Equality Act passes house

[lfromnj]

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2019/roll217.xml

No democrat defections besides no voters.

One of the more interesting GOP votes was Susan Brooks or In 5th which is basically MO 2nd but in Indiana.

[Hammy]

Doesn't matter, Dems will abandon it in the name of bipartisan compromise once they have the power to actually enact it, as they do with everything else.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Doesn't matter, Dems will abandon it in the name of bipartisan compromise once they have the power to actually enact it, as they do with everything else.

This is exactly the reverse of what is happening. Democrats would rather signal a maximalist position to their base than compromise to get something passed.  If they were at all interested in compromising, they'd put forward a bill like what was passed in Utah, that might get enough Republican support to avoid a filibuster. 

[libertpaulian]

Anyone think Brooks will get Lugar'ed for this vote?

[lfromnj]

Anyone think Brooks will get Lugar'ed for this vote?

For one vote?

I doubt it.

[Thank you for being a friend...]

The reality is that a lot of the discrimination against LGBTQ people comes from religion and the excuses for discrimination are religious arguments:
- a gay boy is kicked out of his conservative Christian school because he came out to his friends
- a gay employee at a conservative Christian company is fired for getting married to another gay person

A law with all of these holes for religious excuses could become worse than having no law at all since it would just restate legally that discrimination is lawful if it is done with a religious conviction.

There were people that refused to serve black people because it went against their religious beliefs - many arguments defending segregation were based on a "sincere" religious view.

Religious freedom yes, as long as it does not harm others and in this case, the "religious freedom" conservatives demand is simply discrimination against an entire group.  It's not even disguised well - it's blatant discrimination.  It wouldn't be acceptable for any other group of human beings - so why is it acceptable for this particular group?

[Thank you for being a friend...]

They're wasting their time. We are living under a divided government right now. Nothing that favors either party gets accomplished under a divided government.

When 99% of our issues are strictly party line and highly partisan, it's a miracle that even 1% of the things that aren't are accomplished.  Nothing's getting done period.  That's either a blessing or a curse of this kind of system (depending who you are and what the issue is).  Nobody's getting what they want, and nobody's getting what they don't want.  #Happy50thBirthdayStonewall

[Virginiá]

They're wasting their time. We are living under a divided government right now. Nothing that favors either party gets accomplished under a divided government.

They know that. The point is to signal to the base (and country) what you'd like to do, and to show them you are ready to do it when it does become possible.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

The reality is that a lot of the discrimination against LGBTQ people comes from religion and the excuses for discrimination are religious arguments:
- a gay boy is kicked out of his conservative Christian school because he came out to his friends
- a gay employee at a conservative Christian company is fired for getting married to another gay person

A law with all of these holes for religious excuses could become worse than having no law at all since it would just restate legally that discrimination is lawful if it is done with a religious conviction.

There were people that refused to serve black people because it went against their religious beliefs - many arguments defending segregation were based on a "sincere" religious view.

Religious freedom yes, as long as it does not harm others and in this case, the "religious freedom" conservatives demand is simply discrimination against an entire group.  It's not even disguised well - it's blatant discrimination.  It wouldn't be acceptable for any other group of human beings - so why is it acceptable for this particular group?

It isn't just about this group.  Plenty of religious organizations have requirements dealing with belief and behavior.  Should a Muslim school be required to hire an atheist?

[lfromnj]

The reality is that a lot of the discrimination against LGBTQ people comes from religion and the excuses for discrimination are religious arguments:
- a gay boy is kicked out of his conservative Christian school because he came out to his friends
- a gay employee at a conservative Christian company is fired for getting married to another gay person

A law with all of these holes for religious excuses could become worse than having no law at all since it would just restate legally that discrimination is lawful if it is done with a religious conviction.

There were people that refused to serve black people because it went against their religious beliefs - many arguments defending segregation were based on a "sincere" religious view.

Religious freedom yes, as long as it does not harm others and in this case, the "religious freedom" conservatives demand is simply discrimination against an entire group.  It's not even disguised well - it's blatant discrimination.  It wouldn't be acceptable for any other group of human beings - so why is it acceptable for this particular group?

True I agree. There should never be a religious exemption for discrimination and it should just be legal whether the person is religious or not.

One of the few exemptions I have currently is something like an adoption agency. Children's lives shouldn't be thrown away like that.

[Corbyn is (no longer) the leader of the Labour Party]

wow, the republicans that voted for this are very very brave

[Hammy]

The reality is that a lot of the discrimination against LGBTQ people comes from religion and the excuses for discrimination are religious arguments:
- a gay boy is kicked out of his conservative Christian school because he came out to his friends
- a gay employee at a conservative Christian company is fired for getting married to another gay person

A law with all of these holes for religious excuses could become worse than having no law at all since it would just restate legally that discrimination is lawful if it is done with a religious conviction.

There were people that refused to serve black people because it went against their religious beliefs - many arguments defending segregation were based on a "sincere" religious view.

