Reader comments · US: Bill introduced to protect anti-equal marriage groups ‘from discrimination by the government’ · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


US: Bill introduced to protect anti-equal marriage groups ‘from discrimination by the government’

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. This seems to me to be a pernicious backward step. And potentially very dangerous.

    It would effectively protect groups who seek to actively discriminate.

    What sort of support does this have I wonder. And would Obama veto it or sign it into law?

    1. This sounds like it might also be against the UN Human Rights Charter!

      Not that that has ever bothered ‘Merica, even torture and international kidnapping is OK. These magic boggled idiots think if you do not have US citizenship or can’t PROVE IT, by the time they can say base ball bat; anything goes.

    2. It is Tea Party grandstanding (which is not an unknown phenomenon even in the dear UK). It will go nowhere, even in the House; it would never leave the Senate if it reached there; Obama would veto it if it came to his desk.

    3. Would Obama sign into law an act allowing religious groups protection from discrimination in regard to racial equality laws?

  2. Robert in S. Kensington 19 Sep 2013, 7:55pm

    Paranoia at it again. The same crap our own religious nutters were advocating. This won’t be going anywhere either. All SSM bills in those states where it is legal make it quite clear that no religious denomination or individuals is required to recognise or perform same-sex marriages, bloody loons.

    1. Yet another attempt to increase their “religious ” privilege! and put their interpretation of religion above anyone else’s rights or civil liberties.
      Unbelievable arrogance and deluded self importance, and these idiots say WE are demanding special rights!!!!
      One little problem – religions cannot agree. Even within the same one.

      1. And in another thread I get marked down for saying I have no intention of respecting peoples religious beliefs?

        Although I defend their right to think what they like, I have no intention of respecting it. If anyone preaches their crazy beliefs to you, don’t be polite and keep quiet, just tell them they are fools.

        If they don’t want to hear that they can keep their crazy thoughts to themselves. We acquiesce too much to the religious. Religion deserves no special treatment, it’s time it stopped.

    2. Exactly Robert. What sensible US politician is going to support a bill to enable bigots to discriminate.

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 19 Sep 2013, 11:32pm

        John, only the 80+ religious right winger nutters in the republican Teabagistan party will support it. They’ve already managed to get support to have a congressional vote to defund President Obama’s affordable health care act. Only in America.

  3. Useless bill that won’t get anywhere, just pandering to the christian urge to snivel, self-flagellate and claim the victimhood they seem to find so engaging.

    The precedent to be set would be legal carnage. The First Amendment won’t allow a law that favours one religion over another, and if it is universal to any “faith” then anyone can invoke it maliciously based on beliefs which can be neither measured not proven sincere.

    Ridiculous waste of time. And no more than I would expect from these theocratic imbeciles.

  4. Why should ANY outfit be ‘protected’ so that it can preach hatred? What next? White supremecists demanding protection so they can preach racism? Religion MUST be relegated to where it belongs – in the home. Then they can say what they want – to each other.

    1. Given that white supremacists – both historically and currently – claim (and can cite) dogmatic support for their repugnant behaviour then yes, that is exactly what this kind of legislation would create a precedent for.

      The faith-based licence to hate is so ridiculous as to be laughable – And the law-makers probably know it is unworkable, they just recognise it to be a convenient dog whistle to blow for their hatemonger bigot base.

    2. floridahank 19 Sep 2013, 10:11pm

      Truth, you said, ” Religion MUST be relegated to where it belongs – in the home.”
      Does that mean it can’t be discussed in churches?
      Sounds like you’re being dictatorial.

      1. Sounds like you are just being what you are, a delusional christian troll.
        All churches of whatever denominations should be taxed as political organisations, the Federal Government should remove as a matter of priority all tax exemptions for religious organisations. Religion is either a private matter or it is politics. When it becomes politics the religious businesses that they are should pay taxes. Republicans as usual playing to their bedrock supporters the ill educated christian bigots or the downright stupid racists.

        1. floridahank 20 Sep 2013, 9:29pm

          I would post the same argument for homosexuality having any specialized category. Where has it been proven that homosexuality is an inborn entity. You keep arguing with the position that you should be granted the same status that the black skin color should receive special status and not be picked out for prejudice, (I don’t argue with that), but homosexuality is not proven to be inborn like skin color, yet you want the same special status as was given to black skin. Homosexuality is a complex category and there is no biological/medical factor that qualifies as does the skin color. Many psychiatrists says that sexual preference is complicated and there are many degrees of homosexuality that can indeed be changed into heterosexuality with the proper conditions. As the old saying goes, “Show me the proof” not just anecdotes and some suppositions by some psychiatrists.

      2. Beelzeebub 20 Sep 2013, 9:47am

        The can discuss what they like in their self righteous dens of piety as long as the brain addled drivel they discuss stays there and doesn’t seep out and poison the rest of us.

