Bobby Jindal Promises Executive Order Allowing Discrimination Against Gay People

Washington Post

Text of Executive Order

When Bobby Jindal's "Marriage and Conscience Act" (the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of Louisiana) failed in Louisiana's House of Representatives, Jindal, a huge critic of Obama's Executive Orders, took it upon himself to promise his own Executive Order that does what the failed legislation would have done.

A Republican critic of President Obama’s executive orders will issue an executive order of his own that some say will allow Louisiana businesses to discriminate against gays and lesbians.
...
“We are disappointed by the committee’s action to return the Louisiana Marriage and Conscience Act to the calendar,” Jindal said in a statement, as the Times-Picayune reported. “We will be issuing an Executive Order shortly that will … prevent the state from discriminating against persons or entities with deeply held religious beliefs that marriage is between one man and one woman.”

In the past, Jindal has criticized the White House’s executive orders on immigration as end-runs around the legislative branch.

On Obama's Executive Orders, he said:

"If the President wants to make the case that the law should be changed, he should go make the case to Congress and our people. This is an arrogant, cynical political move by the President, and it’s why so many Americans no longer trust this President to solve the problems we face.”

The failed legislation read:

Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary,this state shall not take any adverse action against a person, wholly or partially, on the basis that such person acts in accordance with a religious belief or moral conviction about the institution of marriage.

Source

So, Louisiana will discriminate regardless what the people or the legislature of the state have to say about it! Jindal will decree legal discrimination.

“We will be issuing an Executive Order shortly that will … prevent the state from discriminating against persons or entities with deeply held religious beliefs that marriage is between one man and one woman.”

I see that as protecting religious freedoms for churches, so they won't be forced to provide same sex marriage. I'm not seeing the law protecting religious rights as a law allowing discrimination against gay people. Louisiana doesn't have legalized same sex marriage. Or is this for something else that I've missed???


** Disclosure - before anyone jumps down my throat - I'm in favor of marriage equality.

originally posted by: FlyersFan

“We will be issuing an Executive Order shortly that will … prevent the state from discriminating against persons or entities with deeply held religious beliefs that marriage is between one man and one woman.”

I see that as protecting religious freedoms for churches, so they won't be forced to provide same sex marriage. I'm not seeing the law protecting religious rights as a law allowing discrimination against gay people. Louisiana doesn't have legalized same sex marriage. Or is this for something else that I've missed???


** Disclosure - before anyone jumps down my throat - I'm in favor of marriage equality.

I am completely in favor of marriage equality. What I don't get is forcing those that are not in favor due to religious beliefs, being forced to marry same sex couples. I don't really get why that same sex couple would even want to be united together by a church or priest who doesn't actually support it....baffles me.

I don't think there should be a law that says they can't get married, but I don't think forcing a church to marry them is the right way to go about getting it done.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

At one time, you stated that you would defend religious institutions against any encroachment towards their rights.

Do you still feel that way?

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic
So this guy is a bigot, and a hypocrite. Sounds like American religion and politics as usual to me. Some things never change.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: FlyersFan

“We will be issuing an Executive Order shortly that will … prevent the state from discriminating against persons or entities with deeply held religious beliefs that marriage is between one man and one woman.”

I see that as protecting religious freedoms for churches, so they won't be forced to provide same sex marriage. I'm not seeing the law protecting religious rights as a law allowing discrimination against gay people. Louisiana doesn't have legalized same sex marriage. Or is this for something else that I've missed???


** Disclosure - before anyone jumps down my throat - I'm in favor of marriage equality.

I am completely in favor of marriage equality. What I don't get is forcing those that are not in favor due to religious beliefs, being forced to marry same sex couples. I don't really get why that same sex couple would even want to be united together by a church or priest who doesn't actually support it....baffles me.

I don't think there should be a law that says they can't get married, but I don't think forcing a church to marry them is the right way to go about getting it done.

I don't get this, either. If I were part of the LGBT sector, I certainly wouldn't want to be married by a minister of one of the most bigoted religions on earth. Just doesn't make sense.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

I've yet to see an issue where a gay couple forced a church to marry them against its will. If one exists, the incidents certainly aren't widespread.

In my opinion, this opens up the possibility for private business to discriminate against people based on their sexual preferences.

