Six candidates for president have signed a pledge supporting the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA). FADA is a piece of legislation that would enshrine discrimination into law, prohibiting the federal government from stepping in when people or businesses discriminate because they believe “marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman” or that “sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage.”
In a press statement Tuesday Equality Federation said, “Freedom of religion is important; it’s part of what makes America great. That’s why it’s already protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution. The rule of law is also important, and we can’t just create sweeping religious exemptions for people to pick and choose how to follow our laws. Exemptions like this could result in unintended consequences:”
– Any business that is not a publicly traded for-profit entity can discriminate against same-sex couples and their families. The implications are enormous, exposing millions of LGBT people to potential discrimination. Less than one percent of the 27 million businesses in the United States are publicly traded. The rest may discriminate at will based on their owners’ and employees’ personal objections to marriage equality.
-Only those who oppose same-sex marriage would receive special legal protections. It does not give these same protections to those who support marriage equality, potentially and ironically violating both the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
-The revised bill leaves a loophole for not-for-profit federal contractors, allowing them to discriminate against or deny critical services to same-sex couples and their families.
“It’s unfortunate that in this day and age the LGBTQ community must still work so hard for the very basic American freedoms we should all have an opportunity to enjoy,” said Ian Palmquist, Director of Leadership Programs of Equality Federation. We should treat others the way we’d like to be treated, and businesses that are open to the public should be open to us all. By signing this pledge, these six candidates are placing themselves squarely on the wrong side of history. As a nation, we can do better.”
We cannot wait to vote for one of these six candidates. We feel that marriage should only be between a man and a woman!
Diana I’m taking a moment to thank you for showing everyone why the 6 candidates mentioned above are not who the United States needs in the highest office. Also thank you for taking time out of your day to show those of us who are LGBT+, or an ally, why we need to vote.
We cannot wait for the day when discrimination is legal again, either. Especially discrimination against women and Christians. We’ll gladly discriminate against women who violate the mandate against women who speak in church or who attempt to teach men, because it is forbidden by the bible for women to do those things.
Well if you want to waste your vote on one of these six please go ahead. Not one of them has a chance of winning. Your “feelings” are not as important as equality in all aspects of life. You have the freedom to believe what you wish but then so does everyone else.
You should get on to doing good stuff for all people and quit trying to ruin the lives of millions of others. Those millions include “the gays”, their families, their friends, their children, their pastors and at least 67 % of the general public.
I am glad you feel that way. I will not have to feel sorry for you when you get what you deserve. They are only doing this to get the scared and uninformed vote. It appears to have reached it’s targeted audience. Run Diana Run.
I am saddened by such a statement being a gay Christian and having been on the board of my church, and on the diversity and inclusion board of a top 150 company. I will pray for you and people like you who choose to ignor God’s word to accomidate your own fears…
Please do Diana. I can’t wait until you are damn to hell you bigoted b**ch. I only hope God allows me to watch. Nothing would give more pleasure watching you suffer. I pray you don’t have children and if you do, I pray for them that they are nothing like you. Have a nice day:).
Diana, even though I strongly disagree with you I totally support your right to believe the way you do. You have every right to talk to your family and friends, write to your representatives, preach your viewpoint from a pulpit, or stand on a street corner announcing your beliefs with a bull horn. The first amendment’s freedom of speech and religion have been a good thing for America. But please remember that my rights as a LGBT person don’t in any way harm you. If I get married to a same-sex partner you aren’t hurt in any way. If I have the ability to get and keep a job it doesn’t effect you. My getting housing and not having to worry about losing my place to live because of my sexual orientation doesn’t in any way make your life difficult. All I want is to have a chance to live my life, practice my faith, and be treated respectfully. I’m sure you want that too.
I will NOT vote for any of these six!
Well, feelings aside, this IS a civil right. My marriage conducted by a Chaplin in Washington DC does not waterdown your union. We did NOT expect nor desire blessings of the United METHODIST CHURCH even though i am a local certified Lay Speaker as well as a cradle Methodist. Love, my brethren, is Love. I won’t judge your union if you do me the honor of the same. Peace be with you.
In the assumption that each of these presidential candidates is predicating their opinion based on their personal religious views and not wanting to ascribe those to any particular religion but to Christianity in the main, I would ask a simple question: What would Jesus do? This phrase, which was popularized in the 1990s among Christian youth, asks one to examine the teachings and practices of Jesus Christ for answers regarding how to live in this world according to His words. In the context of the New Testament (NIV), Jesus instructs mankind: “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples if you love one another.” (NIV, John 13:34-35). In other words, this is the “Golden Rule” simply stated as “treat people the way you would like other people to treat you.” How much more clearly can it be stated? In my mind, I do not understand how these candidates, claiming religious principle, can justify legislating such discriminatory “rights” ascribed specifically to legalize the practice of one person’s rights to the detriment of another person’s. As an illustration, can you see Jesus as the owner of the Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado, informing a gay couple wanting to order a wedding cake that because of His religious beliefs the store’s policy was to deny service to customers who wished to order baked goods to celebrate a same-sex couple’s wedding1? How is that compatible with His teachings? I’ve heard the argument that these Christians “love these people, but hate their sin”; please show me where and when Jesus, the Redeemer, Son of God, says that you may judge others and selectively decide how to treat them. To the point: “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye. “(NIV, Matthew 7:1-5) With regard to the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights, over time the meaning and understanding of these documents as written has been revised by Amendments and adjudicated before the United States Supreme Court, as well as in lower courts across the nation. The piece of legislation, First Amendment Defense Act (FADA), which is being supported by the six candidates, namely Sen. Ted Cruz, Sen. Marco Rubio, Dr. Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, former Sen. Rick Santorum and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, not only gives rise to the legalization of discrimination by law, it also contradicts the very religious teachings upon which their argument is based. According to an article written by Walter Olson published in Newsweek in September 2015: “The sum of this would be to create an extremely broad new category of anti-discrimination law—retaliatory discrimination based on a certain set of beliefs or acts—which would offer protected group status to powerful institutions as well as individuals, and afford very valuable legal leverage: recipients of federal subsidies, for example, could challenge any cutoff as motivated at least “partially” by political animus. Astoundingly, the protection would run in one direction only: It would cover those who favor traditional definitions of marriage, while leaving those who might see merit in same-sex marriage or cohabitation or non-marital sex perfectly exposed to being fired, audited or cut off from public funds in retaliatory ways.”2 I am not a biblical scholar nor am I an expert with regard to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, but I do have an opinion based on the philosophy that to be an honorable human being you must be as the Samaritan described in Luke 10:25-37; notwithstanding any difference of belief, you must follow the “Golden Rule”.
1 http://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminated-against-gay-couple/
2 http://www.newsweek.com/gay-marriage-and-religious-rights-say-nada-fada-370860
This will be a tragedy. If one of them becomes president, I will seriously think of moving to another country. They are ridiculous.
Watch what you want to deny others. Your day will come and we’ll see to it