A-- the President only had to issue the order after giving up on Congress to
pass a fair piece of legislation. B-- this quote from a GW Bush
order, by the DN is heinous " faith-based contractors may restrict hiring to
members of their own faith."---Taxpayer money should never go to
groups that only hire their own faith.C-- what is the DN doing by
printing a ridiculous fear-based, gay-baiting quote: “The problem with
their executive order is that it paves the way for the next one, which could
withhold the tax-exempt status or broadcast status or broadcast licenses for the
religious organizations holding biblical believes with which the administration
disagrees.”Do you really have such animus toward President
Obama that you believe he would withhold broadcast licences for religious
groups, no matter how nutty and far out they are?
"Pastor Robert Jeffress of Dallas’ First Baptist Church told Fox News
his fears of where lies the next battlefield: “The problem with their
executive order is that it paves the way for the next one, which could withhold
the tax-exempt status or broadcast status or broadcast licenses for the
religious organizations holding biblical believes with which the administration
disagrees.”Ah, the slippery slope again. No matter that this
nonsense has been going around the internet for at least twelve years so far,
with dire warnings about the end of the republic. It's still being used to
rally the masses whose attention span is as long as the sound bite.And did he really say "believes", not "beliefs"?The Deseret News operates in the bubble that is Utah. You have forgotten that
many of the evangelical Christians in this country loathe Mormons and will not
hire them if they have a legal right to not do so.
Malarkey. Baloney. Nonsense.Discrimination is wrong, no matter
what cloth your wrap it in. If the fundamentalists are so set on
ridding themselves of the burden of dealing with "sinners" on the
payroll of a government contract, then why don't they start with those who
violate one of the Ten Commandments. Do you really think that is going to
happen? No (you know the bad word) way. Fundamentalists want only
one thing. The power to demand that the majority of us accept their
"values" and put them into law. That works out real well in Iran
doesn't it (sarcasm intended).
Who would your god discriminate against?
Why should "faith-based" entities get a loophole to be able to
discriminate against LGBT citizens protected by the order, but you're not
advocating that anybody else get a loophole to be able to discriminate on the
basis of religion which is also protected in the order?Why? Because
This is troubling. Running a business is not a religious activity. Employers
should not impose their religious beliefs on people they hire. Your position is
about the imposition of religious beliefs of the people in power over the people
with little or no power. This isn't religious freedom at all. I wonder if
you would change your tune if you were in the minority.
Religous discrimination is discrimination. A strong, American leader would
always take a stand against discrimination no matter how one tries to disguise
Religion is blatantly standing before us and saying it wants to discriminate.
The president, and the government, are right to oppose this.
I wish the article had provided a real example. I'm confused about what
types of jobs this actually affects. A quote from the article: “With a
recent executive order, President Obama prohibited discrimination based on
sexual orientation in the hiring of those working under federal contract without
clearly including protections for the free exercise of religion.”What does religion have to do with government contracts? What is a
faith-based government contractor do? Why does our government need to hire
religious contractors? What type of job exists that is a federal contract and
which also requires a specific religion—and which religion?I’m not being snarky…I really can not get my brain around this
problem. Perhaps someone can clarify.
@FT 8:09 a.m. July 31, 2014Religous discrimination is
discrimination. A strong, American leader would always take a stand against
discrimination no matter how one tries to disguise it.----------------------Since it is the religions that are trying to
claim the right to discriminate, even when they take federal funds (part of
which being contributed by the people against whom they wish to discriminate) it
is entirely proper that there is no "religious exception" in the ban on
distrimination included in this executive order.
The President has no authority to legislate. Article 1, Section 1: "All
legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United
States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."It's time that the Court sent Obama the message that he needs to
hear. He is not a king. He cannot dictate policy or legislate anything. He
job is to enforce laws passed by Congress.
It's real simple DNews. If faith-based entities desire to dine at
Caesar's table and on Caesar's dime they must do do so under
Caesar's rules. Jesus was pretty clear about that.
