It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Six GOP Hopefuls Vow To Enshrine Anti-Gay Discrimination Into Law

page: 5
43
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 12:46 PM
link   


No I didn't.
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Are you attempting double speak on me?

You said that you agree with me that Kim Davis shouldn't have discriminated?




posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 12:48 PM
link   
They conveniently left off the Democratic candidates

Cool propaganda OP



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 12:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien




Are you attempting double speak on me?


No, I'm saying you're wrong.



You said that you agree with me that Kim Davis shouldn't have discriminated?


Yes. The government is not a person.



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 12:50 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Neither are corporations.



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 12:50 PM
link   
a reply to: OhOkYeah

What Dem candidates have signed on to it?



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 12:51 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Defined by the law, they are considered persons.



Defines "person" as any person regardless of religious affiliation, including corporations and other entities regardless of for-profit or nonprofit status.



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 12:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Deaf Alien




Are you attempting double speak on me?


No, I'm saying you're wrong.



You said that you agree with me that Kim Davis shouldn't have discriminated?


Yes. The government is not a person.


So... please think about what you said.

Kim Davis is a person. According to you the government shouldn't discriminate against her and YET... you agreed that the government shouldn't discriminate against gay people.

The bill protects Kim Davis the right to discriminate.



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 12:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien

Did you read the bill?



Authorizes the Attorney General to bring an action to enforce this Act against the Government Accountability Office or an establishment in the executive branch, other than the U.S. Postal Service or the Postal Regulatory Commission, that is not an executive department, military department, or government corporation.





The bill protects Kim Davis the right to discriminate.


It doesn't. You're wrong.



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 12:56 PM
link   
Let's pick apart the bill. It's dubious wording is making me have second thoughts on my earlier statements. In other words, I'm willing to fully admit that I may have been wrong.




Prohibits the federal government from taking discriminatory action against a person on the basis that such person believes or acts in accordance with a religious belief or moral conviction that: (1) marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or (2) sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage.

Defines "discriminatory action" as any federal government action to discriminate against a person with such beliefs or convictions, including a federal government action to:

alter the federal tax treatment of, cause any tax, penalty, or payment to be assessed against, or deny, delay, or revoke certain tax exemptions of any such person;
disallow a deduction of any charitable contribution made to or by such person;
withhold, reduce, exclude, terminate, or otherwise deny any federal grant, contract, subcontract, cooperative agreement, loan, license, certification, accreditation, employment, or similar position or status from or to such person; or
withhold, reduce, exclude, terminate, or otherwise deny any benefit under a federal benefit program.
Requires the federal government to consider to be accredited, licensed, or certified for purposes of federal law any person who would be accredited, licensed, or certified for such purposes but for a determination that the person believes or acts in accordance with such a religious belief or moral conviction.

Permits a person to assert an actual or threatened violation of this Act as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding and to obtain compensatory damages or other appropriate relief against the federal government.

Authorizes the Attorney General to bring an action to enforce this Act against the Government Accountability Office or an establishment in the executive branch, other than the U.S. Postal Service or the Postal Regulatory Commission, that is not an executive department, military department, or government corporation.

Defines "person" as any person regardless of religious affiliation, including corporations and other entities regardless of for-profit or nonprofit status.



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 12:57 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

No.

Kim Davis was exercising her religion freedom when she refused to issue marriage certificates. According to you the government can not deny her that.



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 12:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien




No.

Kim Davis was exercising her religion freedom when she refused to issue marriage certificates. According to you the government can not deny her that.


Yes. She can step aside and let someone else do it. The government, however, cannot.



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 01:00 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Yes so what's the problem?

What is the bill really for? Nothing?



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 01:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: OhOkYeah

What Dem candidates have signed on to it?


Several republicans did NOT sign onto it, yet were included on the list indicating so. Why were the democrats intentionally left off?



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 01:00 PM
link   
another belief that is held by a few church doctrines, and the people that follow them is that a women shouldn't be working, unless of course, her husband wants her to be.
so, well, following the same logic that is being used to support laws trying to circumvent the gay's new found rights, well, we would have to also accept that employers can discriminate when hiring women, even deciding that in order to stay employed, well, the women should bring in written permission slips signed by their husband every so often to validate that their husband doesn't mind them working.



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 01:01 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

How very refreshing.

Please don't confuse this FADA with the Equality Act presented by the Dems.
“The Equality Act”: Democrats push bill banning LGBT discrimination



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 01:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

That's me.

There is no need for scientific test proof positive.


Your litmus paper better turn gay pink and not hetro blue, or you are lying...



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 01:02 PM
link   
a reply to: OhOkYeah

There are NO DEM CANDIDATES running for President who have signed on to it.
There are SIX GOP candidates who have.

What the hell are you talking about?

edit on 12/19/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 01:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien




Yes so what's the problem?

What is the bill really for? Nothing?


Well it isn't some christian or republican conspiracy, that's for sure.



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 01:02 PM
link   
a reply to: OhOkYeah

Those six DID sign on to it, according to the sources.
www.congress.gov...

And here is the legislation itself which has 152 cosponsors in the House:

Cosponsors: 152 (this is in the House of Reps)
Of those, ONE (1) is Democrat.

If you have a source showing that any of the Dems of the POTUS candidates have signed on, kindly present it.

Remember, the contenders on both sides are not "Representatives" in the House of Representatives. So, sponsorship isn't going to include them.

Here's another source for you:

“If elected, I pledge to push for the passage of the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA) and sign it into law during the first 100 days of my term as President.”

So far, six candidates have signed the pledge:

U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas)
U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-Florida)
Dr. Ben Carson
Carly Fiorina
Former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pennsylvania)
Former Governor Mike Huckabee (R-Arkansas)
Four candidates did not sign the pledge but have expressed public support for FADA:

Former Governor Jeb Bush (R-Florida)
U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina)
U.S. Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky)
Donald Trump
Four candidates did not sign the pledge and did not respond to our request to indicate support for FADA:

Governor Chris Christie (R-New Jersey)
Governor John Kasich (R-Ohio)
Former Governor George Pataki (R-New York)
Former Governor Jim Gilmore (R-Virginia)
“It has become clear that the First Amendment Defense Act is rapidly becoming a signature issue that unifies the GOP. Three out of the four top contenders for the nomination — Carson, Cruz, and Rubio — have pledged to prioritize passing FADA in their first 100 days of office. Additionally, Bush, Graham, Paul, and now for the first time, Donald Trump, have publicly expressed support for FADA. Real, concrete protections for gay marriage dissenters appear to be just one election victory away,” Maggie Gallagher, Senior Fellow at American Principles Project said in a released statement.

Source


edit on 12/19/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 01:03 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Yes, it is. It is a total "Christian Republican Right-Wing" thing.



new topics

top topics



 
43
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join