Well, well, more faith based shenagins vis a vis gays

[dsc]

Where there are state or local laws prohibiting hiring choices based on sexual orientation in the federally funded portion of the programs, Obama has said he would support those being applied.

It remains unclear whether the Obama administration will rescind executive orders from then-President George W. Bush that allowed religious groups that get government money to hire only those who share their religious beliefs.

However, the religious leader knowledgeable of the plans for the revamped office said: “You can do a lot of things without rescinding those orders. That’s not a necessary step to make changes.”

The Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, said he and other religious leaders have conveyed their concerns about the hiring issue in conference calls with the transition team and the Obama White House. One concern is that churches or other faith groups would be required to change their bylaws or hiring practices to qualify for the grants.

“I believe it’s not practical and it’s not going to happen - and the president knows the backlash from the faith community would be egregious,” Rodriguez said. “To push the envelope on that, to say, for example, ‘You’re going to have to hire gays and lesbians’ … that would be unprecedented.”

http://www.365gay.com/news/questions-remain-over-gay-inclusion-at-white-house-faith-based-office/

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100229826

This is exactly what I was worried about with Josh DuBois being named to that office.

This apparent compromise would leave gays without protection in every state they currently don't have it. Gays have every right to be pissed about their tax money going to groups which won't hire gays. Obama could change this with the stoke of a pen and it looks like he won't. He surely hasn't yet.

[William769]

1. You would think you should be singing to the choir here but,

unfortunately you are not. I would have thought by now the kool-aid would have been diluted somewhat, but it hasn't. I had high hopes on inauguration day that the message "change" would actually occur, but as usual my hopes are slipping away once again.

[Teaser]

2. "he surely hasn't yet"

and with only 3 days left in his administration, it looks like he never will.

[dsc]

3. funny the Mexico city policy got overridden in one day

This isn't a complicated issue. It doesn't need study. It needs a pen.

[Teaser]

5. Hey, I'm on your side

He's had years to do this and hasn't. You are absolutely right.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Solomon]

4. I thought he had only two days left.

Is it three? He better get cracking then.

[greguganus]

57. Is that business days? n/t

[Divine Discontent]

6. thus the argument that tax dollars shouldn't GO to religious orgs b/c of their views that negate

rights of ordinary tax paying citizens.

President Obama, for all his good - doesn't match up too strongly with many Gay people on his standing up for us - YET. I'm remaining hopeful. We must keep pressuring him. I commend ALL the people on DU who do this who aren't even GLBT!

[Neecy]

21. it's not just religious orgs

A big chunk of our tax money goes to the military, which can fire us if we don't lie about who we are.

Maybe it's just time to stop paying taxes.

[Divine Discontent]

46. YES! that needs to change too - I'm all for people foregoing their taxes if this stuff doesn't stop

in this administration's tenure. hoping it does. good point about the military.

[William769]

7. The jokes on you DSC.

I don't know if you can see it or not but after 4 years of supporting this website I have decided to let my money go elsewhere.

But to the point I am making, the advertisement in your OP are ring tones with Obama quotes. Want to guess what the first one is? Oh hell, I'll just go ahead and tell you "All Are Equal All Are Free". Can't remember who did this but I like this quote better and better "FUCK THE BUS!"

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

10. Everyone has every right to be pissed that Obama hasn't changed everything in 16 days.

Seriously, he should have changed every single Bush policy within hours of the inauguration. How dare him take on issues one at a time.

[donco6]

12. And here they are . . . n/t

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

14. Considering that he hasn't yet finished the stimulus,

which is unquestionably 143792489389414% more important than repealing "don't ask, don't tell" or the other policies he's "throwing gays under the bus" over, draw me a fucking roadmap as to how you expected Obama to appease everyone and everything within 16 days.

[donco6]

17. Rah Rah,

Hamalama Shamalama Sis Boom Bah!

It's easy to fob off remarks like yours when you're not under the bus. Especially since signing one Executive Order forbidding discrimination in hiring is hardly "appeasing everyone and everything."

Care to try again without the straw man?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

19. I'll make you deal

You stop acting like a child and cease with the name calling, I'll stop using "straw men".

[donco6]

39. You should stop using straw men, period.

And all I've done is point out the obvious.

It was you who appeared with the first hyperbolic salvo: "Obama hasn't solved every problem in 16 days."

[NYC_SKP]

23. .

By your standand, many Americans could claim that they're "under the bus".

All issues matter, veterans, the poor and hungry, the victims of corruption at many levels.

We'd like to think that progress is being made, it is being made.

Claims that include the phrase "under the bus" simply aren't productive.

[Lyric]

28. Yep, but not all issues are as easy and straight-forward to fix as this.

It requires a pen and the desire to see it done--nothing more. No wrangling with Congress, no cabinet-level deals, nothing but a President who has the will to do it.

