Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Minneapolis Star Tribune)   You're not going to believe this, but following the Hobby Lobby ruling, some religious organizations are openly campaigning to make it legal to openly discriminate against gays. The good news is their next target is the reinstitution of slavery   (startribune.com ) divider line
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

2927 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 Jul 2014 at 11:39 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



320 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2014-07-09 09:40:24 AM  
Give 'em an inch, they'll give five more to your kids.
 
2014-07-09 10:04:50 AM  
Uh, in many states it's already perfectly legal to discriminate against gays.
 
2014-07-09 10:10:04 AM  
Well, slavery *is* in the Bible, so......

/yes, I know that's the joke
 
2014-07-09 10:14:27 AM  
but I was told that would never ever happen and it was only about 4 specific types of birth control.
 
2014-07-09 10:17:15 AM  

Rincewind53: Uh, in many states it's already perfectly legal to discriminate against gays.


Unfortunately, yes:
upload.wikimedia.org
Key
Purple: Bans discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity in all employment
Lavender: Same protection as purple, except only in public employment
Blue: Bans discrimination based on sexual orientation in all employment, not gender identity
Pink: Bans discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in public employment only
Cyan: Bans discrimination based on sexual orientation in public employment only, not gender identity
Gray: No protections

/went with a county map because even red states have some relatively sane places
//that blue county in Nebraska seems like an oddity, doesn't correspond with Omaha or Lincoln...
 
2014-07-09 10:22:36 AM  
The Polygamy movement must be ready to pounce by now, too
 
2014-07-09 10:22:47 AM  

Paris1127: Unfortunately, yes:


F*cking upstate New York, ruining it for the rest of us.
 
2014-07-09 10:30:04 AM  
If discriminating against gays is a matter of religious freedom, what does that say about your religion?
 
2014-07-09 10:30:15 AM  
You can protest at these people's churches like they were abortion clinics. Take the fight to them, I'm sure they'll freak the fark out if there are a couple hundred protesters on the sidewalk sorta blocking the entry to their church carrying giant signs.
 
2014-07-09 10:31:03 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: If discriminating against gays is a matter of religious freedom, what does that say about your religion?


It's the one, true, holy, and right path towards salvation?
 
2014-07-09 10:34:46 AM  

ManateeGag: but I was told that would never ever happen and it was only about 4 specific types of birth control.


I do so wish I had kept a list of the Fark Legal Eagles who assured us that the ruling was surprisingly fair and just, and could not possibly be used as a basis for this sort of thing.
 
2014-07-09 10:41:22 AM  

Rincewind53: Paris1127: Unfortunately, yes:

F*cking upstate New York, ruining it for the rest of us.


If Springfield hadn't acted, Downstate Illinois (aka not Chicago/NE IL) would look similar to Upstate New York. But quite possibly gray instead of lavender, save for the populous places like Champaign, Springfield, etc, which would be at least blue.

/NY could be worse: could be WY or MS
 
2014-07-09 10:55:33 AM  
Pfft - as if teh gheys need birth control anyway.
 
2014-07-09 10:57:02 AM  

Paris1127: Purple: Bans discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity in all employment
Lavender: Same protection as purple, except only in public employment


So, Lavender is "bans discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity [in public employment only]"

Pink: Bans discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in public employment only

ಠ_ಠ
 
2014-07-09 11:02:14 AM  

Theaetetus: Paris1127: Purple: Bans discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity in all employment
Lavender: Same protection as purple, except only in public employment

So, Lavender is "bans discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity [in public employment only]"

Pink: Bans discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in public employment only

ಠ_ಠ


Yeah, I had the same "huh?" reaction. The only difference is an "or" vs. an "and", so obviously the right answer is that in the pink states, it's only illegal to discriminate against gay transgender individuals, but legal to discriminate against gay  or transgender individuals.
 
2014-07-09 11:05:08 AM  
Am I surprised, NO. Am I saddened by this, YES. I can't decide who I like least, republicans or the extreme religious. Such a toss up.
 
2014-07-09 11:07:56 AM  
Go on; you religious groups can continue to be bigots. Uncle Sam probably won't have that hard of a time finding some other non-bigot organization to step up to the federal trough and take the contracts.
 