People can believe what they want and churches can preach whatever they want, but when it comes to the private marketplace we must ensure that everyone is treated equally.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Discrimination has a negative impact on the psyche of the individual (or group of individuals) to whom that discrimination is geared towards and could be construed as unacceptable in a free and modern society.

You see, my understanding of the Constitution of the United States of America (one of the most amazing documents ever to be penned) is that, at a fundamental level, it allows equal protections for the individual and the collective and no-one must ever be negatively impacted by the decisions or actions of an individual or the collective.

Do as you would be done by and live & let live.

originally posted by: FlyersFan
I see that as protecting religious freedoms for churches, so they won't be forced to provide same sex marriage.

Churches are already protected. And the phrase, "persons or entities" means just that.

I'm not seeing the law protecting religious rights as a law allowing discrimination against gay people. Louisiana doesn't have legalized same sex marriage.

This is one of the preemptive laws in advance of the Supreme Court's judgment on marriage equality. If they say that a state cannot ban gay marriage, it will be legal in every state.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
What I don't get is forcing those that are not in favor due to religious beliefs, being forced to marry same sex couples.

This is absolutely NOT about forcing anyone to marry anyone. It's about the government not being able to step in and rectify discrimination in businesses.

Lousiana Governor Bobby Jindal on Tuesday (19 May) issued an executive order allowing businesses to turn away LGBTI customers, two hours after a House panel rejected a 'religious freedom' bill.

'I’m issuing an Executive Order to prevent the state from discriminating against people, charities and family-owned businesses with deeply held religious beliefs that marriage is between one man and one woman,' the Republican said. - See more at: www.gaystarnews.com...

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

At one time, you stated that you would defend religious institutions against any encroachment towards their rights.

Do you still feel that way?

As long as their "rights" don't infringe on the rights of the rest of us. Sure.

originally posted by: beezzer
At one time, you stated that you would defend religious institutions against any encroachment towards their rights.

Do you still feel that way?

Absolutely. This is not about "religious institutions" at all.

a reply to: Klassified

If the Supreme Court rules in favor of gay marriage, would religious institutions be forced to recognize them?

a reply to: beezzer

No. THIS IS NOT ABOUT CHURCHES. This is about businesses.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
Churches are already protected. And the phrase, "persons or entities" means just that.

Churches are entities.
Ministers and priests are persons.

This is one of the preemptive laws in advance of the Supreme Court's judgment on marriage equality. If they say that a state cannot ban gay marriage, it will be legal in every state.

Ahhh ... okay. That puts some context on this for me. Thanks.

I bet it's going to be a states rights vs potential federal law thing.

I'm still seeing a law to protect churches (meaning their priests, ministers, rabbis, etc too). Although I suppose there will be people who will abuse the law and use it to discriminate with ... like denial of wedding cakes to same sex couples, etc.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
It's about the government not being able to step in and rectify discrimination in businesses.

I went and looked at the words spoken by Jindal and I'm not seeing that this is intended just for business. (I don't doubt you ... I'm just not seeing it). Can we get the wording of the expected executive order so we can take a look? It would be helpful. Is it out yet??

ETA ... I'm finding only this -

'I’m issuing an Executive Order to prevent the state from discriminating against people, charities and family-owned businesses with deeply held religious beliefs that marriage is between one man and one woman,' the Republican said.

Looks like the Holly Hobby thing ... a religious family owned business, the family shouldn't be forced to go against their faith in their faith based business??? The law is to protect the religious based business owners from being forced to go against their faith.

Like having a Muslim based business wouldn't have to sell alcohol, or Jewish faithed business (like a kosher deli) wouldn't have to serve bacon.

a reply to: FlyersFan

Churches, priests, ministers and rabbis are already protected under the first amendment. This protects business owners.

a reply to: FlyersFan

He hasn't written it yet. Or released it. If you read the links I've given, you will get the idea. Several states are putting up legislation in advance of the SC ruling. This is the first one where an EO has been promised when it failed in other states.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: beezzer

No. THIS IS NOT ABOUT CHURCHES. This is about businesses.

This is the equivalent of saying that abortion is 'not about the convenience to murder a baby...it's about WOMAN'S HEALTH!'


Rational people don't buy it for one minute.