Obama: executive order

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

magnifier661

B-A-N-A-N-A-S!
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
59,328
Likes
5,588
Points
113
http://www.tpnn.com/2014/07/21/video-obama-signs-new-executive-order-restricting-religious-freedom/

VIDEO: Obama Signs New Executive Order Restricting Religious Freedom

It’s gone relatively unreported, but on Monday, President Obama signed yet another executive order- this time targeting the religious rights of Americans.

The new executive edict issued by Obama prohibits federal contractors from discriminating against homosexuals and those who identify as a different gender than that which they were assigned at birth.

The move is sure to delight many on the left and even some on the right; however, the executive order is sure to rile those who value the Constitution’s separation of powers as the president is supposed to serve as a law enforcer, not a lawmaker.

President Obama signed the executive order, bypassing Congress entirely, against the wishes of many religious institutions that argued that the order ought to maintain an exemption for religious institutions who have charged that the executive order could compel them to violate their religious tenets.

Obama hailed the executive order on Monday, saying,
“Thanks to your passion and advocacy and the irrefutable rightness of your cause, our government – the government of the people, by the people and for the people – will become just a little bit fairer.”
Of course, despite the populist rhetoric of advancing the rights “of the people,”
Obama’s fiat advances the agenda of homosexuals and transgenders at a cost of trampling the rights of those who wish to adhere to their religious beliefs.

Religious institutions that maintain federal contracts, such as religious universities, now must adhere to the policy of dubious legitimacy and disregard their religious beliefs in order to adopt the federal government’s agenda.

This is a problem. Peter Sprigg, Senior Fellow for Policy Studies at the Family Research Council explained in a recent interview,
“If religious organizations cannot require that their employees conduct themselves in ways consistent with the teachings of their faith – then, essentially, those organizations are unable to operate in accordance with their faith.”

“This level of coercion is nothing less than viewpoint blackmail that bullies into silence every contractor and subcontractor who has moral objections to homosexual behavior,”
Sprigg continued.

“The mask is coming off of the homosexual movement’s agenda. They really do not believe in religious liberty. They want forced affirmation of homosexual and transgender conduct to trump every other consideration in the workplace – including religious liberty.”
Whether one agrees with fundamentalist teachings or not, there remains two large problems with the executive order:

1) The executive order is inherently illegitimate as laws governing the federal government’s relationships with federal contractors are generated from the deliberative body, not the executive branch.

2) With the recent Supreme Court ruling that held that employers are not compelled to provide contraceptives to employees if doing so violates their religious beliefs, one would think that the Obama Administration would be more sensitive to those who feel under attack by the federal government as the Obama Administration continues to try and replace religious understandings with secular, state-sanctions policies.

The Obama Administration is quite evidently committed to continuing their assault on the religious liberties of Americans. Whether one agrees with the religious doctrine of one group or another is irrelevant; the First Amendment protects a right of association as well as a right to exercise one’s religion freely.

I don't know how I feel about this, but I can relate to the argument. Personally, I think the issue is moot, since my theistic beliefs don't warrant such fundamentals, but I definitely can see the reason why some would think this is unconstitutional.
 
I could care less about the content, mainly I am more pissed about how this guy can continually bypass congress and make/pass his own fucking laws. A complete pile of shit.
 
Everyone is free to practice their religion still. They just aren't entitled to govt. money for any reason, and govt. can make the rules about who they pay and how much. As long as they don't violate the 1st amendment clause about establishing a religion.

In fact, government dollars going to any religious purpose (even a company that wants to claim it can exercise its religious beliefs) is a violation of the 1st.

The SCOTUS ruling is for closely held corporations, not for all.
 
Okay, let me get this straight. You believe it is okay to prohibit someone from being who they want to be or being with who they love simply because you dont think thats what God wants, but you get suuuper deffensive when you even get a bit suspicious that someone may be making the slightest infringement upon your rights to your religion (Which if youre looking for an example of religious infringement, this is a bad example at best) ?

How the fuck does that work out...
 
Okay, let me get this straight. You believe it is okay to prohibit someone from being who they want to be or being with who they love simply because you dont think thats what God wants, but you get suuuper deffensive when you even get a bit suspicious that someone may be making the slightest infringement upon your rights to your religion (Which if youre looking for an example of religious infringement, this is a bad example at best) ?

How the fuck does that work out...

No I could care less about the homosexual ban. I think they a stupid for forbidding it, but it is still a religious freedom. I am only debating how a president can bypass legislation so easily.
 
No I could care less about the homosexual ban. I think they a stupid for forbidding it, but it is still a religious freedom. I am only debating how a president can bypass legislation so easily.

It's been that way for a while. Obama isnt the first to issue something like this.
 

Yep, and his # of them isn't as bad as others were (not saying it's good..because "not as bad" does not equal "good").

Religious groups shouldn't tell me what I can and can't do (although I can just not work for them).

Bush (2) had more. Clinton had far more. Bush (1) had a higher rate. The Patron saint of Republicanism had more.

Hell, one could argue that Obamas rate of EO's is the slowest since Grover Clevelands first administration. But that doesn't make for great headlines.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php
 
Last edited:
Everyone is free to practice their religion still. They just aren't entitled to govt. money for any reason, and govt. can make the rules about who they pay and how much. As long as they don't violate the 1st amendment clause about establishing a religion.

