- Dragon Ball Z Forum
- →
- The Lounge
- →
- Deep Discussion
- →
- Barack Obama signs executive order that protects LGBT federal workers
| We hope you enjoy your visit to this forum. If you are reading this then it means you are currently browsing the forum as a guest, we don’t limit any of the content posted from guests however if you join, you will have the ability to join the discussions! We are always happy to see new faces at this forum and we would like to hear your opinion, so why not register now? It doesn’t take long and you can get posting right away. Click here to Register! If you are having difficulties validating your account please email us at admin@dbzf.co.uk If you're already a member please log in to your account: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Barack Obama signs executive order that protects LGBT federal workers | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jul 21 2014, 03:57 PM (793 Views) | |
| * Ketchup Revenge | Jul 21 2014, 03:57 PM Post #1 |
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the war room!"
|
I was surprised that this wasn't trending on Yahoo and I actually had to search it. I first saw it on Facebook. Obama signed in two documents today that bans federal companies (either actual government or with federal contracts) from discriminating against LGBT. These documents came in light of the decision by the Christian owned Business "Hobby Lobby" that allows them to block covering contraception (even though they still cover Viagra). There was legislation trying to get passed that would allow all businesses with Federal Contracts to discriminate against LGBT by not hiring them or not keeping them hired under pretense of "religious belief". In other words, these two executive orders that Obama signed into law today nullified this legislation. This legislation would've allowed a religious owned company with Federal Funding to be excluded from the requirement to hire or keep LGBT on their payroll; because this type of lifestyle goes against their religious belief. However, these two documents only apply to Federal businesses or businesses with Federal Contracts. This does not apply to privately owned businesses. Click for article on Yahoo Discuss. Edited by Ketchup Revenge, Jul 23 2014, 12:38 AM.
|
 The vengeance is her's for as long as she stands by Him. | |
 |
 
|
| * Yu Narukami | Jul 21 2014, 04:18 PM Post #2 |
Izanagi!
|
I'm really happy about this. It may be bypassing the correct legislative process, but the process isn't perfect. We still need to allow for common sense and humanity to take a place in the creation/enactment of legislation. These kinds of Executive Orders are good because they aren't affected by the influential lobbyists that have so much power in Congress. Though, the fact that the President had to do this should be a wake-up call to a lot of people; he shouldn't have to do anything like that. In fact, it's insane. |
|
|
|
| Goddess Ultimecia | Jul 21 2014, 05:02 PM Post #3 |
 
|
I may not agree with Obama on everything, but this is one of those things I'm glad that he did. Discrimination against LBGT should be laughed upon, but instead they were trying to dance around the issue by saying they could discriminate because of "religous belief". Which is just more or less a copout so that people are able to deny service to the "icky icky gay people." |
 NinjaSushi Colouring
| |
|
|
| * Ketchup Revenge | Jul 21 2014, 05:06 PM Post #4 |
|
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the war room!"
|
I agree, but correct legislation process doesn't apply if what the legislation is trying to do is vaguely unconstitutional. There's nothing in the Constitution that says anything about companies and their legal abilities when it comes to LGBT, however, this legislation would vaguely inhibit upon other basic rights that these folks have, particularly the First Amendment, which stops the government from making laws that promote the beliefs of any one religion. This would kind of apply in this case, since these companies are funded by the government; but since they are not the government, there's no real law against it... until of course, Obama signed in these two documents. Another infringement (loosely) would be the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment pretty much allows citizens to keep their private lives private by not allowing the government to rummage through their personal lives without probable cause, and the reason why this applies to Federally funded institutions is because the Federal Government can't search private citizens' belongings or families without a legal reason. This can somewhat apply to the Government in this case considering that they'd be funding companies that would search for this stuff, even though these companies searching for this stuff is not against the law. However, instead of arrests, it would simply be discrimination. Also the reason why this legislation was trying to be passed was because the Labor bill signed into law in 1964 by LBJ makes it illegal for companies to barre employment based on race, gender, national origin and religion; but it says nothing about sexual orientation. Only certain state laws prohibit this. |
|
The vengeance is her's for as long as she stands by Him. | |
|
|
|
| + Pelador | Jul 21 2014, 05:15 PM Post #5 |
Crazy Awesome Legend
|
Interesting. Obama didn't even need to do this since he's on his final term. People criticise him but he seems to have done a lot more good than Bush ever did. |
 http://www.youtube.com/user/jonjits | |
|
|
|
| Goddess Ultimecia | Jul 21 2014, 05:19 PM Post #6 |
|
"I'd of much rather ended being hated but have done good, than have ended being loved but have done nothing" -I don't know, I have a feeling someone said this before but I'm not too sure...It kind of came off the top of my head. 2014 |
|
NinjaSushi Colouring
| |
|
|
|
| + Yusuke | Jul 21 2014, 07:49 PM Post #7 |
 