        1. floirdahank 20 Sep 2013, 9:42pm

          Hey Bee….I’ve looking into analyzing the position of many homosexual’s comments, and it seems that many of you are paranoid with delusions of combining wishful thinking-transference to give yourself some irrational satisfaction that many heterosexuals have hidden desires for homosexual activities.
          The investigation for causes of homosexuality has a long way to go to get some rational answers — but we’re trying to get there.

      3. I think you’re cherry-picking. It’s a common belief that religion should be kept out of politics – separation of church and state. Otherwise, you risk a theocratic government, which is something that ALWAYS harms a nation and large sections of society.

        You should read “Christian Nation” by Frederic C. Rich.

        Religion is a personal matter, and no religious group should be permitted to act against others in society for any reason.

        On the other side of the coin, it might be better that this does pass, because then we’ll see businesses of bigoted owners closing all over America as they refuse to serve groups of people and their viability collapses. The masses are against bigotry, racism and homophobia, and there are already businesses failing because of their idiotic religious stance.

        Any business or organization which practices open discriminatory policies will likely fail within two years.

      4. Floridahank; it seems pointless debating with you anything ‘religious’ as – in another post somewhere – you quoted chapters and verses from the bible. For you to be so brainwashed as to ‘believe’ that an old book is ‘the word of god’ shows how conditioned you are. The bible is simply a collection of the highly-edited rantings of middle-eastern men who had an agenda. As such, I refused to buy into its ‘teachings’ when I was nine years-old. This was at about the same time I stopped believing in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy. I cannot stop you ‘believing’ whatever you want. But PLEASE do stop trying to impose your childish, dangerous ‘beliefs’ on rational people. Not only are your views deeply offensive but they endanger children. Every time someone like you utters anti-gay biblical rhetoric, a bully somewhere takes it as justification for and even incitement to their actions. My advice to you would be to find a less harmful, less self-delusional hobby. Oh. And one that pays taxes …

        1. floridahank 20 Sep 2013, 9:12pm

          Truth, your comment, “For you to be so brainwashed as to ‘believe’ that an old book is ‘the word of god’”

          Looking at a few of the greatest scientific minds who also believed in God and a form of Christianity your statement is totally asinine.

          Copernicus, Kepler, Decartes, Boyle, Newton, Marconi, Planck — all were outstanding discoverers and inventors of monumental facets in our scientific progress. There are thousands of God fearing/believing people who are brilliant.

          If that’s what “brainwashed” people are, then we need more of them to advance our society.
          You are the brainwashed person who has a distorted mentality and can only see one point of view — selfishness and sexuality. Broaden your thinking and see what much of Christianity had given to our social advancements.

  5. What a cowardly move!

    Surely, they are beyond hope.

  6. I trust Obama will see through what is quite frankly a predictable and cliche political move by the “religious”

    “Freedom!” Really?So predictably deceptive. In the year sales of 1984 went up 800%? Good move

    Once the train of equality and enlightenment starts a chuggin’ ya best just getting on board or you end up getting left behind in the dust .

    The “red” states of the GOP and the GOD are so very predictable, aren’t they? At every turn, they end up being left in the dust

    These states and parties are run by straight rich white folks who wouldn’t know reality if it slapped them in the face. Everytime you see someone from the GOP, UKIP, BNP, or anyone who uses the term “politcal correctness” – they are pretty much always straight white people who are either exceptionally rich and conservative or desperately poor and uneducated. Usually they are unhappy or unfulfilled in some way and they just need a scape goat, an easy target to exploit.

    America should resist

  7. They never stop.

    They sure seem to have a lot of time these people.

    Actually it seems that what is becoming clear is that all of this hatred and paranoia is being driven by a relatively small bit vocal group of obsessional closet cases.

    I guess it will take a generational change to start to address the deranged self-loathing these people have.

  8. Breaking news: you’re not being oppressed when a minority gains rights you’ve always had.

  9. Christian Republicans – the ultimate in hypocrisy. In fact, the English Dictionary should include them in their definition of the word.

    They demand that they don’t be “discriminated against” for their own acts of discrimination! And people wonder why right wing American’s are seen as idiotic fools all over the world? lol

  10. .....Paddyswurds 20 Sep 2013, 12:07pm

    ….. ” so that they can continue practising their religion as they see fit.” Any piece of legislation enacted which contained those words or even words remotely like those words, would be de facto enacting this …. ” so that they can continue practising their religion [discrimination ] as they see fit.” Think on !

    1. For ‘religion’, just replace it with the word ‘racism’. Takes on a whole different poerspective …..

  11. He drafted this legislature knowing it was doomed before pen hit paper. Its merely politically posturing to appease the lowest common denominator that dominates his district and keeps his seat at the table. I say eat, eat, eat because moderates, young people and undecided voters nationally are not moved by this rhetoric. As they say pigs get fed, hogs get slaughtered.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.