Religious freedom yes, as long as it does not harm others and in this case, the "religious freedom" conservatives demand is simply discrimination against an entire group.  It's not even disguised well - it's blatant discrimination.  It wouldn't be acceptable for any other group of human beings - so why is it acceptable for this particular group?

It isn't just about this group.  Plenty of religious organizations have requirements dealing with belief and behavior.  Should a Muslim school be required to hire an atheist?

Except the people aren't being discriminated against because they don't belong to the religion the school claims to be part of--they're being discriminated against because American Christianity has decided to single out gays as the one "sin" they can't tolerate--you don't see people getting kicked out because they or their parents are adulterers, or have lied, etc (i.e. against the actual ten commandments), now do you?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

The reality is that a lot of the discrimination against LGBTQ people comes from religion and the excuses for discrimination are religious arguments:
- a gay boy is kicked out of his conservative Christian school because he came out to his friends
- a gay employee at a conservative Christian company is fired for getting married to another gay person

A law with all of these holes for religious excuses could become worse than having no law at all since it would just restate legally that discrimination is lawful if it is done with a religious conviction.

There were people that refused to serve black people because it went against their religious beliefs - many arguments defending segregation were based on a "sincere" religious view.

Religious freedom yes, as long as it does not harm others and in this case, the "religious freedom" conservatives demand is simply discrimination against an entire group.  It's not even disguised well - it's blatant discrimination.  It wouldn't be acceptable for any other group of human beings - so why is it acceptable for this particular group?

It isn't just about this group.  Plenty of religious organizations have requirements dealing with belief and behavior.  Should a Muslim school be required to hire an atheist?

Except the people aren't being discriminated against because they don't belong to the religion the school claims to be part of--they're being discriminated against because American Christianity has decided to single out gays as the one "sin" they can't tolerate--you don't see people getting kicked out because they or their parents are adulterers, or have lied, etc (i.e. against the actual ten commandments), now do you?

Where on earth did you get that idea?   Of course they do.

[Suburbia]

wow, the republicans that voted for this are very very brave

They represent once rock ribbed Republican suburbs trending blue...like Susan Brooks.

[7,052,770]

The reality is that a lot of the discrimination against LGBTQ people comes from religion and the excuses for discrimination are religious arguments:
- a gay boy is kicked out of his conservative Christian school because he came out to his friends
- a gay employee at a conservative Christian company is fired for getting married to another gay person

A law with all of these holes for religious excuses could become worse than having no law at all since it would just restate legally that discrimination is lawful if it is done with a religious conviction.

There were people that refused to serve black people because it went against their religious beliefs - many arguments defending segregation were based on a "sincere" religious view.

Religious freedom yes, as long as it does not harm others and in this case, the "religious freedom" conservatives demand is simply discrimination against an entire group.  It's not even disguised well - it's blatant discrimination.  It wouldn't be acceptable for any other group of human beings - so why is it acceptable for this particular group?

It isn't just about this group.  Plenty of religious organizations have requirements dealing with belief and behavior.  Should a Muslim school be required to hire an atheist?

To be an imam or religious adviser? No. Being a Muslim is obviously a BFOQ.

To be a lunch lady? Maybe. Requiring the cook to be knowledgeable about and 100% compliant with Muslim dietary rules would be fine.

To be a janitor or secretary? Yes. There is no justifiable reason that I can think of why there would be a need to discriminate for these positions, although I would be willing to change my mind if someone made a great argument.

[Corbyn is (no longer) the leader of the Labour Party]

You shouldn't need to use a religious regions to fire somebody you dislike. Private companies should be allowed to fire anybody for any reason. Being employed by a private business is a privilege, not a right.

So could I fire someone because I don't like because their black?

[Corbyn is (no longer) the leader of the Labour Party]

You shouldn't need to use a religious regions to fire somebody you dislike. Private companies should be allowed to fire anybody for any reason. Being employed by a private business is a privilege, not a right.

So could I fire someone because I don't like because their black?

It's not the right thing to do morally, but in a legal since it should be allowed since white people are fired simply because they're white. The civil rights act should be ALL or NOTHING.

Just curious can you give me the link for where it showed someone being fired for being white

[darklordoftech]

Doesn't matter, Dems will abandon it in the name of bipartisan compromise once they have the power to actually enact it, as they do with everything else.

However, the Democratic donors and base both support LGBT rights.

[Ilhan Apologist]

You shouldn't need to use a religious regions to fire somebody you dislike. Private companies should be allowed to fire anybody for any reason. Being employed by a private business is a privilege, not a right.

So could I fire someone because I don't like because their black?

It's not the right thing to do morally, but in a legal since it should be allowed since white people are fired simply because they're white. The civil rights act should be ALL or NOTHING.

Just curious can you give me the link for where it showed someone being fired for being white

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-03-07/discriminating-against-white-men-isn-t-google-s-big-diversity-problem

https://www.thelantern.com/2019/05/ohio-state-employee-sued-for-alleged-racism-in-firing-of-white-employee/comment-page-1/

(sigh) The first article wasn't about anyone getting fired for being white. The second one was about a freaking OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY EMPLOYEE. And he's getting sued anyway, so it's not like the firing was legal.