In fact, government dollars going to any religious purpose (even a company that wants to claim it can exercise its religious beliefs) is a violation of the 1st.

The SCOTUS ruling is for closely held corporations, not for all.

Can you give me more information on this ruling?

I also understand that it only effects "government jobs", but the concept of changing laws like this isn't right IMO.
 
It's been that way for a while. Obama isnt the first to issue something like this.

Obama is the current issue, which is why I posted it. I would say the same with Bush when he was in office. I think he had executive orders as well. Does it still make it right?
 
Can you give me more information on this ruling?

I also understand that it only effects "government jobs", but the concept of changing laws like this isn't right IMO.

GHW Bush used an executive order to prohibit doctors overseas from talking about abortion with patients. Clinton issued an order to reverse this. It was known as the "gag order" when Bush did it.

Executive orders do not change the laws, they only clarify existing ones. In this case, he's amending existing orders that I listed.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/30/politics/scotus-obamacare-contraception/

Washington (CNN) -- Some corporations have religious rights, a deeply divided Supreme Court decided Monday in ruling that certain for-profit companies cannot be required to pay for specific types of contraceptives for their employees.

...

"The companies in the cases before us are closely held corporations, each owned and controlled by members of a single family, and no one has disputed the sincerity of their religious beliefs," Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the majority opinion.
 
Obama is the current issue, which is why I posted it. I would say the same with Bush when he was in office. I think he had executive orders as well. Does it still make it right?

No, but it makes you hypocritical since Obamas rate is much lower than any president since Grover Cleveland and now all the sudden you (or people) are worried.
 
GHW Bush used an executive order to prohibit doctors overseas from talking about abortion with patients. Clinton issued an order to reverse this. It was known as the "gag order" when Bush did it.

Executive orders do not change the laws, they only clarify existing ones. In this case, he's amending existing orders that I listed.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/30/politics/scotus-obamacare-contraception/

Washington (CNN) -- Some corporations have religious rights, a deeply divided Supreme Court decided Monday in ruling that certain for-profit companies cannot be required to pay for specific types of contraceptives for their employees.

...

"The companies in the cases before us are closely held corporations, each owned and controlled by members of a single family, and no one has disputed the sincerity of their religious beliefs," Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the majority opinion.

Thanks for the clarification. If that's the case, then I see nothing wrong with it.
 
No, but it makes you hypocritical since Obamas rate is much lower than any president since Grover Cleveland and now all the sudden you (or people) are worried.

I've always been worried the moment he said his first oath.
 
Obama needs to stay out of corporate bedrooms.
 
I've always been worried the moment he said his first oath.

were you worried the moment Bush said his first oath? Because...the economy got worse under him (it tanked), he did more EOs, our reputation over seas was ruined under him, he allowed more deaths on our soil by terrorists, he fucked up 2 wars, the debt ACTUALLY increased (and not "fox news told me it increased!"), the bailout that people complained and blamed on Obama was actually under Bush and we were bordering on a depression due to him.

Were you peachy keen with him?
 
were you worried the moment Bush said his first oath? Because...the economy got worse under him (it tanked), he did more EOs, our reputation over seas was ruined under him, he allowed more deaths on our soil by terrorists, he fucked up 2 wars, the debt ACTUALLY increased (and not "fox news told me it increased!"), the bailout that people complained and blamed on Obama was actually under Bush and we were bordering on a depression due to him.

Were you peachy keen with him?

I wasn't worried at first, but I definitely was worried his second term. I will be open and concede that Bush was an awful president.

But what Obama has done in his two terms has trumped Bush's awfulness tenfold!
 
I could care less about the content, mainly I am more pissed about how this guy can continually bypass congress and make/pass his own fucking laws. A complete pile of shit.

No I could care less about the homosexual ban. I think they a stupid for forbidding it, but it is still a religious freedom. I am only debating how a president can bypass legislation so easily.

Are you two having a competition about who cares about a topic, but it's possible to care less?
 
I wasn't worried at first, but I definitely was worried his second term. I will be open and concede that Bush was an awful president.

But what Obama has done in his two terms has trumped Bush's awfulness tenfold!

TENFOLD! WOW. I didn't realize the economy got ten times worse than the drop under Bush's administration. Or that we went into ten new wars under Obama. Or that taxes went down? up? ten times.
 
TENFOLD! WOW. I didn't realize the economy got ten times worse than the drop under Bush's administration. Or that we went into ten new wars under Obama. Or that taxes went down? up? ten times.

State of the union is not just financial.
 
My point was that hyperbole is a tool; don't overuse it.

Okay we can say 3 fold? The debt has tripled since Obama has come to office? And this after Bush already double it.

That's pretty hard to do, so I think the delivery still paints a scary picture.
 
Can you give me more information on this ruling?

I also understand that it only effects "government jobs", but the concept of changing laws like this isn't right IMO.

He didn't change a law - he changed an administrative rule. No one ever questioned the power of the executive branch to do that until the last couple decades. If the executive branch has no authority to manage the federal bureacracy - why have an executive branch?

WTF people? I didn't vote for Bush, but I didn't spend 8 years pissing in my kilt over every little thing he did.
 
It's odd that the article in the OP tries to cite religious universities as potentially affected by this. In what way are religious universities supposedly federal contractors?
 


Thanks for the examples to bring perspective. While it shows that this is nothing new, it still chaps my spurs a little bit that this is even possible.... (regardless of what problem its solving).
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top