FTYou are right. Religious discrimination is still
discrimination.So why do conservative religionists attempt to codify
into law their prejudices? Many mainstream religions accept women as leaders,
gay marriage and a host of other hot button issues. Yet the fundamentalist
crowd insist that these "liberal" religions have to follow their rules
and enshrine discrimination into the law.You can not have your cake
and eat it too
@Mike Richards,Issuing orders to the federal agencies over which he
is the CEO is not legislating, it is directing and he has constitutional
authority to do so (Article 2, Section 1, clause 1). I must note,
however, how strangely silent the religious right was when George W. Bush was
issuing his 291 executive orders and his 700+ signing statements.
The Deseret News is actually quoting Robert Jeffress? Seriously? I'm
thinking that whoever wrote this piece didn't run that particular name by
the DN Religion Editor.The DN quoting Robert Jeffress is like Ebony
magazine quoting David Duke. Laughing in disbelief here.
@ Mike: Executive orders are issued by the President to give instruction to
departments which are part of the executive branch, and therefore under his
purview as the head of the executive branch per the Constitution, or when
Congress has delegated legislative power to the executive branch. George Washington issued 8 executive orders, Franklin D. Roosevelt issued
3,522, Ronald Reagan issued 381, George W. Bush issued 291, and Barack Obama has
issued 183 as of 7/20/2014. The Constitutionality of specific
executive orders can be (and have been) challenged in Court. It is possible
this one will also be challenged - not on the grounds that Ovama did not have
authority to issue it, but on the grounds that it violates RFRA.
The feds should get out of the construction business. Then we'd only need
to be concerned with corruption in state capitols.
I guess I'm not getting all this restrictions on Freedom of Religion stuff.
I worship when I want and where I want. I don't feel any pressure by the
government to be of any religion, go to church, not go to church etc. I pray in
my own home anytime I want. I associate with other members of my own faith in
public whenever I want. Not getting the paranoia...
Have we become a nation of illiterates who can no longer read and understand
English?Obama ADDED legislation. He decided that he would determine
who could receive business from the Federal Government. That authority resides
in Congress, not in the executive branch. The President cannot legislate. He
can only enforce laws passed by Congress. Any 1st year lawyer could explain that
to you. Any judge could clearly see that Obama wrote legislation. He does not
have that authority.If Congress restricted government contracts to
only those approved by Obama, Congress would have clearly stated that fact.
Congress did not legislate any law requiring anything about "sexual
discrimination". Obama legislated. Period.
“That is a mainstream view, that Mormonism is a cult,” Jeffress told
reporters here. “Every true, born again follower of Christ ought to
embrace a Christian over a non-Christian.”Seriously? The DN
thinks anything this man has to say is worth quoting and repeating in their
@ Mike: From the article, "The order amends a 1965 order by President
Lyndon Johnson prohibiting some forms of discrimination by federal
contractors."I suggest you read the Administrative Procedures
Act of 1946.Congress delegated some power to the executive office,
including setting rules for federal contracts, and this falls within that.You should also read United States Code Titles 10, 31, 40, and 41. The
Code of Federal Regulations is also extremely helpful.If
Obama's order is illegal, so is the original 1965 order and the 2002 order
signed by Bush allowing faith-based contractors to restrict hiring to members of
their own faith.This executive order is not being challenged as
unconstitutional because it was issued - it is being challenged as not providing
enough leeway for religious entities to restrict hiring practices. Your
arguments are red-herrings.
The GOP has been taken over not by conservatives but by fascists who are using
religion to promote their agenda. Our economic decline over the past few decades
has given them new converts and a surge in money.They do not
compromise. They do not negotiate.They do not want democracy or free
thinkers.They merely dictate and others follow.That is
what's happening here. From the war in Iraq to "christianize" Iraq,
to gay marriage bans, to teaching creationism instead of evolution, or to allow
corporations to dictate to women their religious beliefs.It's
scary, because this is not at all what free thinking democracies are all about.
Those like Mikey Richards may celebrate and cheer lead rulings like
Hobby Lobby today. But what about tomorrow? Will he celebrate another fascist
ruling that takes away his freedom? Will women offer him the same
"condolences" that he has given to them?
