Leaked Draft of Trump’s Religious Freedom Order Reveals Sweeping Plans to Legalize Discrimination

Just a reminder to my leftist friends out there who love to point to the rare (so far) occurrence of courts blocking Trump orders -- no modern president was reversed and blocked by the courts more than, mmm mmm mmm, Barack Hussein Obama.

Mmm mmm mmm...

In fact, we have to go all the way back to Zachary Taylor to find a president with a worse record before the Supreme Court than "constitutional scholar" Barack Hussein Obama.

Obama has the Worst SCOTUS Record in Modern History

I'm not religious and don't really have a dog in this hunt directly, but as a conservative who firmly believes that the rights of the individual and responsibility thereof are sacrosanct, I don't have any problem whatsoever with this Trump order.

Of course, I am somewhat biased in that I am a proud Trump supporter, but I'm also keenly sensitive to the intrusion of religion into government and would not hesitate to object accordingly if there were a good reason.

Just because one person wants to whip out their penis in the ladies room, and was told they can't...isn't discrimination. It is not discrimination when someone says "no...you can not do that". Now...if someone told a woman they can't use the woman's room due to race, etc...THAT is discrimination.

What some are asking for is SPECIAL laws to allow them to do what they want, regardless if they should. That is not equality nor fairness. When is it fair to say give this one person the right to do what they want, even if the majority doesn't want them to do so?

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
When is it fair to say give this one person the right to do what they want, even if the majority doesn't want them to do so?

As long as what that person wants isn't harming anyone else, then their right to do what they want trumps the majority's opinion every time.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Wide-Eyes

Why is that? Why would you think the civil rights leaders shakers and movers would go back to discrimination? They wouldn't.

I see stuff. I see hypocrisy and descent to a darker time in US history.

Just respect your country and appreciate that they're covering your lucky arse. If the bombs start dropping on you, you will remember the time when you felt safe.

Liberals can never figure out that freedom of choice has to be for everyone, not just the groups they approve of. You often wonder whether liberalism might be a symptom of some sort of a problem with rational thinking?

a reply to: TheTory

It is clear cut. The person being served can find the same services elsewhere.

Businesses only exist within societies. The ability to own and operate a business is therefore a benefit of being a member of a society. Similarly, having access to public accommodations is a benefit of living in a society.

When a business owner denies other members of society access to public accommodations, he is infringing upon the rights of those individuals to enjoy equally the benefits of the society from which the business owner has himself profited.

The bigot hiding behind "religious convictions" should have considered his inability to live up to his end of the bargain before starting a business serving the public.

a reply to: theantediluvian
So we will just use another excuse, like "I reserve my right" to serve people I feel are a danger to my customers. Just egg them on enough to get a little loud, and claim they are creating a hostile environment and ask the to leave.

I have seen it done before. Can't prove otherwise.

originally posted by: skeptikal1
Liberals can never figure out that freedom of choice has to be for everyone, not just the groups they approve of. You often wonder whether liberalism might be a symptom of some sort of a problem with rational thinking?

So if a Muslim American sets up a store in your town, but chooses to refuse to sell to Christians, you'll say "fair enough " and be fine with it?

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
There's a lot of hate and it isn't coming from the center.

Fixed your sentence to be more accurate

What excellent news, if true. People being given back their freedom to practice their religions.


Of course, the political judges on the west coast will already be sharpening their pencils...

originally posted by: fencesitter85

originally posted by: skeptikal1
Liberals can never figure out that freedom of choice has to be for everyone, not just the groups they approve of. You often wonder whether liberalism might be a symptom of some sort of a problem with rational thinking?

So if a Muslim American sets up a store in your town, but chooses to refuse to sell to Christians, you'll say "fair enough

" and be fine with it?

Yep... and if they can survive serving a smaller population then good for them.
Christians can happily shop elsewhere. Everyone has a choice and everyone has freedom.

originally posted by: notsure1

originally posted by: SaturnFX

originally posted by: notsure1
a reply to: olaru12

Yeah god forbid someone object to something. People should have the right to say no I wont maryy you go somewhere else.

No You cant use the girls restroom because You have a penis.

Just looks like we are getting more freedoms back to me.

No, we dont serve food to "your kind" here.

And no you are not welcome in our prayer room or our "safe space"

Universities?
heh..wouldn't it be amusing if all universities and therefore advanced degrees in medical, engineering, etc ended up using this to destroy the right wings educational opportunity?
Sorry bro, safe space..no right wingers here. go learn to be a good general laborer.

nothing like the dumbest of rules put forward with cheers from those who will also suffer.

originally posted by: SaturnFX

originally posted by: notsure1

originally posted by: SaturnFX

originally posted by: notsure1
a reply to: olaru12

Yeah god forbid someone object to something. People should have the right to say no I wont maryy you go somewhere else.

No You cant use the girls restroom because You have a penis.

Just looks like we are getting more freedoms back to me.

No, we dont serve food to "your kind" here.

