Obama the Defiler

[AgeofKnowledge]

Obama just discriminated against genuine non-apostate Christians by issuing an executive order banning all religious organizations that don't propagate homosexuality in their organizations from working for the government. That's about 20% of the U.S. labor market.

Unilaterally, Obama simply issued and edict violating the human right under natural law to a free moral conscience and the religious liberty toward a normative morality of all Americans.

Genuine non-apostate Christians in the U.S. are now officially discriminated against by the Obama Administration.

Religious Groups LGBT Gay Contractors Executive Order Obama | The Daily Caller

 

[SonInMe]

I am beginning to think our president is not only the first african american president but the first gay one too.

Where is the media with this? I know the story says this is in the planning stages but how many times is this president going to bypass Congress and just legislate.

I don't get it.

Homosexuals are NOT A MINORITY.

They are a perversion.

 

[posthuman]

how many churches are federal contractors?

 

[Nautilus]

SO he is a defiler by punishing federally contracted companies who discriminate against people based on their sexuality. Because apparently discrimination is okay if you don't like the people? I mean thats what I'm seeing here.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

No Nautilus, he's using his position to force the government to punish religious employers that align with God's holiness violating their human rights under natural law to have a free moral conscience and their religious liberty toward a normative morality under the Constitution.

Obviously using the government to discriminate against Christians because they adhere to God's holiness on behalf of groups of immoral people that define themselves by the immorality they engage in isn't okay.

Look harder.

SO he is a defiler by punishing federally contracted companies who discriminate against people based on their sexuality. Because apparently discrimination is okay if you don't like the people? I mean thats what I'm seeing here.

 

[SonInMe]

Obama is trying to force churches to accept homosexuality.

I say let the feds have their monies/employment/contracts. Who needs them? If we have to compromise to work with the feds....we don't

 

[TryingToFindTheLight]

He wants us to think that being gay is normal and not a perversion. Obama can't tell anyone what to do or how to think unless he plans to be a dictator.

 

[MrsRoseTreasure]

The point of the problem is that it will be legal to discriminate against Christians who think that homosexuality is wrong and are willing to say so out loud. Is it bad? You betcha. American Christians have never really known persecution. That's why so many are lukewarm. Go figure. The time is coming when he will spit the lukewarm out of his mouth, very soon. Time to pick a side.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

The defiler's unilateral decree affects every Christian who owns a business that contracts with the federal government.

Furthermore, religious organizations that contract with the government to provide social services such as adoption assistance, disaster relief, health care navigation, preschool education, drug rehabilitation and prison ministry, are now required to seek out and hire practicing homosexuals who espouse homosexuality and the homosexual agenda and promote them into leadership in blatant contradiction to their organizational statement of beliefs and convictions, personal consciences, and the historical orthodox religious exegesis and epistemologies the organizations were founded on, that guides their organizations, and which they must adhere to if they are to be authentic.

One could make a secular analogy that it's like forcing pacifist organizations to hire unrepentant murderers that espouse violence as normal and whom claim it as their identity and promote them into leadership of the pacifist organizations.

But, it's actually a lot worse because God and His Word are involved so what we see is Obama attempting to defile Christian organizations that adhere to God's holy biblical standard and a normative morality with immoral people that do not.

As Jesus pointed out in Mark 3:25, "If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. "If a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand."

Satan and his minion Obama the defiler are executing this tactic to corrupt and divide Christian organizations committed to being salt and light in the world.

It's an intractable violation of their human rights, a violation of their religious liberty, and an antichrist attack of the devil to corrupt godly Christian organizations.

how many churches are federal contractors?

 

[posthuman]

what if a Christian wants to work in some industry like fashion or marketing,
that's dominated by homosexual interests,
but can't be hired because he is heterosexual?

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

You need to familiarize yourself with the concept of normative morality. Immorality is not on the same footing as morality.

It would be difficult to argue that all honest people, for example, should be purged from the banking industry but not so difficult to argue that embezzlers should be.

That aside, the problem isn't secular businesses (which do not meet the definition of a religious employer) but rather the conflict presented to religious ones. It's a violation of their human rights and religious liberty (see previous posts) for the government to force them to seek out, hire, and promote people who espouse an identity and worldview in irreparable conflict with the organization's statement of beliefs and religious epistemology.

what if a Christian wants to work in some industry like fashion or marketing,
that's dominated by homosexual interests,
but can't be hired because he is heterosexual?

