Leaked Draft: Trump Exec Order Is Sweeping Plan to Greenlight Anti-LGBTQ Discrimination

Posted by | February 2, 2017 08:30 | Filed under: Politics Religion

Trump’s goal is to Make America Hate Again:

A leaked copy of a draft executive order titled “Establishing a Government-Wide Initiative to Respect Religious Freedom,” obtained by The Investigative Fund and The Nation, reveals sweeping plans by the Trump administration to legalize discrimination.

This article was reported in partnership with the Investigative Fund at the Nation Institute.

The four-page draft order, a copy of which is currently circulating among federal staff and advocacy organizations, construes religious organizations so broadly that it covers “any organization, including closely held for-profit corporations,” and protects “religious freedom” in every walk of life: “when providing social services, education, or healthcare; earning a living, seeking a job, or employing others; receiving government grants or contracts; or otherwise participating in the marketplace, the public square, or interfacing with Federal, State or local governments.”

The draft order seeks to create wholesale exemptions for people and organizations who claim religious or moral objections to same-sex marriage, premarital sex, abortion, and trans identity, and it seeks to curtail women’s access to contraception and abortion through the Affordable Care Act. The White House did not respond to requests for comment, but when asked Monday about whether a religious freedom executive order was in the works, White House spokesman Sean Spicer told reporters, “I’m not getting ahead of the executive orders that we may or may not issue. There is a lot of executive orders, a lot of things that the president has talked about and will continue to fulfill, but we have nothing on that front now.”

Language in the draft document specifically protects the tax-exempt status of any organization that “believes, speaks, or acts (or declines to act) in accordance with the belief that marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, sexual relations are properly reserved for such a marriage, male and female and their equivalents refer to an individual’s immutable biological sex as objectively determined by anatomy, physiology, or genetics at or before birth, and that human life begins at conception and merits protection at all stages of life.”

The breadth of the draft order, which legal experts described as “sweeping” and “staggering,” may exceed the authority of the executive branch if enacted. It also, by extending some of its protections to one particular set of religious beliefs, would risk violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution.

“This executive order would appear to require agencies to provide extensive exemptions from a staggering number of federal laws—without regard to whether such laws substantially burden religious exercise,” said Marty Lederman, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center and an expert on church-state separation and religious freedom.

The exemptions, Lederman said, could themselves violate federal law or license individuals and private parties to violate federal law. “Moreover,” he added, “the exemptions would raise serious First Amendment questions, as well, because they would go far beyond what the Supreme Court has identified as the limits of permissive religious accommodations.” It would be “astonishing,” he said, “if the Office of Legal Counsel certifies the legality of this blunderbuss order.”

The leaked draft maintains that, as a matter of policy, “Americans and their religious organizations will not be coerced by the Federal Government into participating in activities that violate their conscience.”

It sets forth an exceptionally expansive definition of “religious exercise” that extends to “any act or refusal to act that is motivated by a sincerely held religious belief, whether or not the act is required or compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.” “It’s very sweeping,” said Ira Lupu, a professor emeritus at the George Washington University Law School and an expert on the Constitution’s religion clauses and on the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). “It raises a big question about whether the Constitution or the RFRA authorizes the president to grant religious freedom in such a broad way.”

Much more at The Nation. Trump had been dog-whistling religious hatred throughout his campaign, so this comes as no surprise.


Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2017 Liberaland
By: dave-dr-gonzo

Dave "Doctor" Gonzo is a renegade record producer, writer, reformed corporate shill, and still-registered lobbyist for non-one-percenter performing artists and musicians. He lives in a heavily fortified compound in one of Manhattan's less trendy neighborhoods.

52 responses to Leaked Draft: Trump Exec Order Is Sweeping Plan to Greenlight Anti-LGBTQ Discrimination

  1. anothertoothpick February 2nd, 2017 at 08:46

    Both Cotton, and his father Increase Mather would be very proud of this movement to take rights away from people that they don’t like.

    Cotton believed he had a religious right to burn people at the stake.