Kalindra,With all due respect, the Constitution is still the Supreme
Law of the Land. There is no amendment that allows the Executive Branch to
legislate. Congress is the ONLY branch of government that has authority to
legislate. An Executive order, in this case, is legislation. It ADDS to the
law. That is legislation. Obama has added to and taken away from the law, at
his discretion, anything that he has wanted. He failed to implement
ObamaCare, even though that was his signature "legislation". Even though
more than 50% of the people have always be against ObamaCare, neither he nor the
Democrats in Congress have paid any attention to the people. They ramrodded
that bill through Congress, he signed it and then he refused to implement those
provisions which would defeat any Democrat running for office this year. You may think that the President can write legislation, but the Supreme
Law of the Land says otherwise. "All legislative powers herein granted
shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a
Senate and House of Representatives."
@ Mike Richards: If Congress passes legislation allowing the Executive Branch
to do something, then it becomes Constitutional for the Executive Branch to do
that. Every President since George Washington has issued executive
orders and many Presidents have used those executive orders to do the exact same
thing Obama has done - and this has been upheld by the Supreme Court as
Constitutional.It really is very simple - even if you don't
The federal government should not be used to give special religious
consideration for church owned businesses. Religion should stand or fall on its
own merit. If religions choose to own and operate businesses, that's OK,
but they should accept and abide all laws that pertain to business.
@Understands Math "The DN quoting Robert Jeffress is like Ebony magazine
quoting David Duke."Funny you should mention that, given that
it's only recently that the views about Ebony magazine held by the DN and
Southern Baptists like Robert Jeffress have differed much from those held by
[third try]@The Real MaverickActually it is facism that
taken over the left, libewral facism.They are the ones wanting to
dictate to everyone and every business, to control all from a central federal
authority.Take away religious freedoms and rights from those who
oppose and do want to ascribed to leftist doctrines.It is the right
that is crying out wanting to exercise their freedoms and rights, and their
conscience.It is Obama and his minions, others of the far left doing
the dictating. from school bake sales, and school lunches, to dictating what
light bulb you can use what energy source you must use, forcing leftist
propaganda to be taught in local schools, to dictating to bakers and enslaving
them to gays wishes, to dictating how the religious must act in the public
square.It is not facism on the right to speak out and help make laws
by constitutional means.
@The Real MaverickActually it is facism that taken over the left,
liberal/progressive facism.They are the ones wanting to dictate to
everyone and every business, to control all from a central federal authority.Take away religious freedoms and rights from those who oppose and do not
want to ascribed to leftist doctrines.It is the right that is crying
out wanting to exercise their freedoms and rights, and their conscience.It is Obama and his minions, others of the far left doing the dictating.
from school bake sales, and school lunches, to dictating what light bulb you can
use what energy source you must use, forcing leftist propaganda to be taught in
local schools, to dictating to bakers and enslaving them to gays wishes, to
dictating how the religious must act in the public square.It is not
facism on the right to speak out and help make laws by constitutional means.
So, in summary, the DN is joining with the far right religions in saying "We
want those federal contracts to pay for our expenses when we do this charity (!)
work. But we want these workers to be gay and / or heathen-free". Well, that's what Jesus would say, wouldn't he?I
wonder how they plan to treat hurricane victims who are gay. Will they give
them food, shelter, money? Or will they "politely decline" and refer
them to the Unitarian Universalist Service Committee workers, who are two states
I'm afraid you're conflating "protection" with "the right
to discriminate."Everyone is already protected in their right to
believe, to hold a religion, to belong to a congregation, to worship. No one is
jailed for apostasy in America, or heresy, or sacrilege. No one's religious
texts, instruments, or icons are seized and destroyed by the government, as the
Lapps' were in Sweden. No one is hung for proselytizing their faith, as
Quakers were in colonial Massachusetts.Religious rights are already
protected in the United States. Fully. For everyone.However, this
doesn't give anyone a right to discriminate in civil life on religious
grounds against anyone else. Quite the contrary. They have rights, too.If you don't understand the line between religion and civil
society, you need to move to a country where they're one and the same.
Unfortunately, in none of those countries would you, as a Mormon, or a Quaker,
have any religious rights.
