Lyin' Ted is ready to introduce homophobic FADA bill

[Shadows]

The controversial First Amendment Defense Act (FADA) could be re-introduced this year, according to the bill’s Republican co-sponsors Senator Mike Lee, R-Utah, and Senator Ted Cruz, R-Texas, who say they still fully support the once-failed legislation. FADA, which protects people or businesses who refuse services to LGBTQ individuals, was introduced in 2015, but never made it past the first congressional hearing.

The bill’s text says the refusal of service can be based on two beliefs: that marriage “is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman” or “sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage.”

FADA allows individuals and businesses to sue the federal government for interfering with a refusal of service. It would also mandate the U.S. Attorney General to defend those businesses.

The bill already has the support of President-elect Donald Trump. In a statement on his campaign website, Trump said “If I am elected president and Congress passes the First Amendment Defense Act, I will sign it to protect the deeply held religious beliefs of Catholics and the beliefs of Americans of all faiths.”

[Shadows]

Honestly Trump is way more tolerable than Lyin' Ted. Can you imagine Lyin' Ted as president? Trump speaks sh** but with flattery & some decent people around he can be kept on a leash.

Lyin' Ted guy is a real life lunatic, a radical extremist!

[Shadows]

I think we can all agree that like the Senate Republicans, we too think that Lyin' Ted Cruz sucks!

Poor Caroline Cruz too seems to dislike her daddy - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gplpSfaouP8 - Look at the poor girl mistreated.

His college roommate hates him too - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIHLEUi7EWw

[Shadows]

I might be confused, but isn't this bill just saying that churches don't have to perform gay weddings and bakers don't have to bake cakes for gay weddings?  I imagine that it would still be against the law to refuse to bake a cake for someone who is gay.

Nope, this bill literally allows anyone to deny any service to gays or straight couples who have sex outside of marriage. That includes housing, food, beauty services, medical services, voter registration, literally anything.

I could see why someone would interpret it in that way, but it really appears to only be marriage related.

The bill’s text says the refusal of service can be based on two beliefs: that marriage “is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman” or “sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage.”

FADA allows individuals and businesses to sue the federal government for interfering with a refusal of service. It would also mandate the U.S. Attorney General to defend those businesses.

It clearly says any organization can deny any service. And not just that US AG has to defend individuals & businesses who defend these individuals & people who deny these gay people any services etc.

This is similar to Race based discrimination.

[Shadows]

I might be confused, but isn't this bill just saying that churches don't have to perform gay weddings and bakers don't have to bake cakes for gay weddings?  I imagine that it would still be against the law to refuse to bake a cake for someone who is gay.

Nope, this bill literally allows anyone to deny any service to gays or straight couples who have sex outside of marriage. That includes housing, food, beauty services, medical services, voter registration, literally anything.

I could see why someone would interpret it in that way, but it really appears to only be marriage related.

The bill’s text says the refusal of service can be based on two beliefs: that marriage “is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman” or “sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage.”

FADA allows individuals and businesses to sue the federal government for interfering with a refusal of service. It would also mandate the U.S. Attorney General to defend those businesses.

It clearly says any organization can deny any service. And not just that US AG has to defend individuals & businesses who defend these individuals & people who deny these gay people any services etc.

This is similar to Race based discrimination.

I fail to see how one could justify refusal to fix a gay man's car based off of their beliefs on marriage.  It wouldn't hold up in court.

It shouldn't hold up in court especially considering the court has ruled for gay marriage. But tomorrow a conservative Supreme court in say 2-3 years may actually support these stuff & agree to it.