    Maybe this is what trumpee means by Make America….blah blah.

  2. Carla Akins February 2nd, 2017 at 09:15

    Smaller government, huh?

    • Larry Schmitt February 2nd, 2017 at 14:10

      Depends. How big does the Department for Peaking Into Americans’ Bedroom Windows have to be?

  3. mea_mark February 2nd, 2017 at 09:58

    A religious civil war in America? Derp. Little Donald is going to make America look like Aleppo. Make America Ghastly Again.

    • trees February 2nd, 2017 at 10:15

      The question becomes one of authority.

      Who is the authority concerning morality?

      If you allow for religious belief, then God becomes the Author of morality.

      If you wish to abolish the rights of those who believe in a moral standard that emanates from a moral God, then you must abolish that God whom they worship….

      The State must replace God, if the State is to be the Author of morality.

      This would be understood as….

      An authoritarian regime.

      • mea_mark February 2nd, 2017 at 10:35

        Religion and state should be separate. War and strife are almost always the result when the two become one. My GOD is better than your GOD arguments with state backing always leads to trouble and separation of the people.

        The state should enforce laws of civil cooperation. Religious morality should not enter into the equation.

        • Robert M. Snyder February 2nd, 2017 at 11:36

          I share your perspective on this. As someone who left the church decades ago on theological grounds, I don’t want any theologians dictating morality to me.

          I have long believed that Christians should follow the example set by Jesus, who never sought to impose a set of beliefs on the people. Jesus never tried to convince Roman or Hebrew authorities to modify Roman or Hebrew laws. And nobody was ever forced to attend one of Jesus’ sermons. People were drawn to him because they found his message persuasive.

          It seems to me that Christians who wish to legislate morality are demonstrating a lack of faith in the example set by Jesus. Having said that, I will quickly point out that I have known many Christians who do follow Jesus example, and who do have a positive influence on those around them. Christians are supposed to bring light into the world. Many do so, by living exemplary lives and by sharing their hopes and beliefs with others who seek to understand it.

          Of course it’s not that simple. Few people would argue that we should eliminate laws that punish rape and murder.

          As I see it, the ideal society is one in which people of many religions, or no religion, are provided with the maximum amount of freedom possible, and the government only regulates people’s behavior to the degree necessary to maintain civil order.

          If someone is invading your home or threatening your life, the government clearly has an interest in sending over a couple of police officers. Society cannot function for long if people’s homes and lives are not secure.

          But if a Muslim baker is refusing to fulfill an atheist’s request to put on a cake an image mocking the Prophet Mohammed, I think the government should stay out of it. Nobody’s life or property is being threatened. The government should not be in the business of protecting people’s feelings.

          If you disagree, that’s fine. My views have evolved over time. I am willing to consider other points of view. But this is how it looks to me.

          • Bunya February 2nd, 2017 at 13:47

            I find it interesting that you would bring up a Muslim baker, when it is in fact Christians who are bigoted homophobes.

            • Robert M. Snyder February 2nd, 2017 at 14:26

              There are 1.6 billion Muslims on planet Earth. But none of them are bigoted or homophobic, right? Because Saudi Arabia is a world leader in the advancement of LGBT rights.

              Look, all I am saying is that all religions should be treated equally. If the government is going to prohibit or require certain things of Christians, then the government needs to prohibit or require the same things of Muslims, Jews, Hindus, and Sikhs. Otherwise, the government is favoring some religions over others, which is a violation of the establishment clause.

              • Bunya February 2nd, 2017 at 14:34

                If you think all religions should be treated equally, why do you use Muslims as an example of bigoted homophobia? When did a Muslim baker, in this country, refuse to bake a wedding cake? I can’t recall one instance.

                • Robert M. Snyder February 2nd, 2017 at 15:13

                  I spent ten minutes typing a response, and then Disqus hiccupped and it was lost. Argghh…..

