Woah, I can't believe I missed all that. That escalated quickly.
I'll never understand why you would attempt to justify Trump's actions by dragging down the other party. They don't negate his actions.
Anyway, a fun vice article about your new Judge.
President Donald Trump’s nominee to become a district judge in Texas admitted that he discriminates based on sexual orientation. But he didn’t think that should prevent him from serving on the federal bench.
“Guess what? I attend a conservative Baptist church. We discriminate, alright. On the basis of sexual orientation, we discriminate,” Jeff Mateer said during a speech to the National Religious Liberties Conference in 2015, long before Trump nominated him. At the time, Mateer was general counsel for the conservative legal organization First Liberty Institute. “Does that mean I can’t be a judge? In some states, I think that’s true, unfortunately.”
Diversity training is “brainwashing” and “reprogramming”
… [T]he federal government right now has a lot of mandatory diversity training .… But it is nothing less than brainwashing with the Left’s agenda on LGBT. So we’re encouraging federal employees to exercise their religious liberty rights and ask for an accommodation. “I don’t wanna attend your diversity training because it violates my religious beliefs.” They have a federal-law right to not be, to participate. … Really, it’s what they call “reprogramming” in order to convince them that something that they know is wrong is right. There’s no reason an employee has to sit through that.
The “separation of church and state” is “nowhere” in the U.S. constitution
I would bring a $100 bill and I would say, “Alright, first person” — and everybody has their iPhone — and I would say “first person to find in the Constitution the phrase ‘separation of church and state’ gets this $100 bill” .… And you know what — and everybody knows that, right? — that phrase isn’t in the U.S. Constitution. It’s nowhere.
The Supreme Court needs Evangelical Christians
We need a Republican president who does a good job of appointing people who believe the way we do. You know on the U.S. Supreme Court today — there are nine, obviously — how many Evangelical Christians are on the U.S. Supreme Court? Zero. Justice Scalia points that out in his opinion in Obergefell. How many protestants are on the U.S. Supreme Court? Zero.
“Honest conviction” lets employers discriminate
If you’re an employer, you’re a business person, what you need to demonstrate is you have an honest conviction concerning this belief. So how do you do that? You do it the way Hobby Lobby did it. You have documents .… And Hobby Lobby gives us a roadmap for protecting business persons. It’s not going to be good enough when you call me and you own — uh, let’s take an example, a bed and breakfast. I don’t know why I would use that. You own a bed and breakfast. And you have some beliefs about, uh, let’s just pick a random topic, like same-sex marriage or same-sex couples. And you have beliefs about that. Now can you, your place of public accommodation, can you restrict to just married couples of the opposite sex? I’d submit to you, I’d submit to you, if you don’t have a written policy, the answer is probably not.
In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, the Supreme Court ruled that religious liberty allows some companies to avoid providing birth control against Obamacare’s mandate. In Mateer’s view, the same logic would likely apply to businesses that don’t want to serve gay clients.
Gay marriage is unconstitutional
And of course, in Obergefell, the Supreme Court found, in a 5-4 decision, with Justice Kennedy adding the fifth vote on this one, found that somewhere lurking in the 14th Amendment, unknown to any lawyer for decades since its adoption right after the Civil War, somewhere in there, is a right, a fundamental right for two people of the same sex to marry. … There’s no honest attorney, no honest constitutional scholar, that would say that this decision [Obergefell] stands on its rationale.
In Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court ruled that, under the 14th Amendment, states can’t keep gay people from getting married. Some conservatives, including Mateer, think that the court inserted protections for gay people into the 14th Amendment, which doesn’t specify protections based on sexuality.
Churches should be able to endorse candidates
This is a little closer to the line, so everyone here recognizes that, the IRS’ line — which I believe is unconstitutional, by the way. So if there’s a pastor here who wants to endorse a candidate — I was gonna try to think of one, a third one — O’Malley, who wants to endorse a candidate, I actually think you’d have a constitutional right to do so, and I don’t think — I’m waiting for the IRS to battle that.”
Trump has taken aim at the Johnson Amendment — which prevents nonprofits, including churches, from endorsing candidates and making contributions to campaigns — through an executive order that asked the IRS not to enforce the amendment.
https://news.vice.com/story/trumps-...-admits-he-discriminates-against-lgbtq-people
I'll never understand why you would attempt to justify Trump's actions by dragging down the other party. They don't negate his actions.