And no you are not welcome in our prayer room or our "safe space"

Universities?
heh..wouldn't it be amusing if all universities and therefore advanced degrees in medical, engineering, etc ended up using this to destroy the right wings educational opportunity?
Sorry bro, safe space..no right wingers here. go learn to be a good general laborer.

nothing like the dumbest of rules put forward with cheers from those who will also suffer.

What does political leaning have to do with religious expression?

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: SaturnFX

I love how you throw in the bull#e about how they were born. Only hermaphrodites were born with gender confusion.

Ahh, good to know you know more than scientists

Scientific American discussing different brain patterns of trans

But I am sure you know better..what has science ever done for you, amirite?

your bigotry is literally on someones birth situation. consider that..its like hating..oh, I dont know..a skin tone.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: SaturnFX

originally posted by: notsure1

originally posted by: SaturnFX

originally posted by: notsure1
a reply to: olaru12

Yeah god forbid someone object to something. People should have the right to say no I wont maryy you go somewhere else.

No You cant use the girls restroom because You have a penis.

Just looks like we are getting more freedoms back to me.

No, we dont serve food to "your kind" here.

And no you are not welcome in our prayer room or our "safe space"

Universities?
heh..wouldn't it be amusing if all universities and therefore advanced degrees in medical, engineering, etc ended up using this to destroy the right wings educational opportunity?
Sorry bro, safe space..no right wingers here. go learn to be a good general laborer.

nothing like the dumbest of rules put forward with cheers from those who will also suffer.

What does political leaning have to do with religious expression?

Dont question my religion!


(check out the thread I just put up for the actual explanation of that)

originally posted by: SaturnFX

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: SaturnFX

originally posted by: notsure1

originally posted by: SaturnFX

originally posted by: notsure1
a reply to: olaru12

Yeah god forbid someone object to something. People should have the right to say no I wont maryy you go somewhere else.

No You cant use the girls restroom because You have a penis.

Just looks like we are getting more freedoms back to me.

No, we dont serve food to "your kind" here.

And no you are not welcome in our prayer room or our "safe space"

Universities?
heh..wouldn't it be amusing if all universities and therefore advanced degrees in medical, engineering, etc ended up using this to destroy the right wings educational opportunity?
Sorry bro, safe space..no right wingers here. go learn to be a good general laborer.

nothing like the dumbest of rules put forward with cheers from those who will also suffer.

What does political leaning have to do with religious expression?

Dont question my religion!


(check out the thread I just put up for the actual explanation of that)

Religious freedom is not about which political party your support. Your other thread is about Muslims taking over the world because of this, which I think is a little OTT.

I guess you do raise a good point about mental people claiming a religion based on any nutjob's ramblings, like Jedi's or Climate Change priests.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: TheTory

It is clear cut. The person being served can find the same services elsewhere.

Businesses only exist within societies. The ability to own and operate a business is therefore a benefit of being a member of a society. Similarly, having access to public accommodations is a benefit of living in a society.

When a business owner denies other members of society access to public accommodations, he is infringing upon the rights of those individuals to enjoy equally the benefits of the society from which the business owner has himself profited.

The bigot hiding behind "religious convictions" should have considered his inability to live up to his end of the bargain before starting a business serving the public.

So you disapprove of facebook and twitter censoring people like Milo then because they allegedly break their company rules? I ask because I never saw you in those threads condemning them.

originally posted by: UKTruth
So you disapprove of facebook and twitter censoring people like Milo then because they allegedly break their company rules? I ask because I never saw you in those threads condemning them.

To be fair, Milo isn't a movement, its one guy who has flagrantly broken rules time and time again.

Personally, I think the ban was fair, but the removing of his verified status wasn't.

And Twitter is most definitely silencing conservative voices. This has been verified multiple times. Dont know about Facebook. I dont use facebook..facebook is trash.

originally posted by: SaturnFX

originally posted by: UKTruth
So you disapprove of facebook and twitter censoring people like Milo then because they allegedly break their company rules? I ask because I never saw you in those threads condemning them.

To be fair, Milo isn't a movement, its one guy who has flagrantly broken rules time and time again.

Personally, I think the ban was fair, but the removing of his verified status wasn't.

And Twitter is most definitely silencing conservative voices. This has been verified multiple times. Dont know about Facebook. I dont use facebook..facebook is trash.

Movement or not, this was the key point i was replying to.

Businesses only exist within societies. The ability to own and operate a business is therefore a benefit of being a member of a society. Similarly, having access to public accommodations is a benefit of living in a society. When a business owner denies other members of society access to public accommodations, he is infringing upon the rights of those individuals to enjoy equally the benefits of the society from which the business owner has himself profited.

Now that most certainly applies to twitters treatment of Milo.

Personally, I think they are within their rights to ban him, just as I think it SHOULD be within another business owners right to refuse service to someone who breaks their rules of service - like a cake shop owner refusing a gay couple on religious grounds.
The ONLY difference right now is the law, but if the law changes, then I think that is a good thing.