Most of the problems you falsely equated in your post require Congressional brokering and bickering in order to be fixed. This one DOESN'T. It doesn't require study, it doesn't require extensive research, and it doesn't require lots of time.

Just a pen, a piece of paper, five minutes, and the genuine will to do it.

Guess what's lacking?

[NYC_SKP]

30. I'm no constitutional lawyer, but...

...what is there that the POTUS can do that would pass constitutional muster?

I agree that, even if he doesn't have the power to dictate to states how they define marriage, he could take a leadership role and make the gesture.

But there isn't something like an executive order that he could sign that would really change anything, is there?

[Lyric]

33. We're not talking about marriage.

We're talking about the way that he runs the Executive branch--specifically, his "Faith Based" program, which has nothing to do with Congress beyond Congress funding the overall budget for the department. The rules of operation are set by the Chief Executive, though.

[donco6]

40. VROOM!

McClurkin

VROOM

Warren

VROOM

DADT Delay

VROOM

Faith-Based Bullshit

VROOM

OK, yes, there are all sorts of aggreived people in the country. But at some point, I do have to stake out my place in line and advocate for my own situation. It's not that I don't care about veterans or the poor - but if I wait until all their problems are solved before I advocate for my own . . . well, it's pretty obvious where that goes, right?

[PVnRT]

16. How dare people care about things

Please provide us a list of priorities. Thank you.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

20. 1) Economy. 2) National Security and Foreign Policy.

Being as that he hasn't finished handling 1 or 2 yet, the other priorities really don't need to be ordered at this point. Civil rights is on that list, but unlike some, I realize he can't do everything at once.

[dsc]

43. He has to sign a fucking piece of paper

It might take a minute or two. I know how dare I ask him to sign a piece of paper it might cramp his hand.

[FreeState]

48. You realize that GLBT rights would effect those three priorities right?

Economy: insurance premiums and unequal pay effect GLBT persons and couples daily.

National Security: Do Google on how many GLBT Arabic translators have been thrown out of the military - or just military personnel in general. How much did it cost us to train them?

Forign Policy: huge issues here from unfair treatment of government workers (GLBT persons are usually forces to pay for their partners travel/hotel etc but married couples do not) and thats just the tip of the ice berg here....

[QC]

50. Many people seem to think that we exist in some mysterious, free-standing realm

totally detached from things like the economy.

[FreeState]

56. Amazing isnt it? n/t

[donco6]

11. Bring on the cheerleaders . . .

. . . in 3 . . . 2 . . . 1 . . .

but Obama's web site says he LOVES gays . . . he's only been in office X days . . . you sound just like RUSH OXYLIMBAUGH! . . . Kennedy has a bill drafted to change everything, only needs a Republican sponsor . . . You're just JEALOUS! . . . gays are icky . . . Obama can't do it alone . . .

yadda yadda yadda.

[sampsonblk]

13. No money should go to any religious groups

That would solve this problem. Instead, we are left to fight over which ones should get it and under which conditions.

[riqster]

22. Yup. Whatever happened to separation of Church and State?

A constitutional law professor should grok that point.

[Zhade]

59. HEAR HEAR!

NT!

[biopowertoday]

15. And WHY has Obama NOT wiped out Bush's exec order on this issue???

[donco6]

18. Evidently, until he can "appease everyone with everything" . . .

. . . he doesn't have to appease anyone with anything.

[QC]

25. It's funny how he has time to set up a new Church Welfare Office,

but does not have time to revoke one of Bush's executive orders.

Priorities, people!

[William769]

27. Proof positive, every group has their Aunt Marys! NT.

[Terran]

24. I gotta ask this...

Regardless of sexual orientation, why would you want to work for a religious agency if you didn't share that agency's religious views?

As for being allowed to discriminate in hiring based on sexual orientation: of course that's not right, and Obama could build that protection in by executive order, I believe. But then again, *very* few states have sexual orientation as a protected class in their discrimination statutes, so most of us go without that protection anyway. I just don't see it arising very often in this narrow context. I'm a quasi-agnostic gay man, and there's no way in hell I'd want to work for Catholic Charities or Salavation Army, even though I admire what they do.

[dsc]

44. This isn't about working for a religious agency

it is about working for drug rehab centers, day care centers and the like. Many drug and alchy counselors are gay and have every right to work in federally supported programs. Under the current ones who live in places where the only rehab centers are run by Conservative Christians need not apply.

[Zhade]

60. Just out of curiosity, how can one be "quasi-agnostic"?

Since it means "lacking knowledge", I don't understand your label. Either someone knows something, or they don't.

[NYC_SKP]

26. Which faith-based service group refuses to serve gay people?

Because I'll be the first to protest any funding to them, in fact they should be put out of business.

