Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 44

Thread: Proposed First Amendment Defense Act

  1. #1

    Default Proposed First Amendment Defense Act

    Now that the Supreme Court upheld Marriage Equality, the Religious Right block in congress has this "First Amendment Defense Act" to enshrine overt discrimination of LGBT persons based upon Religion.

    It popped up within 48 hours of the Supreme Court Ruling.

  2. #2

    Default

    At least it's a legitimate legal avenue to pursue. However, I think the ship has sailed on this matter and it's a waste of their energy. Knock yourselves out, guys.

  3. #3

  4. #4

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by caitianx View Post
    https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-...bill/2802/text

    The above is straight off the congressional website.
    I misread your initial post, thinking the proposal was a constitutional amendment. This is even sillier.

  5. #5

    Default

    It's silly really. The US Constitution has legal supremacy above any law below it. Any law that is passed below it would have zero effect in 'beefing up' any part of the constitution, except obviously a constitutional amendment. In addition, any law passed to protect 'religious freedoms' but in turn violates parts of the US Constitution will be found invalid by the courts.

    This is just political posturing.

  6. #6

    Default

    Bring it on. The more they make asses of themselves like this, the less political stock they're going to have in the 2016 elections.

    I don't think they have a chance in hell of getting the Presidency next year to begin with, not with the clown car show they have going for their lineup right now. Clinton will beat them all handily, and I'm starting to suspect that if Sanders somehow manages to win the nomination, he could even beat any one of them.

    Republicans spent the past forty years trying and failing to make "liberal" a dirty word, now they've made their own brand a dirty word.

    Or maybe not so much a dirty word as much as something that just evokes subconscious ridicule.

    Energizing a bigoted, old, white, male base only works in off-year elections, and it's becoming less and less effective.

  7. #7

    Default

    May I suggest reading the bill or getting a better understanding of it before attacking it. I read it partially because it is rather short and only took a few minutes. Also, read it because I wanted to know what they were actually doing. Basically, it plainly states that the Federal Government cannot discriminate against people for believing that marriage is between a man and a woman. They will not treat people differently based on how they define marriage. Is this not what both sides want right now?

  8. #8

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremiah View Post
    May I suggest reading the bill or getting a better understanding of it before attacking it. I read it partially because it is rather short and only took a few minutes. Also, read it because I wanted to know what they were actually doing. Basically, it plainly states that the Federal Government cannot discriminate against people for believing that marriage is between a man and a woman. They will not treat people differently based on how they define marriage. Is this not what both sides want right now?
    No. I'd rather not forbid the federal government from prosecuting hate crimes under the bullshit guise of "religious freedom."

  9. #9

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Draugr View Post
    No. I'd rather not forbid the federal government from prosecuting hate crimes under the bullshit guise of "religious freedom."
    What he said.

    But again, religious arguments in defense of discrimination violates the Constitution, so a law at the level of this act still wouldn't prefect people who would discriminate in the name of religion. There's pretty strong legal precedent for this.

  10. #10

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Draugr View Post
    No. I'd rather not forbid the federal government from prosecuting hate crimes under the bullshit guise of "religious freedom."
    Please read the bill and understand for yourself instead of spreading more fear and hate. The bill does not prevent the prosecution of hate crimes or even mention them. This bill proposes to treat both views of marriage equally under the law. It further specifies that the law cannot tax differently, levy fines, or remove statuses and benefits for beliefs. Treat equally. Is this not what the LGBT community has been fighting to get? Why are you attacking attacking it?

Similar Threads

  1. Equal Rights Amendment
    By Drifter in forum Mature Topics
    Replies: 72
    Last Post: 02-Feb-2015, 03:46
  2. view on gay marriage amendment
    By codsk8er1 in forum Mature Topics
    Replies: 66
    Last Post: 26-Nov-2012, 22:04
  3. Video Games Protected By First Amendment
    By Jewbacca in forum Mature Topics
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 29-Jun-2011, 10:07
  4. US's fifth amendment: How far does it go?
    By Grutzvalt in forum Computers & Gaming
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 08-Nov-2010, 02:55
  5. Self-Defense in Philadelphia
    By DLGrif in forum Mature Topics
    Replies: 56
    Last Post: 19-Dec-2009, 12:42

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
ADISC.org - the Adult Baby / Diaper Lover / Incontinence Support Community.
ADISC.org is designed to be viewed in Firefox, with a resolution of at least 1280 x 1024.