Thread replies: 11
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
File: IMG_1502.jpg (3MB, 2592x1936px) Image search:
[Google]
3MB, 2592x1936px
"A BILL
To prevent discriminatory treatment of any person on the basis of views held with respect to marriage.
"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
"This Act may be cited as the “First Amendment Defense Act”.
"SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
"Congress finds the following:
"(1) Leading legal scholars concur that conflicts between same-sex marriage and religious liberty are real and should be legislatively addressed.
"(2) As the President stated in response to the decision of the Supreme Court on the Defense of Marriage Act in 2013, “Americans hold a wide range of views” on the issue of same-sex marriage, and “maintaining our Nation’s commitment to religious freedom” is “vital”.
"(3) Nevertheless, in 2015, when asked whether a religious school could lose its tax-exempt status for opposing same-sex marriage, the Solicitor General of the United States represented to the United States Supreme Court that “[i]t’s certainly going to be an issue”.
"(4) Protecting religious freedom from Government intrusion is a Government interest of the highest order. Legislatively enacted measures advance this interest by remedying, deterring, and preventing Government interference with religious exercise in a way that complements the protections mandated by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
"(5) Laws that protect the free exercise of religious beliefs and moral convictions about marriage will encourage private citizens and institutions to demonstrate tolerance for those beliefs and convictions and therefore contribute to a more respectful, diverse, and peaceful society."
Read more: https://www.congress.gov/114/bills/hr2802/BILLS-114hr2802ih.xml
Thoughts?
>>
That's what you get for voting Trump.
>>
>>7511176
That also means traditionalists can't discriminate against same sex marriage supporters. But we all know why this was made.
>>
>>7511176
Normalizing pedophilia
Pedophiles need to be executed by firing squad
>>
>>7511319
That's too good for them.
They should be tarred and feathered then branded.
>>
>>
>>7511354
Puberty.
>>
>>7511318
>That also means traditionalists can't discriminate against same sex marriage supporters.
Which is not how the law was intended, or will be interpreted.
>But we all know why this was made.
Out of spite.
>>
>>
>>7511400
Discriminating against 95% of the world might not work as well as intended though.
It would be fun, but counterproductive in the long run.
But our own nation or religion could open up ways to get countries in troubling positions, as the persecutions of homosexuals could then be framed as actual UN defined genocide.
>>
>>7511176
seems this is all just about government money, that the proponents believe the government shouldn't be allowed to withhold funding/exemptions just because the religious affiliations won't comply to government established "standards", that the religious affliations shouldn't have to make compromise to get that "extra funding with rules".
my question:
will the government keep funding them anti-lgbt institutions that may use the funding to continue "research" conversion therapy techniques? more money for those anti-lgbt "rallies"? more money for those dissing non-christians?
Thread posts: 11
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1