2014-07-09 11:10:34 AM  

Rincewind53: Theaetetus: Paris1127: Purple: Bans discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity in all employment
Lavender: Same protection as purple, except only in public employment

So, Lavender is "bans discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity [in public employment only]"

Pink: Bans discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in public employment only

ಠ_ಠ

Yeah, I had the same "huh?" reaction. The only difference is an "or" vs. an "and", so obviously the right answer is that in the pink states, it's only illegal to discriminate against gay transgender individuals, but legal to discriminate against gay  or transgender individuals.


I went back to look, I think I worded it incorrectly. Here's what Wikipedia has to say-
Lavender: "Sexual orientation with anti-employment discrimination ordinance and gender identity solely in public employment"
Pink: "Sexual orientation and gender identity solely in public employment"

So lavender prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation in all employment, but gender identity is only protected in public employment. Pink has protection for both sexual orientation and identity only in public employment.
 
2014-07-09 11:11:53 AM  

Paris1127: Rincewind53: Theaetetus: Paris1127: Purple: Bans discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity in all employment
Lavender: Same protection as purple, except only in public employment

So, Lavender is "bans discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity [in public employment only]"

Pink: Bans discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in public employment only

ಠ_ಠ

Yeah, I had the same "huh?" reaction. The only difference is an "or" vs. an "and", so obviously the right answer is that in the pink states, it's only illegal to discriminate against gay transgender individuals, but legal to discriminate against gay  or transgender individuals.

I went back to look, I think I worded it incorrectly. Here's what Wikipedia has to say-
Lavender: "Sexual orientation with anti-employment discrimination ordinance and gender identity solely in public employment"
Pink: "Sexual orientation and gender identity solely in public employment"

So lavender prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation in all employment, but gender identity is only protected in public employment. Pink has protection for both sexual orientation and identity only in public employment.


Ahhh, okay. So I partially take back my comment about f*cking upstate New York ruining it for all of us.
 
2014-07-09 11:30:46 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: If discriminating against gays is a matter of religious freedom, what does that say about your religion?


If I was Jesus and my mom farked a ghost, I wouldn't be so judgey.
 
2014-07-09 11:39:37 AM  

raerae1980: Am I surprised, NO. Am I saddened by this, YES. I can't decide who I like least, republicans or the extreme religious. Such a toss up.


There's enough overlap there to cover disliking them equally. You could just have a hate-on for religious Republicans, too.
 
2014-07-09 11:41:19 AM  

Rincewind53: Uh, in many states it's already perfectly legal to discriminate against gays.


Yes, but this is in reference to an executive action that would make it impermissible for any government contractors to do so.

There are a few things about this that need to change:

First, we need to extend strict scrutiny to sexual orientation, so that everyone who is LGBTQIAEIEIO is a protected class. Second, we have to rewrite RFRA so that strict scrutiny doesn't apply to at least corporate persons.

That being said, this challenge should still fail since there really is no less restrictive means of establishing the government's compelling interest of nondiscrimination.
 
2014-07-09 11:41:19 AM  
Was there anyone who didn't see this coming?
 
2014-07-09 11:42:29 AM  

dr_blasto: You can protest at these people's churches like they were abortion clinics. Take the fight to them, I'm sure they'll freak the fark out if there are a couple hundred protesters on the sidewalk sorta blocking the entry to their church carrying giant signs.


I'd love to see this happen.
 
2014-07-09 11:42:31 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: If discriminating against gays is a matter of religious freedom, what does that say about your religion?


Well put.
 
2014-07-09 11:44:02 AM  

Rincewind53: Uh, in many states it's already perfectly legal to discriminate against gays.


The subject of TFA is Obama's planned EO to ban discrimination based on gender ID and sexual orientation for organizations doing federally-funded work.  That wouldn't overturn state laws broadly, but it would apply nationwide.

dr_blasto: There's enough overlap there to cover disliking them equally. You could just have a hate-on for religious Republicans, too.


TFA is also about Democratic-supporting faith-based groups looking for shelter from this EO, so that they wouldn't have to ever see a gay person because then reasons.
 
2014-07-09 11:44:46 AM  

Paris1127: Rincewind53: Uh, in many states it's already perfectly legal to discriminate against gays.