|
Defiantly a good move by the US Government. It still boggles me how we can have nutheads in this day of age that are still against Same-Sex Marriage. |
 Ask Yusuke | |
|
|
|
| * Ketchup Revenge | Jul 21 2014, 08:04 PM Post #8 |
|
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the war room!"
|
Right Wing Conservatives go on and on about how Obama is "the worst president ever", but to be entirely honest, he's not the best, but he's certainly not the worst. These folks need a history lesson before they start spewing nonsense. There's plenty of experts who say that most of people's gripe with Obama is race based, because Bush was worse (based on economic numbers), and never got this kind of flack from opposition. Edited by Ketchup Revenge, Jul 21 2014, 08:06 PM.
|
|
The vengeance is her's for as long as she stands by Him. | |
|
|
|
| + Pelador | Jul 21 2014, 09:07 PM Post #9 |
|
Crazy Awesome Legend
|
I think there is an element of truth in that. However I also think that some people have a real issue with the idea of liberalism. Like it's the worst thing since communism. So anytime someone does something remotely nice or changes the law so that it's more fair for everyone, they're labeled as a liberal. Obama's a liberal because he likes gays, Obama's a liberal because of Medicare, blah blah blah. Those people should visit Europe, then they'll know what liberal really means. |
|
http://www.youtube.com/user/jonjits | |
|
|
|
| * Ketchup Revenge | Jul 21 2014, 10:53 PM Post #10 |
|
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the war room!"
|
Well, the thing with Liberal vs Conservative in the US is more the fact that it's seen as a class and race war, and not really a war of ideas. Conservatives generally tend to be upscale white Republicans, while Liberals tend to be lower class Democratic minorities. However, as of the past 10 years, the tide is shifting. The US was mainly liberal when it was formed, but then around the time of Lincoln (1850s), the government started to become more conservative. However, it's been a slow transition since the 1960s. Conservativism is not working out for the people who actually live here. The majority of the US are sick of having to deal with religious based legislation and sick of having to deal with low wages with no benefits. There are religious folks in the US, but most of them live in the south, which often seems to go hand-in-hand with the states that still promote racism. I'm not saying that all Southern people are racist, and that no Northern people are racist, but over the years with the civil rights movements involving the rights of African Americans that happened in the 1950s and 60s, most people who live in Northern states see the Gay Rights issue simply as history repeating itself in this context. Not everyone sits on either side of the fence on the issue. I myself am mostly liberal, but have some level of conservative thinking. I don't believe everyone should get welfare or food stamps, and don't believe that the wage gap between men and women is intentional. Edited by Ketchup Revenge, Jul 21 2014, 10:58 PM.
|
|
The vengeance is her's for as long as she stands by Him. | |
|
|
|
| Mihawk | Jul 21 2014, 11:00 PM Post #11 |
 
|
That's actually a generation shift more than anything else^. It'll always exist that way. My main gripe is once again just bypassing the Congress for legislation. I understand that we currently have one of the most dysfunctional Congresses in American history, but using emergency loopholes will worsen the situation. I know it isn't easy, but as leader it is Obama's responsibility to unite the two sides under a single flag. |
 | |
|
|
|
| * Ketchup Revenge | Jul 21 2014, 11:04 PM Post #12 |
|
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the war room!"
|
I won't disagree with you, but it's not really bypassing legislation if the legislation trying to be passed is questionably unconstitutional. The labor law signed by Lyndon B Johnson in 1964 makes it illegal for companies to opt out of hiring people based on race, religion, or national origin, but it says nothing about sexual orientation. What Obama did is essentially an amendment of that document. Not to mention that this only covers federal workers, or companies that are federally funded. These people are essentially owned by the government. So this document doesn't apply to private business. That would have to go through Congress and get passed by the House. Edited by Ketchup Revenge, Jul 21 2014, 11:10 PM.
|
|
The vengeance is her's for as long as she stands by Him. | |
|
|
|
| TheACE | Jul 22 2014, 01:23 AM Post #13 |
The Last GT Fighter
|
Ok I'll play Devil's advocate. Why do we need that section in the first place. When I'm behind closed doors with the person I love (Assuming their a legal adult human) what does it matter what we do behind closed doors (Assuming it doesn't involve animals or children in anyway and that both of us consent)? What does that have to do with my ability to read an ultrasound or an X-Ray? If you really wanna be facetious I suppose you can argue I may spend more time over reading diagnostic images of breasts of penises respectively, but that doesn't make 4 years of college, 4 years of med school and a 4 - 6 year residency with optional 1 - 2 year internship go away. Even if it is a Christian public company, why does that matter? How would they know? Maybe I WANT my orientation to stay secret. They can't ask you during an interview whether you're married, single, straight, homosexual, or he'll they technically can't ask if you're black or white. Again the bill is good, but what of my right to privacy? Any thoughts? |
 Spoiler: click to toggle
| |
|
|
|
| + Pelador | Jul 22 2014, 01:50 AM Post #14 |
|
Crazy Awesome Legend
|
You have a lot more privacy in America than you do in the UK believe me. Couple of years ago there were ideas being thrown around for the introduction of I.D cards like in some dystopian sci fi future. Glad it got widely criticised. Still too many cameras around for my liking. Yeah count yourselves lucky. This country is far more likely to become like V for Vendetta than yours is. |
|
http://www.youtube.com/user/jonjits | |
|
|
|
| TheACE | Jul 22 2014, 01:55 AM Post #15 |
|
The Last GT Fighter
|
Really? Hey I'm drifting from the topic a bit, but tell me Pel... Are there any Illegal interview questions in the UK? Like if I'm interviewing you for a job I can't ask you if you have kids, or whether you're homosexual or Hetrosexual or anything of the like can I? |
|
Spoiler: click to toggle
| |
|
|
|
| 0 users reading this topic | |
|
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Deep Discussion · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
 4:43 PM Jul 13
|
Theme Designed by McKee91
Powered by ZetaBoards Premium · Privacy Policy