 

[posthuman]

EEOE laws don't force businesses to meet representative hiring quotas of homosexual, handicap, minority, women, religious persuasion, physical ability etc.

they provide a recourse for people who have been discriminated against solely for that reason.

hiring quotas in fact are specifically outlawed by EEOE law, unless superseded by a court order against a company that has been found guilty of continual unfair hiring practices.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

As American Family Association President Tim Wildmon pointed out, "The existing Executive Order that governs employment nondiscrimination by federal contractors requires that the contractors maintain an Affirmative Action Program actively to recruit members of protected groups" with LGBT a 'protected group' in the Executive Order.

This means that the government can discriminate against Christian businesses and religious organizations by forcing them to actively recruit LGBT as the price of contracting with the federal government.

And as Stanley Carlson-Thies, founder and president of Institutional Religious Freedom Alliance, wrote in an email to supporters. "The federal government doesn't contract only for aircraft carriers, janitorial services, and IT expertise. It also contracts for research, consulting, and technical assistance, and, increasingly, for social services-particularly USAID and the Bureau of Prisons contract for social services."

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

The defiler may have some trouble with the Supreme Court, however. For example, a recent unanimous Supreme Court decision overturned the federal government in the case of Hosanna-Tabor ruling:

“Requiring a church to accept or retain an unwanted minister, or punishing a church for failing to do so, intrudes upon more than a mere employment decision. Such action interferes with the internal governance of the church, depriving the church of control over the selection of those who will personify its beliefs.”

That’s a violation of both the Free Exercise Clause, “which protects a religious group’s right to shape its own faith and mission through its appointments,” and the Establishment Clause, “which prohibits government involvement in such ecclesiastical decisions.” The First Amendment “gives special solicitude to the right of religious organizations.” The government’s contrary view is “remarkable” and erroneous.

Thus, the Court said, while “the interest of society in the enforcement of employment discrimination statutes is undoubtedly important,... so too is the interest of religious groups in who will preach their beliefs, teach their faith, and carry out their mission.” The important cause of curbing discrimination does not justify denying the right of religious institutions to pick their leaders.

As the IRFA commented, "Note those terms: not only preaching but teaching and carrying out a religious group’s mission. And note that the Court backed up the decisions of a school involving a teacher. The freedom of religious organizations to choose their leaders without government interference extends beyond churches and clergy.

How far beyond? Consideration of religion in employment decisions outside of churches usually rests not directly on the ministerial exception but rather on the “religious exemption” that Congress wrote into our premier national employment law, Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Here Congress said that it isn’t discrimination for a religious organization—a faith-based school, charity, hospital, etc.—to consider religion when deciding who to hire and fire. (This freedom is sometimes limited when government funds are involved.) This is a statutory right that covers all employees of a religious organization. It was not at issue in Hosanna-Tabor. And yet Hosanna-Tabor has a bearing on this statutory religious hiring freedom."

Recall the Court’s stress on the special freedom, anchored in the Religion Clauses, of religious organizations to choose leaders, distinct from the rights of secular organizations. This has broad consequences... [affecting] para-church ministries and many other types of religious organizations. They, too, have the right to control the selection of those who personify their beliefs, and to share their on faith and mission through their decisions.”

So we'll see if the defiler is drive out of the Misty Mountains rendering them once again usable for the free folk of Middle Earth *smile*.

 

[Oncefallen]

This is the catch, Obama's EO does not say that religious organizations have to hire homosexuals, it says that religious organizations who contract with the federal government have to hire homosexuals. There is a big difference, and this sort of thing has been going on for years. The federal government consistently uses it's funding as leverage to "force" it's will. Time and again federal laws are passed that coerce states to do it's bidding or risk loosing federal funding.

In the long run the federal government and the taxpayers loose because faith based charities that provide a myriad of social services that receive federal money (if they have any conscious) will just cease to provide those contracted services. The taxpayers loose because these charities provide services at a fraction of the cost of the public sector.

Personally I think this is just the next step for progressives to push faith based charities out of the public eye so that it will be easier to paint Christianity with the broad brush of "intolerance".

 

[SonInMe]

Why do democrats support the gay agenda.

Gays vote for them.

Its the ideological foundation of liberalism to attack the family, creating more poverty and wallah! More democrat voters.

I wonder if most liberals understand the pure political nature of their ideology. Its not compassion....

its all about power. Power in the hands of a few.

Amazing isn't it that what liberals say they are so against is exactly the goal of their leadership.

Purely satanic.

 

[djness]

Where do you see it was already written?

The executive order has not been written yet, but if there are few or no exceptions, federal contractors or religious charities that aid the poor would be exposed to lawsuits if they decline to hire and promote homosexuals or people who dress as members of the other sex. Religious charities frequently provide services under government contracts.

Read more: Religious Groups LGBT Gay Contractors Executive Order Obama | The Daily Caller

 

[Esanta]

No Nautilus, he's using his position to force the government to punish religious employers that align with God's holiness violating their human rights under natural law to have a free moral conscience and their religious liberty toward a normative morality under the Constitution.