Unfortunately, yes:
[upload.wikimedia.org image 800x506]
Key
Purple: Bans discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity in all employment
Lavender: Same protection as purple, except only in public employment
Blue: Bans discrimination based on sexual orientation in all employment, not gender identity
Pink: Bans discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in public employment only
Cyan: Bans discrimination based on sexual orientation in public employment only, not gender identity
Gray: No protections

/went with a county map because even red states have some relatively sane places
//that blue county in Nebraska seems like an oddity, doesn't correspond with Omaha or Lincoln...


That map is incredibly fabulous.
 
2014-07-09 11:45:20 AM  
I know of no verse in the Bible which says Christians should not hire homosexuals.  And I've 99% of each Sunday for three decades in Southern Baptist churches, so I think I would have heard about it.

"Christians" in the US did not read through the Bible and find out they're supposed to hate gays.  They decided to hate gays, realized the rest of us don't like people who act like assholes, and then dug through the Bible to try to find some justification for their bigotry.

Which is why their "Biblical" reasons for homophobia only apply to gays.  Notice how the people who complain about gays destroying marriage never want to outlaw divorce or inter-faith unions?
 
2014-07-09 11:46:12 AM  

Paris1127: Rincewind53: Uh, in many states it's already perfectly legal to discriminate against gays.

Unfortunately, yes:
[upload.wikimedia.org image 800x506]
Key
Purple: Bans discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity in all employment
Lavender: Same protection as purple, except only in public employment
Blue: Bans discrimination based on sexual orientation in all employment, not gender identity
Pink: Bans discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in public employment only
Cyan: Bans discrimination based on sexual orientation in public employment only, not gender identity
Gray: No protections

/went with a county map because even red states have some relatively sane places
//that blue county in Nebraska seems like an oddity, doesn't correspond with Omaha or Lincoln...


so like everything else in life, red states suck?
sigh
 
2014-07-09 11:47:17 AM  
Well the one nice thing then about the lack of a federal protection for gays ala the Civil Rights Act is that the RFRA does not trump state law.

Thus in all those states where discrimination against gays is illegal, discrimination is still illegal.  And for all  those states where discrimination is legal . . . fark you.
 
2014-07-09 11:47:28 AM  
Subby said "openly" twice.
 
2014-07-09 11:47:47 AM  

Fart_Machine: Was there anyone who didn't see this coming?


Five members of the Supreme Court?
 
2014-07-09 11:47:57 AM  

Paris1127: Rincewind53: Paris1127: Unfortunately, yes:

F*cking upstate New York, ruining it for the rest of us.

If Springfield hadn't acted, Downstate Illinois (aka not Chicago/NE IL) would look similar to Upstate New York. But quite possibly gray instead of lavender, save for the populous places like Champaign, Springfield, etc, which would be at least blue.

/NY could be worse: could be WY or MS


Wooo Equality State!

/...
 
2014-07-09 11:48:03 AM  

dr_blasto: You can protest at these people's churches like they were abortion clinics. Take the fight to them, I'm sure they'll freak the fark out if there are a couple hundred protesters on the sidewalk sorta blocking the entry to their church carrying giant signs.


alas, gay people are nice and have better things to do on a sunday morning, like sleep
 
2014-07-09 11:48:31 AM  

Lando Lincoln: Fart_Machine: Was there anyone who didn't see this coming?

Five members of the Supreme Court?


They knew exactly what would happen.
 
2014-07-09 11:49:24 AM  

dr_blasto: You can protest at these people's churches like they were abortion clinics. Take the fight to them, I'm sure they'll freak the fark out if there are a couple hundred protesters on the sidewalk sorta blocking the entry to their church carrying giant signs.


Freak out? They'd love it! It would feed right into their persecution complex.
 
2014-07-09 11:49:39 AM  
The effort behind the letter was organized by Michael Wear ... Wear, who calls himself an "ardent supporter" of the president and a backer of gay rights

How ardent of a support of gay rights can you be if you think companies should be allowed to discriminate against them in hiring?
 
2014-07-09 11:51:06 AM  
Institutionalizing religious beliefs always ends badly.
 
2014-07-09 11:51:09 AM  

factoryconnection: The subject of TFA is Obama's planned EO to ban discrimination based on gender ID and sexual orientation for organizations doing federally-funded work.  That wouldn't overturn state laws broadly, but it would apply nationwide.