                  Here’s a quick synopsis: People reading this are trying to be sensitive to Muslim values and culture. That’s a good thing. All I am saying is that every religion should get the same degree of respect. Before we legislate that Christians a required to violate their religious beliefs in service of some greater good, we need to ask whether we would require Muslims, Jews, Hindus, and Sikhs to make the same kind of accommodations. If you respect Muslims enough that you would never want the government to compel them to violate their religious beliefs, then you can’t expect the government to make a law that only applies to Christians. If Christian bakers are required to put ANY image on a cake, then Muslim, Jewish, and Hindu bakers should also be required to do the same. Otherwise, we are favoring some religions over others.

                  It’s not complicated. Just don’t make any laws that you are not willing to apply equally to all religions.

                  • oldfart February 3rd, 2017 at 01:00

                    “Before we legislate that Christians a required to violate their religious beliefs in service of some greater good”

                    Nobody is forcing them to choose a vocation or do anything that violates their beliefs. They do that themselves and they should quit the minute they find a conflict for themselves. It’s not a responsibility of whom ever is in charge to accommodate them. This is the real world, it doesn’t work that way.

                    • Robert M. Snyder February 3rd, 2017 at 10:13

                      Twenty years ago, when I served on my local school board, I noticed that the school didn’t seem to have written policies on a lot of issues. When I asked the superintendent about this, he said that it was intentional. He disliked putting policies in writing, because he didn’t want to be held to them. I lost some of my respect for him that day.

                      We often hear the phrase “We are a nation of laws”. Let’s think about what that means. Without laws, the world is unpredictable. Without laws there would be no law enforcement officers. Instead, there would be a whole lot of local strong men imposing their own set of rules on the weak. Kind of like Somalia.

                      In this country, we spend a lot of time and energy trying to create and shape our laws. Before any law is adopted, we allow people to publically state how the law will affect them. we don’t just look at how a law will affect the majority. We also look at how it will affect dozens of small minorities. The best laws are the ones that find innovative ways to balance the interests of various constituencies. No law is perfect, and nobody should expect to have everything go their way.

                      But after a law is adopted, that law makes our society more predictable. The local sheriff can’t simply make up his own rules and impose them on the local residents. He is required to abide by the laws that were crafted by our legislative bodies.

                      When we craft a law, we are putting our policies in writing and agreeing to live by them. This is what the superintendent was unwilling to do. He didn’t want to consult with stakeholders and craft policies that balanced the needs of various interests. Instead, he wanted the ability to “wing it”; to make up policy on the fly, without any forethought and without any obligations.

                      I am glad that we are a nation of laws. I am willing to follow the laws, and I expect my fellow citizens to do likewise. But there are some laws that I dislike, and it is my right to protest those laws and seek to convince others to change them.

                      I think that any law that requires a baker to put absolutely ANY image or writing on a cake is ill-considered. I used the example of a Muslim baker to demonstrate this point. If you would support compelling a Christian baker to make a cake depicting Jesus and Mohammed having gay sex, then you must also support compelling a Muslim baker to provide an identical cake.

                      It sounds as if you are saying the Muslim baker should get a pass, and the law should only apply to a Christian baker. Maybe I misunderstood you. But if that is your position, then you are subverting the principle that everyone is “equal under the law”.

                      As Americans, we have the right to speak, write blog comments and struggle to convince others to see things our way when a law is under consideration. But we cannot expect a law to treat people differently based upon their religion. And we cannot expect law enforcement to selectively enforce the law. Otherwise, we will no longer be a nation of laws.

                      If you do not agree with the principle that our laws and our law enforcement officers should treat all religions equally, then you should consider moving to some place like Somalia.

                      If you want to place certain requirements on Christians, you need to ask whether you would be willing to place those same requirements on members of every other religion, including Muslims. If you would be unwilling to compel a Muslim baker to place that image of Jesus and Mohammed on a cake, then you have no right to expect a Christian baker to do it.

                    • oldfart February 3rd, 2017 at 11:04

                      “and it is my right to protest those laws and seek to convince others to change them.”

                      Congratulations Bob, I agree.

