obama could eventually order a Christian church or organization,
such as a Bible College, to hire Muslims or Atheists to teach. He could - as has
already happened in England - force churches to perform gay weddings and hire
gay clergy. Government needs to keep their hands off churches - and conversely,
churches and faith-based organizations need to shun government contracts and
grants, so as not to be beholden to government.
@john tActually that is a very illogical conclusion for two reasons
one we are talking about religious organizations performing secular services for
the public and the fact that the courts have been very clear that religions are
immune to civil rights laws when it comes to their eclisastical work.
To AllThat is why I'm glad the LDS Church does not want or
expect help from the government. It does its charity work with the resources
provided by its members. As for the government helping faith based
organizations, I find it stupid for the government to deny any faith based
organization the money to help just because of some PC issue. Here is an
organization that wants to put boots on the gound. But the U.S. government
would say, we don't want your help (with hurricain Katrina for instance)
unless you allow LGBT. Stupid, stupid, stupid. All it does is punish the
people who need the help most. All to make 3% of the country happy. Baloney.
Let good people help when they want and put the politics and social policy
aside. That's what I'd respect. And I'd really respect any LGBT
who agreed that, at times, others needs come before theirs.
@scfanHere is a thought maybe religions could put others well being
before there religious dogma and allow qualified LGBT people to be part of
meeting those needs. Why should the people in crisis, such as "hurricane
Catarina ", not get the best care because some organization refuses to hire
a skilled person simply because they are LGBT?
@john T: "He could - as has already happened in England - force churches to
perform gay weddings and hire gay clergy."The church of England
is an official state church supported by the taxpayers. It was ruled that a
taxpayer supported church is not allowed to discriminate against some
taxpayers.In America we don't have an official religion, an
official church, or churches that are supported by tax dollars. So you're
comparing apples and broccoli.In England there was no force to make
the LDS church, or any other church, accept gay members into full fellowship.
The only decision involved a church that was supported by the taxpayers.And as has been said on here over, and over, and over – if
religion's don't want government money they can discriminate all they
want. If they do want government money, however, they can't pick and choose
the citizens that they hire with the citizens they serve. They lose that right
when they start taking the citizens money.
If Congress can't pass the law, then King Obama will make one!Long live the King!
Then again, EO are not laws passed by Congress but edicts by one sitting
president and easily disolved by another. A new president could enter the WH and
on their first day eliminate any and all previously existsing Executive Orders
simple by using " a pen and a phone."
@TheWalker: "If Congress can't pass the law, then King Obama will make
one!"actually, he's the head of the executive branch of the
government. That means he is essentially the CEO and is responsible for setting
workplace policy for federal employees and federal contractors. Just like the
CEO of a regular corporation. He did not create a new law, he modified in
existing policy to include one more group of people. The real
heartburn on this is not the president setting a workplace policy covering
federal employees and contractors.People are objecting because they
feel that they are licensed by God to abuse a group of citizens – gay men,
lesbians, and transgender people.The president has said that you are
free religiously to abuse whomever you wish. But if you're taking federal
dollars or working for the federal government abusing citizens is not allowed,
even if your religion says you can.Monotheistic religions gain power
using us/them paradigm. God approves of insiders, god hates outsiders. That
drives fund-raising and group cohesiveness. Works in religion, not in a
pluralistic melting pot society where all are created equal.
Why do I have to log in to comment to like previous comments sometimes and at
other times just go to comments? This time I had to open a comment box to
like the other comments.
California our Golden State once again leads the way.Mormons are you listening?
Change and equality is on the way for all of us, get ready for it LDS
members,dont be left behind.
@ StormwalkerAs usual, you're knocking them out of the park.
Love to read your thoughtful, informed comments.
Omni Scent. Its not about the number of executive orders but the content of the
executive order. The majority of the executive orders by our current Presidents
predecessors were constitutional. There is no basis for your argument on the
number. It is strictly content. That is why we have three branches of
government for checks and balances.As one of the founding fathers
said: "When government fears the people it is called liberty, but when the
people fear the government it is called tyranny".John F Kennedy
(a Democrat) said these profound words " Ask not want the country can do for
you, ask what you can do for your country". In todays America its become