Yeah, I know. I was more poking fun at the headline, which made no distinction.
 
2014-07-09 11:52:07 AM  

raerae1980: Am I surprised, NO. Am I saddened by this, YES. I can't decide who I like least, republicans or the extreme religious. Such a toss up.


We were warned that when fascism came to America it would be wrapped in the flag, carrying a cross.
 
2014-07-09 11:52:20 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: If discriminating against gays is a matter of religious freedom, what does that say about your religion?



That they occupy the moral high ground?
 
2014-07-09 11:53:15 AM  
I just don't understand.

Fark all of them.  I'm so disgusted by this entire scenario, I'm going to start writing letters to every farking religious group even marginally involved in something like this I can find an address for and tell them to fark off.  Churches too.  It won't do a damn thing, but it will help me get this frustration out without actually physically hurting someone.
 
2014-07-09 11:53:36 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: If discriminating against gays is a matter of religious freedom, what does that say about your religion?


It's not about religion, though.  These people aren't actually Christians.  They're "Christians."  The quotes are key.  There's nothing in the Bible, not in the Old Testament or the New Testament, that says anything about gay marriage, abortion, birth control, climate change, or black Presidents.  These people are frauds.  They don't believe in God, they believe in "God," an even more made-up entity than the former.  It would be one thing if they lived according to what the God of the Bible said, because at least they'd be consistent with their religion's teachings.  The "God" they worship doesn't exist, not even in the Bible.  They made him/her/it up in order to justify their social and political beliefs.

That's what made the Hobby Lobby ruling so infuriating, in part.  It had nothing to do with actual religion or actual religions doctrine.  I'm an atheist, and I got into a very interesting and spirited conversation with my best friend, the daughter of a minister and Army chaplain.  She happened to agree with me, that the basis for this bullshiat has nothing to do with actual Christianity, but rather hatred and ignorance.
 
2014-07-09 11:54:25 AM  
It gets better!  You'll get used to it.
 
2014-07-09 11:54:49 AM  

Misch: We were warned that when fascism came to America it would be wrapped in the flag, carrying a cross.


Yeah, but they were national socialists, therefor, all fascism is leftist.

//Please don't take this post seriously.  I know you were going to.  Yes you.
 
2014-07-09 11:56:06 AM  

TwoBeersOneCan: Paris1127: Rincewind53: Paris1127: Unfortunately, yes:

F*cking upstate New York, ruining it for the rest of us.

If Springfield hadn't acted, Downstate Illinois (aka not Chicago/NE IL) would look similar to Upstate New York. But quite possibly gray instead of lavender, save for the populous places like Champaign, Springfield, etc, which would be at least blue.

/NY could be worse: could be WY or MS

Wooo Equality State!

/...


Yeah, funny that.
 
2014-07-09 11:57:01 AM  

dr_blasto: You can protest at these people's churches like they were abortion clinics. Take the fight to them, I'm sure they'll freak the fark out if there are a couple hundred protesters on the sidewalk sorta blocking the entry to their church carrying giant signs.


Maybe at those megachurches? Have signs that say "why are you so hateful?" and/or "Who would Jesus hate?*" Don't let them go by without a satisfactory answer.


*I mean, besides the money changers at the temple.
 
2014-07-09 11:57:28 AM  
It IS legal. They're campaigning to be allowed to continue discriminating against gays while taking the federal government's money.

They'e enjoyed being able to have it both ways. They get to take federal money to do charity (is it really charity if the federal government is paying for it?) while still treating homosexuals like they aren't real people. They let themselves get confused about the difference between doing one good thing and being good people, and they would really like to not be forced to remember it.
 
2014-07-09 11:57:52 AM  

xanadian: Well, slavery *is* in the Bible, so......

/yes, I know that's the joke


Why do people treat this like a joke? This country is full of people who have no idea why they shouldn't own slaves.
 
2014-07-09 11:58:44 AM  
I hope Obama tells them to shove it.  These companies aren't entitled to government contracts, and if they don't want to comply with the requirements the government sets for its contractors, then they are free to fark the fark off.  There's always someone else who can do the job.
 
Displayed 50 of 320 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report