                      “If you do not agree with the principle that our laws and our law enforcement officers should treat all religions equally, ”

                      Sorry Bob, the word you’re looking for is NOT religion
                      it’s CITIZEN.

                      You may be a self professed former Christian, But you’re obviously still obsessed with it.

                      “then you have no right to expect a Christian baker to do it.”

                      You have no right to tell me what I should think, period, Bob.

                      “then you are subverting the principle that everyone is “equal under the law”.”

                      Everyone IS equal under the law Bob…an BTW I’m not the one attempting subversion here.

                      The problem is, not everyone is willing to accept that notion and still demand that people to conform to their way of thinking.
                      By all means believe what you wish, I am not asking you to do otherwise, nor do I place any demands upon you to do otherwise. You cannot make me conform or acquiesce to your ideals or standards…that’s why I choose to live here Bob…
                      if you do not like it here, YOU move to Somalia.
                      (you won’t like it there either)

                    • Robert M. Snyder February 3rd, 2017 at 11:25

                      “then you have no right to expect a Christian baker to do it.”

                      “You have no right to tell me what I should think, period, Bob.”

                      I think you are wrong. I think that logic dictates it. But I’m not sure that you care much about logic.

                      I think we have always been respectful of one another, and I appreciate that. But I am getting frustrated because we seem to be operating under different assumptions. From my perspective, it often seems that you are manipulating logic to arrive at the outcome that suits your emotional needs.

                      You remind me of a close relative whom I love dearly.

                      I guess we just have different personalities. It doesn’t seem as if we are influencing each other’s viewpoints very much.

                      I also have an elderly neighbor who grew up in France and is very liberal. She and I get along like Ginsberg and Scalia. We disagree on issues, but we really like each other personally. I have grown to like you through our exchanges, but sometimes it’s frustrating as hell to discuss issues with you!

                      I need to get my taxes done, so I’m going to stay away from alan.com for a while. Just know that I wish you only happiness.

                    • oldfart February 3rd, 2017 at 12:07

                      Me thinks thou dost pontificatith too muchith

                      have a good day Bob.

                    • oldfart February 3rd, 2017 at 12:17

                      I guess we just have different personalities. It doesn’t seem as if we are influencing each other’s viewpoints very much.

                      DUH ! I am not trying to influence you Bob. I would rather smash my head with a hammer (because it will feel so much better after I give up). That is what I call a HINT there Bob….get it ?!?

          • oldfart February 2nd, 2017 at 13:47

            Quite honestly Bob, up until you got to this,

            “But if a Muslim baker is refusing to fulfill an atheist’s request to put on a cake an image mocking the Prophet Mohammed, I think the government should stay out of it. Nobody’s life or property is being threatened. The government should not be in the business of protecting people’s feelings.”

            …I could agree with everything you said…

            The scenario you spun is suggesting to me that either the atheist is dumber than a box of rocks or has an obvious chip on their shoulder.
            …or speck in their eye if you prefer.

            • Robert M. Snyder February 2nd, 2017 at 14:19

              But that’s sort of the point. Lots of people have chips on their shoulders. Have you ever listened to Richard Dawkins or Bill Maher talk about religion? They are pretty passionate in their disdain for it.

              Suppose that Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins get together and created a drawing of Jesus and Mohammed having gay sex. Bill takes a copy to a Christian baker and Richard takes a copy to a Muslim baker. Both men ask to have a cake produced with that image on top.

              Here are my points:

              1. There are people who would do this. I’m not sure if Dawkins or Maher would, but it’s not hard to imagine.

              2. If both bakers refused, neither Maher nor Dawkins will be harmed in a significant way.

              3. If the government chooses to get involved and compel one of the bakers, they will also need to compel the other baker. Otherwise, they are favoring one religion over another.

              4. If CNN International ran a story about the Muslim baker who was forced to make the blasphemous cake, it would probably be just as inflammatory as the Charlie Hebdo cartoons that mocked Mohammed. It would definitely be an ISIS recruiting tool. Forcing Muslim bakers to comply with requests for blasphemous cakes is NOT a good way to show respect for Islam.

