Originally posted by aretood2
View Post
Baker A does not want to "show support" for gays by catering a gay wedding based on what their beliefs are.
Baker B does not want to show support for Mexicans by catering a gay wedding based on what their beliefs are.
BOTH are discriminatory, A against gays, B against Mexicans.
Sorry, I don't argue with strawmen.
I'll leave this as it stands so the conversation keeps context:
Section A, B and 1 are the main offenders.
Section A and B make it permissible for anyone to discriminate against LGBT people without the fear of federal reprisal via the law. Section 1 permits the Federal government to not recognize any of the secular tax benefits afforded a married couple. Sections 2-5 prevents the federal government from taking punitive action against federal employee's for discriminatory actions against people. They allow for the federal government to fire an employee because they had "gay sex", and refuse the -victim- legal recourse against the federal government based on any grounds.
A, and B of what section? Section 1 is just the title...I'm rather confused.
Section 2 is just a list of "findings".
Section 3 is what I am assuming that you mean.
Section A and B make it permissible for anyone to discriminate against LGBT people without the fear of federal reprisal via the law. Section 1 permits the Federal government to not recognize any of the secular tax benefits afforded a married couple. Sections 2-5 prevents the federal government from taking punitive action against federal employee's for discriminatory actions against people. They allow for the federal government to fire an employee because they had "gay sex", and refuse the -victim- legal recourse against the federal government based on any grounds.
A, and B of what section? Section 1 is just the title...I'm rather confused.
Section 2 is just a list of "findings".
Section 3 is what I am assuming that you mean.
"(a) In general.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Federal Government shall not take any discriminatory action against a person, wholly or partially on the basis that such person believes or acts in accordance with a religious belief or moral conviction that 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."
I looked into it a bit more. I'll admit that I failed to realize that "person" isn't a literal thing. And I'll admit that I don't like the lack of neutrality in the language in the sentence. It should just be about any beliefs concerning marriage. I would also want a more narrow definition of what constitutes "acts in accordance with" as that is problematic. I would want that changed before it passes...if it passes.
I looked into it a bit more. I'll admit that I failed to realize that "person" isn't a literal thing. And I'll admit that I don't like the lack of neutrality in the language in the sentence. It should just be about any beliefs concerning marriage. I would also want a more narrow definition of what constitutes "acts in accordance with" as that is problematic. I would want that changed before it passes...if it passes.
Subsection 3b:
"(b) Discriminatory action defined.—As used in subsection (a), a discriminatory action means any action taken by the Federal Government to—"
Scary, a definition. Though admitting there is nuance here I may be missing.
"(b) Discriminatory action defined.—As used in subsection (a), a discriminatory action means any action taken by the Federal Government to—"
Scary, a definition. Though admitting there is nuance here I may be missing.
3b.1
"(1) alter in any way the Federal tax treatment of, or cause any tax, penalty, or payment to be assessed against, or deny, delay, or revoke an exemption from taxation under section 501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 of, any person referred to in subsection (a);"
This seems more of the government can't revoke tax status of people who "act in accordance to..." mentioned above. It says nothing about a married couple.
"(1) alter in any way the Federal tax treatment of, or cause any tax, penalty, or payment to be assessed against, or deny, delay, or revoke an exemption from taxation under section 501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 of, any person referred to in subsection (a);"
This seems more of the government can't revoke tax status of people who "act in accordance to..." mentioned above. It says nothing about a married couple.
There's more in that little section, I suggest you think about it about more.
3b.2-5
(2) disallow a deduction for Federal tax purposes of any charitable contribution made to or by such person;
This is regarding charities, not bakeries or wedding services. But the issue is 3a. That language is what makes this part not so good.
(2) disallow a deduction for Federal tax purposes of any charitable contribution made to or by such person;
This is regarding charities, not bakeries or wedding services. But the issue is 3a. That language is what makes this part not so good.
(3) withhold, reduce, exclude, terminate, or otherwise deny any Federal grant, contract, subcontract, cooperative agreement, loan, license, certification, accreditation, employment, or other similar position or status from or to such person;
A continuation of the above.
A continuation of the above.
(4) withhold, reduce, exclude, terminate, or otherwise deny any benefit under a Federal benefit program from or to such person; or
Same as above.
Same as above.
(5) otherwise discriminate against such person.
Same as above
Same as above
It seems to me that the main issues are in one part of this bill. And they aren't directing punitive actions against gay marriage. I will, however, admit that the language is too broad and not neutral enough to pass muster.
In addition, I am no more than a "interested amateur" when it comes to the law, and -I- can see this as plain as day, what do you think trained lawyers who get paid hundreds of thousands of dollars a year will do with this bill? As annoyed likes to point out, Republicans control all levers of government and once they appoint a new Judge to the SCOTUS, they can push this crap through -as written- and even your "objections" such as they are will mean squat.
Comment