:shrug:

[Lyric]

29. False equivalency--again.

Our tax dollars should NOT go to churches that discriminate via hiring. Tell me--should we give tax money to a church that will serve black people but not hire them? There are churches that believe that being black means that you have no soul and are merely a highly-functioning animal--look up the Christian Identity movement.

Would you want your tax dollars going to a church like THAT? Even for "public services?" Is that the kind of ideology that should be supported in ANY way by public money? When you give a church money for outreach, you aren't just paying for them to help poor people. You're ALSO paying for them to ADVERTISE their beliefs--charity work is the biggest advertising venture that religious groups have, after all.

Do you understand why it's horrifically wrong to help discriminatory churches advertise themselves and gain new converts? Let the government give the money to the churches that DON'T discriminate, period. They can take up the slack. If churches like the one that Critters2 is in charge of had the federal funding that currently goes to bigoted churches, they'd be just as capable of administering help to the needy as the bigoted churches are. Why not just give all of that money to THEM? What is the purpose of distributing tax money to help advertise bigotry?

People can believe what they wish, but we DON'T have to help them spread their beliefs with our tax dollars.

Edit: Or better yet, don't give any money to churches AT ALL, and open government relief offices in places where churches are the only source of public assistance. Then fund the relief offices with the money that would otherwise have gone to churches.

[Marrah_G]

31. This was really well-said. You should write an OP on it.

[NYC_SKP]

32. There are certainly organizations that should not get our money.

But the idea that because some groups are assholes means that no faith-based groups should be supported (the thrust of the OP) is a little over the top, isn't it?

[Lyric]

34. The OP opposes discriminatory groups getting money.

Not all faith-based groups, although there's certainly an argument to be made that the government should help people *directly* rather than using churches as a middle-man.

[NYC_SKP]

36. Fair nuff. But, "don't give any money to churches AT ALL..."

(your words) is very often the solution proposed by many, and I disagree.

I'm not at all opposed to subjecting groups to a test of eligibility based on civil rights and fairness practices throughout their organization and disqualifying those who fail the test.

[kiva]

53. Tax money should not be given to any religious organization, period.

There is no reason that secular organization cannot provide counseling and other services to people in need. The government doesn't have the resources to police every religious organization receiving grants to ensure that faith based groups aren't discriminating against individuals.

I'm not saying that most of faith based groups actively try to exclude people, but that they tend to do so anyway. For several years a friend of mine, non-Mormon, lived in a predominantly Mormon town. Her boys were in Boy Scouts, and she frequently had problems getting information about changes in meeting times and places; when she asked the troop leaders, their response was invariably that they had announced the changes in church. When she pointed out that she, and some other parents, didn't attend the Mormon church, the leaders were surprised. There was no attempt to deliberately exclude her sons, but the end result was to do just that.

[William769]

35. I'll make a deal with you

When I am afforded the same rights as you so gleefully enjoy, then we will have a intelligent conversation on who should get money and who shouldn't. Deal?

[NYC_SKP]

37. The day will never come...

...that each American enjoys precisely identical rights.

If THAT's the criteria before discussion can occur, you've got a long wait.

[Zhade]

61. Over the top? No, not at all. It's unconstitutional to give my tax money to ANY religion.

NT!

[donco6]

41. Salvation Army doesn't hire gays. n/t

[Sub Atomic]

45. Over 9500 hits on 'salvation army gay discrimination'

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=salvation+army+gay+discrimination&btnG=Google+Search&aq=0&oq=salvation+army+gay+dis

[question everything]

38. I am really disappointed with Obama for continuing Bush's "faith-based"

office.

First, adding more to the White House staff when are in a budget crisis.

Second, religious organization should be the one catering to their people. After all, we deduct our contribution from our income tax returns. Why do they need additional funding?

[TheWraith]

42. Obama has made it very clear and did so again today that nondiscrimination rules would be applied nt

[dsc]

47. No he hasn't

He has repeatedly stated that they could not discriminate on the basis of religion but has not even one time mentioned gays in this context.

[TheWraith]

52. What he said was that groups couldn't prostletyze or restrict hiring based on religion...

It doesn't take much of a lawyer to characterize a ban on hiring gays as a religious test for employment.

[FreeState]

54. Based on religion does not cover GLBT or it would be illegal to fire people for being gay already

however in most states, that all follow federal laws that protect religious bias, allow churches and businesses to fire them based solely on their orientation.

[dsc]

55. there are gay Christians, Muslims, and Jews

as well as every other religion. Discriminating on the basis of religion means refusing to hire person x because they are religion y. It has nothing to do with being gay, straight, or bi.

[FreeState]

49. Link? n/t

[TheWraith]

51. It was in his speech today on CNN. I don't have a link. nt

[donco6]

62. ACLU, PFAW and ASCS disagree with you. n/t

[Zhade]

58. Fucking bigots.

NT!