Laura BilingtonHere is something to consider. If someone did not
want to hire me because I was a Mormon, I would not want to work for them
anyway. And I'd rather they be free from any legal prosecution to express
that attitude. And, I'd want to know that my employer did not like me
because of my religion. Or sexual orientation for that matter. The last
situation I'd want to be in is getting hired for a job by someone who
secretly hates me because of religion, sexual preference, (whatever) because the
law forces them to do so. Imagine how bad having a job like that would be for
someone who does not even understand why it is bad. And that the people they
work for secretly dispise them for some inane reason. I'm for more
information from people and how they think, not less because the threat of the
law makes people hide their predjudices. Better to let people like that expose
themselves, which ultimately will happen, and let others deal with them (or not)
@the Truth,Um, fascism is a right-wing ideology that promotes a
strong (read: dictatorial) central government that promotes nation and/or race
over the individual. In a fascist society the central government would promote a
"love your country or leave" mentality and mandate a tightly controlled
social regimentation that would define marriage law so that the mixing of races
would not be allowed and would probably frown on same sex marriage. The last,
powerful, fascist regime, in order to protect their racial, sexual, and
religious ideals, went so far as to send "inferior races," homosexuals,
and those with questionable religious ideas to concentration camps. That regime,
BTW, was placed in power by the majority and in compliance with the laws in
place at the time. Communism and socialism are left-wing ideologies
that promote a central government that owns and manages means of production,
transportation, and property then allocates resources out to the members of
society based on needs.
happy2bhere, I somehow doubt that you'd be happy to give up a chance for a
great job with a solid company because the current hiring manager (who
you're not likely to be dealing with, anyway, once you're on the job)
doesn't like Mormons. Most supervisors who don't like Mormons (or
women or blacks or whatever) are not shy about their prejudices to people they
consider "safe". If you were hired you on because your supervisor felt
forced to take you, it's highly unlikely that no one would tip you off as
to why he acted rudely toward you. Does this mean that the KKK
would be forced to hire an otherwise qualified Jew? Yes. Would a Jew even
apply there? Probably not.
@happy2bhere" If someone did not want to hire me because I was a
Mormon..."They would very likely be in violation of title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964--some exceptions apply--thereby subject to Federal
@my_two_cents_worthYou obviously know nothing but what leftist
elites and other leftist mouthpieces have taught you to believe about
fascism.fascism is neither left or right and has noting to do with
race.Hence any ideology can become fascist, and can exercise
fascistic control.We here often see the left mandating and trying
to mandate their socialistic, progressive and leftist views, and want everyone
and every business to abide by their views, r be punished or deprived o
frights.To try and pretend the left can't be or isn't
fascistic is just silly and absurd.You must remember the there is
no right in Europe that is equivalent to the right in america.Consequently it is wrong to make that assertion.The right in
europe would be more closely align to the mid left. the socialistic left here,
with communism the true left in Europe and the far left here,Our
more center left or moderate left would be even more right than the European
the truthNobody advocates that you should accept homosexuals into
your religion. However, they ask that you operate in a society that says you
may not use your religion to discriminate.I don't really know
what your don't understand about this. No one is telling you it is illegal
to believe what you will. I am sorry you find this offensive, but
that is the price we pay to live in a free society.
@my_two_cents_worth, Maudine, KalindraYour analysis and discussion
of the Constitution is entirely correct. That comes from the perspective of
someone who actually studied the constitution, both its breadth and depth and
not just the words on the surface, with competent professors, obtained a law
degree and has been guided professionally by the Constitution for the last 27
years (I'm a lawyer). There are some here who think that just because
they've read the Constitution, the know what it says and means. They prove
themselves wrong every time they post about it. You, on the other hand, appear
to get it right every time you post. Good job.
I'm shaking my head in dismay at this editorial. That someone thinks they
have a right to government contracts paid for by taxes and then can turn around
and discriminate against others with those dollars is ludicrous. The only thing
that would wake up this editorial board might be someone deciding that the
Mormons are definitely against their religion and can't be hired or served.
@ordinaryfolksSo you think you should be able to dictate how others
must live thier religion publically?How is that separation?
@the greater truth;So you think that someone should be able to
discriminate against other citizens in the public square, whenever, whyever,
however?How is that religious?
People need to remember we are not a Christian nation. People have religious
liberty, the right to believe as they choose.