Obviously using the government to discriminate against Christians because they adhere to God's holiness on behalf of groups of immoral people that define themselves by the immorality they engage in isn't okay.

Look harder.

Discrimination isn't a human right. A person cannot discriminate against another for any reason. If the gov't allowed employers to discriminate on religious grounds, that would be illegal. Not allowing them to discriminate (thus making them equal to other citizens under the law) is not in itself legal discrimination.

Here are the 30 human rights.


1. The Right to Freedom and Equality - laws should reflect this. Each person should abide by common laws.
2. The Right to No Discriminatory Treatment - One person should not discriminate against another on the grounds of colour, creed, sexual orientation or otherwise. Disallowing discrimination is not discrimination.
3. The Right to Life - We all have a right to live, not to be killed or harmed.
4. The Right to Freedom – Nobody shall enslave another, nor shall anyone be enslaved.
5. The Right to No Torture - No person shall torture any other, nor shall any person be tortured.
6. The Right to The Law - Each person has the right to use the law and to be treated equally and fairly under it.
7. The Right of Legal Protection - The law is the same for everyone. We all have the right to the protection afforded by it.
8. The Right to Fair Court - Each person shall be viewed equally under the courts and given fair trial.
9. The Right to Not Be Unfairly Detained - Nobody shall be imprisoned without good reason, justified in fair courts under the laws of the land.
10. The Right to Public Trial - Trials should be public and unbiased.

11. The Right of Innocence - No person shall be convicted without fair trial. Innocent until proven guilty.
12. The Right of Privacy - Nobody shall trespass or invade our private space without welcome.
13. The Right to Freedom of Movement - A person shall be free to move in their own country as they please.
14. The Right to Asylum - Any person shall be able to seek asylum to another country if they are threatened in their own.
15. The Right to Nationality - Every person shall have the right to belong to a country.
16. The Right To Marriage - Every adult person shall be allowed to marry and have children.
17. The Right of Ownership - Every person has the right to own material things. These should not be taken without court ordered reason.
18. The Right to Freedom of Thought - Each person shall be able to think as they wish and believe as they like. To think independently and freely.
19. The Right to the Freedom of Speech - Every person shall be able to say as they wish and have their own opinions unless it encroaches on another's rights. For instance, an employer can in theory say 'I don't like you, you're gay', but they cannot by law act upon that dislike, nor actively discriminate in their employment of that person.
20. The Right to 'Meet at Will' - Every person shall have the right to meet friends in any public place, and to work together peacefully to defend rights. Nobody shall be forced to join a party or group.
21. The Right To Democracy - Every grown up person shall be allowed to vote and to take part in the democratic election of leaders.
22. The Right to Social Security - Each person shall have the right to affordable housing, medicine, education, and child care, enough money to live on and to medical care.
23. The Right to Work - Every adult shall have the right to do a job for fair wage and to join a trade union.
24. The Right To Leisure - Each person shall have the right to rest from work and leisure time.
25. The Right to Food and Bed - Each person shall have the right to food, bed and shelter.
26. The Right to Education - The right to education. Primary school shall be free. A parent may choose what a child learns.
27. The Right to Copyright - Artist's and creators of all kind shall have the right to their creations being their own intellectual property.
28. The Right To Fairness in Freedom - There must be an order to which all people submit, fairly and equally. Each shall have the right to life safe and free under such order.
29. The Right Toward Others - Every person shall fully and comprehensively respect others' freedoms and rights.
30. No person shall take away these rights and freedoms from another.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Not just 'any' reason, but the right reason. You've chosen to make the UN your ultimate authority but as a genuine Christian my ultimate authority is the Word of God. Unlike you, I understand that de facto higher powers are superseded by de jure highest powers.

See, higher powers do not equate to the authority of God but only serve as God's human instruments for a limited purpose and only when they conform to His law and His normative morality. This is why it is morally justifiable to disobey immoral human laws that contradict God's normative morality. This is why it was moral to disobey Nazi law to surrender Jews in the Third Reich for extermination. This is why it is immoral for government to intolerantly discriminate against genuine Christians for refusing to facilitate immorality.

And that's exactly the situation we find here; official government discrimination against genuine Christians on behalf of groups of immoral people who've constructed an identity around the immoral acts they choose to engage in because genuine Christians and their religious organizations will not violate God's normative morality inherent to Christian epistemology (e.g. the special revelation of God).