Anyway, a fun vice article about your new Judge.
President Donald Trump’s nominee to become a district judge in Texas admitted that he discriminates based on sexual orientation. But he didn’t think that should prevent him from serving on the federal bench.
“Guess what? I attend a conservative Baptist church. We discriminate, alright. On the basis of sexual orientation, we discriminate,” Jeff Mateer said during a speech to the National Religious Liberties Conference in 2015, long before Trump nominated him. At the time, Mateer was general counsel for the conservative legal organization First Liberty Institute. “Does that mean I can’t be a judge? In some states, I think that’s true, unfortunately.”
Diversity training is “brainwashing” and “reprogramming”
… [T]he federal government right now has a lot of mandatory diversity training .… But it is nothing less than brainwashing with the Left’s agenda on LGBT. So we’re encouraging federal employees to exercise their religious liberty rights and ask for an accommodation. “I don’t wanna attend your diversity training because it violates my religious beliefs.” They have a federal-law right to not be, to participate. … Really, it’s what they call “reprogramming” in order to convince them that something that they know is wrong is right. There’s no reason an employee has to sit through that.
The “separation of church and state” is “nowhere” in the U.S. constitution
I would bring a $100 bill and I would say, “Alright, first person” — and everybody has their iPhone — and I would say “first person to find in the Constitution the phrase ‘separation of church and state’ gets this $100 bill” .… And you know what — and everybody knows that, right? — that phrase isn’t in the U.S. Constitution. It’s nowhere.
The Supreme Court needs Evangelical Christians
We need a Republican president who does a good job of appointing people who believe the way we do. You know on the U.S. Supreme Court today — there are nine, obviously — how many Evangelical Christians are on the U.S. Supreme Court? Zero. Justice Scalia points that out in his opinion in Obergefell. How many protestants are on the U.S. Supreme Court? Zero.
“Honest conviction” lets employers discriminate
If you’re an employer, you’re a business person, what you need to demonstrate is you have an honest conviction concerning this belief. So how do you do that? You do it the way Hobby Lobby did it. You have documents .… And Hobby Lobby gives us a roadmap for protecting business persons. It’s not going to be good enough when you call me and you own — uh, let’s take an example, a bed and breakfast. I don’t know why I would use that. You own a bed and breakfast. And you have some beliefs about, uh, let’s just pick a random topic, like same-sex marriage or same-sex couples. And you have beliefs about that. Now can you, your place of public accommodation, can you restrict to just married couples of the opposite sex? I’d submit to you, I’d submit to you, if you don’t have a written policy, the answer is probably not.
In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, the Supreme Court ruled that religious liberty allows some companies to avoid providing birth control against Obamacare’s mandate. In Mateer’s view, the same logic would likely apply to businesses that don’t want to serve gay clients.
Gay marriage is unconstitutional
And of course, in Obergefell, the Supreme Court found, in a 5-4 decision, with Justice Kennedy adding the fifth vote on this one, found that somewhere lurking in the 14th Amendment, unknown to any lawyer for decades since its adoption right after the Civil War, somewhere in there, is a right, a fundamental right for two people of the same sex to marry. … There’s no honest attorney, no honest constitutional scholar, that would say that this decision [Obergefell] stands on its rationale.
In Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court ruled that, under the 14th Amendment, states can’t keep gay people from getting married. Some conservatives, including Mateer, think that the court inserted protections for gay people into the 14th Amendment, which doesn’t specify protections based on sexuality.
Churches should be able to endorse candidates
This is a little closer to the line, so everyone here recognizes that, the IRS’ line — which I believe is unconstitutional, by the way. So if there’s a pastor here who wants to endorse a candidate — I was gonna try to think of one, a third one — O’Malley, who wants to endorse a candidate, I actually think you’d have a constitutional right to do so, and I don’t think — I’m waiting for the IRS to battle that.”
Trump has taken aim at the Johnson Amendment — which prevents nonprofits, including churches, from endorsing candidates and making contributions to campaigns — through an executive order that asked the IRS not to enforce the amendment.
https://news.vice.com/story/trumps-...-admits-he-discriminates-against-lgbtq-people
