Posted on 12/14/2016 5:18:21 PM PST by ameribbean expat
Louisiana judge on Wednesday threw out an order from the state's Democratic governor aimed at protecting the rights of gay and transgender people, ruling that the governor had overstepped his authority.
In addition to protecting LGBT rights, the executive order from Governor John Bel Edwards protected state employees against discrimination based on race, religion, disability and age. It banned state agencies from discrimination, while offering an exemption for churches and religious organizations.
The "Executive Order is a violation of the Louisiana Constitution's separation of powers doctrine and an unlawful usurp of the constitutional authority vested only in the legislative branch of government," Judge Todd Hernandez, of the 19th Judicial District Court in East Baton Rogue Parish, said in his ruling.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
Winning.
And that’s what Louisiana gets for trusting a ‘conservative’ Democrat to be their governor.
It offered an exemption for churches and religious organizations.
So I’m not sure whether this is winning or not winning.
Can someone clarify?
cmon you know those exemptions are just put in to shut up objctions.
they soon are targeted to be pared down and go away.
why do only churches and religious groups get to live their values and consciences? i mean regular’citizens are members of the church.
Ok man, I was just askin. I really don’t know.
i dont either, i said these would be my six guesses.
Bisexuality is, by universal agreement, simply having partners of both sexes. It is, by definition, merely a behavior. Behavior does not confer rights.
Transgenderism is a figment of the imagination. A chimera. A fantasy. A fiction. Something that does not exist, cannot exist and can never be proven to exist is also not a basis for conferring rights.
The issue will NEVER be addressed any more precisely, nor more efficiently dispatched than you just did it, with 8 NAILS and one HEAVY HAMMER of your voice, here!
PRINT IT and repeat it everywhere you can. I will.
“why do only churches and religious groups get to live their values and consciences? i mean regular’citizens are members of the church.”
==
In most Christian thought the “church” *is* people, i.e. it’s made up of all believers.
do you get what i am saying or are you just trying to argue?
“do you get what i am saying or are you just trying to argue?”
==
Not arguing at all. To the contrary, agreeing and emphasizing your point. Since the traditional belief is that Christians are *the church*, the exemptions should apply to them as individuals re:violating conscience/religious beliefs. You actually brought out a good argument and I’m kind of surprised that it hasn’t been argued in the courts.
I don’t really care whether the order can be rationalized or not, I’m just glad to see the queers get smeared.
sorry didnt see that.
i think it has been brought up, the other side have always argued only people who work for the church are covered. courts have agreed.
“i think it has been brought up, the other side have always argued only people who work for the church are covered. courts have agreed.”
==
My thinking is that since the law deals with concrete terms, how does it define “church”? That is, what is the source “dictionary”, legally. Is it the same as the one used by people who say they are the church? The legal devil (or angel) might be in the semantic details.
Excellent analysis.
Even if the Louisiana legislature had drafted a bill that did the same thing as the governor's executive order, it remains that when the states ratified the 14th Amendment they prohibited themselves from any official action that abridges constitutionally enumerated protections.
14th Amendment, Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States [emphasis added]; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
So even if the governor had signed a bill that protects LGBT rights, it remains that state protections for LGBT rights do not trump constitutionally enumerated protections, 1st Amendment-protected religious expression and speech in this example.
Corrections, insights welcome.
Was that his claim? SMH
There is no longer such a thing as a 'conservative' Democrat.
Yes, he claimed to be a conservative but as well know there is really no such thing anymore.
The road to hell is paved with ‘religious exemptions.’
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.