But all of that aside, we need to address you're hypocrisy. It's a fact that you discriminate against others all the time though you assert that "a person cannot discriminate against another for any reason." That's what you said, "any reason." So when you vote for tougher laws against criminals and support denying them their freedom through incarceration, you're discriminating against them for one or more reason(s). Obviously discriminating against pedophiles, people who bugger animals, murderers, thieves and embezzlers, etc... is wrong in your view because to discriminate against a person "for any reason" is wrong. That's what you said, "any reason."

I completely disagree with you. Immorality is not equitable to normative morality. Someone's "right" to engage in immoral acts does not supersede my genuine right, established in God's timeless normative morality (God's normative morality being an extension of His own character) to live a moral life, to live out God's normative morality in and with my life, even when you and the government wrongly tell me different. When you falsely assert that you have a "right" to force me to accept, facilitate, and partner with your immorality; you're lying. Under God's authority, I have a genuine de jure right to maintain His normative morality in and with my life.

The UN is not my god even if it is your god. It's but a secular fallible organization. My god is the one true creator infallible God of the universe and His normative morality carries de jure highest authority for all humanity whom will ultimately be judged according to it whether or not they align with it. The UN needs to replace "common law" with "the God of the Bible's normative moral law."

I agree that each person should abide by God's normative moral law and if they did that we wouldn't have the present conflict of faddish groups of immoral people leveraging government to discriminate against the moral, seek to deprive the moral of their human rights (under natural law not just a list a secular organization composed), and persecute genuine Christians and their organizations for refusing to accept and facilitate immorality.

Banks shouldn't have to hire embezzlers that rob them and Christian religious employers shouldn't have to hire homosexuals (or those into pedophilia or bestiality) that are obviously out of alignment with their worldview, beliefs, and epistemology.

And the Supreme Court, fortunately, agrees to the extent they did in the Hosanna-Tabor ruling at least where they levied a unanimous Supreme Court decision overturning the federal government ruling:

“Requiring a church to accept or retain an unwanted minister, or punishing a church for failing to do so, intrudes upon more than a mere employment decision. Such action interferes with the internal governance of the church, depriving the church of control over the selection of those who will personify its beliefs.”

That’s a violation of both the Free Exercise Clause, “which protects a religious group’s right to shape its own faith and mission through its appointments,” and the Establishment Clause, “which prohibits government involvement in such ecclesiastical decisions.” The First Amendment “gives special solicitude to the right of religious organizations.” The government’s contrary view is “remarkable” and erroneous.

Thus, the Court said, while “the interest of society in the enforcement of employment discrimination statutes is undoubtedly important,... so too is the interest of religious groups in who will preach their beliefs, teach their faith, and carry out their mission.”

Now they need to toss out the defiler's unilateral executive order that religious employers cannot do business with the government unless they violate God's normative morality, their free moral conscience (a human right under natural law), and their religious liberty toward God's normative morality.

 

[Esanta]

But all of that aside, we need to address you're hypocrisy. It's a fact that you discriminate against others all the time though you assert that "a person cannot discriminate against another for any reason." That's what you said, "any reason." So when you vote for tougher laws against criminals and support denying them their freedom through incarceration, you're discriminating against them for one or more reason(s). Obviously discriminating against pedophiles, people who bugger animals, murderers, thieves and embezzlers, etc... is wrong in your view because to discriminate against a person "for any reason" is wrong. That's what you said, "any reason."

.

I kept that quote cause teh rest of your reply can be summed up as equally premise-bending, cherry picking, appeal to ridicule.

You can live your own life by whatever code you like, that is part of your individual right to free thought. However to indirectly enforce your personal, individual morality (being straight) on someone else by denying them the services any straight citizen is allowed, is a violation of another's right to live by whatever moral code THEY choose.

Being gay is no more grounds for discrimination than being straight. Both those discriminations are against the law. Your analogy doesn't really work, in that creating larger sentences for serious criminal offenders is within the power of the law, and since touching a child, or raping a child, is a gross, direct, physical violation of almost all of a child's human rights, then the prison sentence to the paedophile is given by a fair, just court and thus, when the offender is proven guilty, he gets rightfully imprisoned.

If you HONESTLY think that convicting a paedophile via evidence in an unbiased court is against his human rights, whereas a business owner denying a homosexual employment because of his lifestyle choice is NOT against the homosexuals human rights, then you, in my eyes, are completely and thoroughly unqualified to comment any further on the matter, and you should seek professional help to re-align that moral compass, presuming it ever sat true North to begin with

Whether your God is the true God or not is irrelevant, unless you want to keep moving goal posts. We're talking about secular laws and human rights, and let's be honest, those who enforce them are the ones with the power to jail you. Your religious views come SECONDARY in context of human rights, they come SECONDARY to the human rights themselves.

You simply cannot enforce your religious lifestyle choice on someone else, by directly or indirectly violating their human rights.