Wednesday, February 1, 2017

Ryan T. Anderson resurfaces with some confusion and BS about BS

Ryan T. Anderson
I don't really know what Ryan T. Anderson does at Heritage Foundation. The mad monk has been rather quiet of late. However, on Wednesday Anderson entertains us all with: “Trump Should Rescind Obama's Transgender Order and Protect Religious Liberty.” Because, after all, the 0.6% of the population that are trans are so damned threatening.
The media was abuzz yesterday with rumors that President Donald Trump was preparing an executive order that would protect religious liberty in the aftermath of the redefinition of marriage.

Trump should issue such an executive order, and he should rescind former President Barack Obama's executive actions on sexual orientation and gender identity that created many of these problems in the first place.
I am not entirely sure what “executive actions” Anderson is referring to. There is Executive Order 13672 which was signed on July 21, 2014. Obama's EO amended one by Bill Clinton which prohibited discrimination based upon sexual orientation in the federal workplace. Obama's EO added gender identity to the language. Obama's EO also amended a prior EO of LBJ which banned discrimination by federal contractors on the bases of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The amended EO extends nondiscrimination protections on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

Anderson's second paragraph (above) is inconsistent with his title.  What currently exists and is in force is Executive Order 13672. Anderson's title suggests cleaving the gender identity protections from the order. The text suggests rescinding the EO in its entirety. Did Anderson sleep through the prior day when the White House communicated Trump's intentions to not rescind the order? Or, perhaps, is Anderson referring to guidance from the Departments of Education and Justice regarding transgender students? I honestly do not know. Does Anderson?

Either way, exactly why Trump should do whatever (with uncertainty) it is that Anderson wants him to do (apparently in contravention to what Trump said he wouldn't do) remains unexplained.
While a candidate, Trump promised to sign the First Amendment Defense Act into law. He needn't simply wait for Congress. Although legislation provides the best long-term protections, Trump can lawfully enact many of those protections through an executive order right now.

Such an order would instruct agencies of the federal government that they may not penalize certain individuals and institutions for acting on the conviction that marriage is the union of husband and wife.
So now Anderson wants Trump to say: “I said that I would not rescind Obama's executive order because I am such a good friend to the LGBT community but now I am going to do just that with a new executive order — Behold The New.” By “institutions” I would bet a part of my anatomy that Anderson means the Catholic Church because Anderson is, above and beyond all else, a Defender of the Faith™.

Furthermore, let's cut through at least some of the BS. “Acting on the conviction that marriage is the union of husband and wife” means anti-gay discrimination which has nothing to do with the title of this polemic dealing with transgender people. Even if Trump were to do that, its only effect would be on the federal government and not on the states and municipalities responsible for the vast majority of nondiscrimination laws. Thus, with a laser beam, he would be doing precisely what he said he would not do.

Or would he?
The act, however, would not apply to federal employees and contractors with respect to their job or contract duties. It does allow reasonable accommodation of federal employees' religion, as under current law, but it makes clear that it does not relieve the federal government of its duty to provide government services, medical care or benefits to all who qualify—it must simply respect conscience in doing so.
I am becoming impatient. If it does not apply to federal employment or contractors, exactly what the fuck does it do? Who, exactly, is protected from what, exactly? There are no other federal provisions that I am aware of that protect LGBT citizens from discrimination. did the 1964 Civil Rights Act get amended when I wasn't looking? What exactly does this moron mean?
An executive order on religious liberty should also include protections found in the Russell Amendment. This would prevent the federal government from discriminating against faith-based social service providers who maintain staffing policies that accord with their faith.
I am becoming more impatient. The Russell amendment was rejected on a bipartisan basis. It would have effectively overridden President Obama’s 2014 executive order prohibiting federal contractors from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. So now Anderson wants FADA by executive fiat combined with the Russell amendment in spite of the fact that these things duplicate each other. I guess that Anderson wants to be extra, extra certain that Christians can discriminate against LGBT people.
In addition to proactively protecting the rights of Americans to hire for religious mission and to act on the conviction that marriage is the union of husband and wife, Trump should also rescind the various Obama executive actions that caused these problems.
How many times is this guy going to repeat the same crap and what problems is he referring to? Is Anderson heavily medicated or something?
The First Amendment Defense Act and similar religious liberty provisions oppress no one—they protect Americans from government-sponsored discrimination and coercion.
One last fucking time (due to tedious repitition). FADA is about gay citizens and same-sex marriage — giving Christians the right to discriminate. Gays enjoy no protections whatsoever from discrimination in federal law. The only federal protections that they have derive from Obama's 2014 executive order which Trump says he will sustain.
For example, in 2014, Obama issued an executive order barring "discrimination" on the basis of "sexual orientation and gender identity" in the private employment policies of federal contractors.
Do you believe that he just repeated that again!?
But according to liberals advocating such policies, "discrimination" on the basis of "sexual orientation" can be something as reasonable as an adoption agency preferring married moms and dads for orphans.
Depending upon state laws governing nondiscrimination. There is nothing that Trump can do about Massachusetts requiring adoption agencies not to discriminate against gay couples.

I am done. If I continue I might thrown my laptop in the Atlantic. How many brain cells must die in service of the Frog? There is a link in the fist paragraph. Have at it in the comments if you like.

Related content:




No comments:

Post a Comment

Please be civil and do NOT link to anti-gay sites!

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.