              5. If we don’t want to compel Muslims to engage in acts that violate their religious beliefs, then we can’t compel Christians, Jews, Hindus, or Sikhs either. Otherwise, we are showing favoritism toward certain religions.

              • oldfart February 2nd, 2017 at 14:34

                Your “supposiums” are what causes me great difficulty Bob.
                For me, they are only valid in the abstract.
                IF is not a reality. it is a construct of opinion of which you are more than welcome to believe in but will be unable convince me of.
                FWIW, I do agree with #1, got to go to work, have a good day.

                • Robert M. Snyder February 2nd, 2017 at 15:18

                  “For me, they are only valid in the abstract.”

                  I am advocating equality…requiring the same things of all people, regardless of their religion (or lack thereof).

                  Is equality only valid in the abstract? Are you saying that in the real world, the government should require different things of people based upon their religion?

                  If you are going to require Christian bakers to put ANY requested image on a cake, then you absolutely MUST require the same thing of Muslim, Jewish, and Hindu bakers. Otherwise, you don’t have equality.

                  • trees February 2nd, 2017 at 15:31

                    He understands your argument, but cannot, or maybe, will not, cede your point..

                    • oldfart February 3rd, 2017 at 01:02

                      Says the libertarian who’s member’s include the Paul family, who think it’s okay to “exclude” certain folks from their businesses.
                      AFTER the fact.

                  • oldfart February 3rd, 2017 at 00:25

                    “I am advocating equality…requiring the same things of all people, regardless of their religion (or lack thereof).”
                    In a perfect world maybe, it’s not perfect. Religion is not the law of the land, laws are… or were. I didn’t open Pandora’s box on that. Our supposedly non-political supreme court did…a republican majority court. I would suggest another attempt at revamping the ERA amendment.

          • trees February 2nd, 2017 at 14:27

            Interesting that you chose the baker example.

            Does the Christian baker have a legal obligation to provide a homosexually themed cake, if requested?

            Does the merchant have a right to refuse service?

            • oldfart February 2nd, 2017 at 14:37

              …NO shirt, NO shoes…

              • trees February 2nd, 2017 at 14:40

                Service refused based on…..

                Decent/indecent.

                • oldfart February 2nd, 2017 at 14:54

                  Common sense AKA avoidance of lawsuits.

            • Robert M. Snyder February 2nd, 2017 at 15:39

              Reasonable people can disagree about exactly where to draw the line between the conflicting goals of “treating all customers equally” and “respecting the religious beliefs of the business owner or employees”.

              I have chosen to ignore that question for now. I am simply advocating that whatever rules apply to Christian business owners should apply to ALL business owners. Those who seek to impose these rules need to ask themselves whether they would be comfortable imposing the same rules on people of EVERY religion. If you’re not comfortable with requiring a Muslim baker to put a blasphemous image on a cake, then you have no right to require a Christian baker to do the same thing.

              Let’s face it: Christians have no lock on bigotry. There are plenty of people who hate Christians and wish to make them squirm by imposing rules that they would NEVER consider imposing on Muslims, Hindus, or Sikhs. The best way to avoid bigotry is to treat everyone equally, without regard to their religion. People have a legal right to hate Christians. But they have no right to expect the government to enforce their bigotry. If you would not want to impose a rule on a Muslim baker, then you have no right to impose the rule on a Christian baker.

      • Jack E Raynbeau February 2nd, 2017 at 12:39

        Morality and religion are separate things.

        • Larry Schmitt February 2nd, 2017 at 14:12

          And the government should stay out of both of them.

      • fahvel February 2nd, 2017 at 13:12

        fk god and all the dimwits who think there is one – a putain imaginary spook in the sky –

      • Larry Schmitt February 2nd, 2017 at 14:11

        The government has no business trying to regulate “morality.” Morality is each person’s own affair.

        • trees February 2nd, 2017 at 14:16

          But, the government does regulate morality…..

          Theft is a crime.

