You fellas seem rather set on pushing the fearmongering agenda. As such I have recognized your claims and asked a friend who is studying law in the US and has almost graduated. The "not withstanding other law" does indeed work the way I claimed. The humongous amount of anti-discrimination laws will still be in effect. Also here's the important part he told me.
And here's the part he apparently didn't, you've been told already in this very thread and seem to be pointedly ignoring, and is exactly what LGBT et al folks are worried about.
Anti-discrimination laws on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity do not exist in many parts of the United States of America. They are not federal protected classes. They do not allow someone to challenge a firing or hiring rejection on the basis of discrimination against those characteristics They do not put in place repercussions for businesses, non-profits, state and local government, and on, and on, and on, that choose to discriminate on the basis of LGBT alignment. Anti-discrimination laws apply to protected classes, and
only protected classes.
This is not bloody fearmongering. This is shit we've been
seeing for the last while. Specifically one of the latest tracks anti-LGBT groups are trying to leverage to do their thing. It's stuff that's letting religiously inclined religious organizations (or even just jackasses willing to claim they are) try to deny vital or near vital services (access to birth control, ferex) and still claim federal funding and other sorts of special treatment. It is, in fact, trying to give free reign to religious organizations or people otherwise interested in claiming religious grounds for their discrimination against certain portions of the population to be able to do so
and face no federal funding repercussions. The intent of that law is to allow organizations to break their contracts with the federal government and still be able to legally challenge the fed if they decide to end, alter, or even
enforce said contracts in response.
And it's not just LGBT, though they're just about the most overt worry. We already had a kerfluffle just a few years back where religiously backed healthcare related organizations were trying to avoid giving reproductive health care (specifically birth control, iirc) in direct contravention to agreements they had previously entered, and still claim the benefits of said agreements. That is what this bill is trying to allow. That is what should not be allowed. They want to make an agreement under the acknowledgement they're going to discriminate on the grounds in question, fine. They've got the right to try, mostly. But they don't deserve exemptions if they didn't, and they don't deserve grounds to challenge if they're refused because of it.
Also, yeah, you will be randomly fired if your boss doesn't like you. It's called at-will employment, it's common in the US, and just about the only way to challenge it is under discrimination laws,
which only apply to protected classes (which, again. LGBT aren't on a federal level, and aren't in more than one state). All this bill is trying to do on that front is remove the power of the federal government to strip funding from (and/or deny) individuals that do so while claiming religious grounds, if they're not targeting someone specifically under a protected class even if said funding is contingent on not targeting
anyone. Which, hey. Is bullshit. Utter. These organizations want to discriminate like that, they can set up an agreement allowing for it beforehand rather than lying about what they're going to do and then trying to force the feds to still pay them. They can also shut the hell up if the feds decide their bigoted ass isn't in the interests of the state and won't be getting federal support.
Author
Topic: Doc Helgoland's Asylum for the Politically American: T+0 (Read 1426048 times)