          • Larry Schmitt February 2nd, 2017 at 14:18

            Criminal activity is not the same thing as immoral activity. There are immoral people who never break any laws.

  4. trees February 2nd, 2017 at 10:03

    The leaked draft maintains that, as a matter of policy, “Americans and their religious organizations will not be coerced by the Federal Government into participating in activities that violate their conscience.”

    The issue becomes one of morality. Can those who practice sexually immoral activities compel businesses and churches to include them, celebrate their lifestyle, and permit their membership in religious institutions that….

    Discriminate against this behavior?

    Who defines morality?

    • mea_mark February 2nd, 2017 at 10:38

      It’s not morality that needs defining. Civil cooperation needs defining. When you make the narrative about religion, you lose.

    • oldfart February 2nd, 2017 at 10:49

      “Can those who practice sexually immoral activities… ”
      In answer to your question, the religious right.
      “Tap dancing” in a public restroom bring anyone to mind ?

      • granpa.usthai February 3rd, 2017 at 00:31

        republican.

        hows about :

        “I’m taking some time off to go Argentina Tail Hiking”?

    • Jack E Raynbeau February 2nd, 2017 at 12:41

      Our laws compel business to include them. Churches are free to restrict membership. Sounds like a perfect arrangement.

    • fahvel February 2nd, 2017 at 13:11

      it sure as hell isn’t you!!!!

    • granpa.usthai February 3rd, 2017 at 00:30

      only those devoutly religious white evangelical republican xtians that perceive the 10 commandments as:

      (deep reverberating bass)

      SUGGESTIONS
      FROM
      GODDDDDDDDDdddddddd.

  5. allison1050 February 2nd, 2017 at 10:19

    They’ve been like a sieve since they’ve taken the WH.

  6. Obewon February 2nd, 2017 at 10:22

    Republiklan for Trump Peter Thiel re-proves only the dimmest self hating LGBT support DT.

  7. oldfart February 2nd, 2017 at 10:59

    “the exemptions would raise serious First Amendment questions, as well, because they would go far beyond what the Supreme Court has identified as the limits of permissive religious accommodations.”

    Never known republicans to resist the temptation to chip away at anything unceasingly
    in order to increase their voter base.

    ATTENTION angry old white people, 2040 is coming…

  8. labman57 February 2nd, 2017 at 12:51

    In order to placate evangelicals and other social conservatives, Trump fully endorses the concept of “Freedom of Religion”, as well as the acceptance and tolerance of all faiths … just so long as you believe in Jesus Christ.

  9. fahvel February 2nd, 2017 at 13:10

    the perfect religion for all rump despisers is one that cannot, because of conscience, pay any taxes to an illegitimate govt. go get the orange fk with what he seems to vaguely understand.

  10. Bunya February 2nd, 2017 at 13:35

    Oh good! I hope he remembers this when tRump starts a war and reinstates the draft, and many kids of draft age suddenly become “conscientious objectors”.

    • granpa.usthai February 3rd, 2017 at 00:24

      there CANNOT be a conscription to serve in the military when Reagan has referred it to ‘slavery’, a gross violation to human rights by the then USSR [The Evil Empire].

      such an evil law? now, would mean the republicans would get caught right in the middle between volunteering to go to the foreign country where their military adventures for offshore bank deposits is taking place instead of taking a much bleaker chance by staying home.

  11. amersham1046 February 2nd, 2017 at 17:38

    Welcome to 1951

  12. Snick1946 February 3rd, 2017 at 19:49

    Not too long ago Republicans were railing at Obama for his executive orders. I’ve lost track but it sure seems that Trump’s are more frequent and sweeping. How the hell is he getting away with this? Are congressional Republicans so inert they fail to see the danger in all this? LGBT people fought long and hard to get protections, most of which have been upheld. How can he DO this??

  13. bpollen February 4th, 2017 at 05:30

    They have the religious freedom to hate whomever they freaking want.

    Discrimination is another thing entirely. Green-lighting discrimination kinda wipes with the 14th Amendment…

Leave a Reply