Ryan Anderson Backs FADA

“The First Amendment Defense Act would prevent the federal government from discriminating against any citizen or organization because they believe marriage is the union of husband and wife. It would ensure that no federal agency will ever revoke non-profit tax-exempt status or deny grants, contracts, accreditation, or licenses to individuals or institutions for following their belief that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. This bill simply continues the practice of the United States for all of our history. It takes nothing away from anyone. It changes nothing. It protects pluralism amid disagreement. America is in a time of transition. The court has redefined marriage, and beliefs about human sexuality are changing. Will the right to dissent be protected? Will our right to speak and act in accord with what Americans have always believed about marriage — that it’s a union of husband and wife — be tolerated?” – Ryan T. Anderson, writing for the National Review. Anderson’s piece also denounces the Equality Act because of course.

  • People4Humanity

    It is quite interesting that Ryan has listed first: “that no federal agency will ever revoke non-profit tax-exempt status.”
    This is where we should attack first.

    • StraightGrandmother

      Exactly what Mark Oppenheimer of the New York Times said we should do. We revoke Tax Exempt for organizations that are Racists. This is settled law, people who are gay are EQUAL to all other citizens.

      • Gustav2

        Bob Jones University part deux.

      • BobSF_94117

        We revoked the tax-exempt status of one organization. There are many who believe that was a bad decision. Not all of them are on the right.

  • StraightGrandmother

    This is what Ryan is so anxious to protect.
    I saw this yesterday in an article he was pissed off about and tweeted out.
    it’s all about Cha-CHING!

    • Gustav2

      They want to reach into a citizen’s wallet, then deny that very same citizen services or access.

      • DaveDocSC

        This can’t be said loud or often enough..
        It’s all about dipping into the public funds and using it for their private purposes.
        –END ALL RELIGIOUS TAX EXEMPTIONS–

        • Gustav2

          First we go after and stop the ‘faith based initiatives’ monies. Then the tax status won’t matter.

          • D. J.

            Oh, I want to tax their privately raised income too.

          • Gustav2

            Get rid of the tax dollars going in and they will crumble or be humble. Most of ‘religious employment’ in really tax supported.

          • StraightGrandmother

            I agree these Faith Based Initiatives provide churches with the lie that they are doing, “Charity” work. They’re not! They are providing a service and invoicing the government for services provided. It’s a business.

            Meantime never believe the lie about how many Billions of Dollars of charity work Catholic Charities does. USAID (US foreign aid) will want to prevent AIDS in Africa for example. Caholic Charies will bid on the contract & perform of the service required and then the BILL THE US GOVERNMENT for administering a US Government program.

            Catholic Charities is a complete scam, well maybe they do do 3% to 5% charity work, but the rest is ALL Catholic Hospitals billing Insurance companies & Medicare for services provided. And other government programs.

            Befor Regan we used to have County Hospitals, County Mental Hospitals, our social services work was carried out by county employees called, county social workers. All of these needs of society were met by secular employees. Regan & really it was BUSH who expanded, Faith Based Initiatives, sold our public hospitals and closed them down, they turned adoption and foster care work over to churches and religious organizations. I think this has made the churches feel to powerful and of course once they get on the public teat gravy train they will fight for that money.

            It’s outrageous. It didn’t used to be this way. Get RELIGION out of our Government. We should only fund secular organizations to carry out government programs.

          • Gustav2

            This scam is even in neighborhood food pantries. The food comes from a secular business/government (taxpayer) partnership, along with secular fundraising, then the local church lays a patina of Catholic Charities on it when they only provide 16 volunteer hours a week and room in the empty church school.

            Clients and members of the church believe the local parish is doing all this work. One of the volunteers is my 84 yr old neighbor, yes he thinks this is a church effort and costs them scads of money to “feed the poor.”

          • StraightGrandmother

            All the Glory none of the work.

          • Christopher

            It is the religious way after all.

      • JoeNCA

        “If you dip your hand in the public till, don’t be surprised if a little democracy rubs off on you.” – Rep. Maxine Waters

    • because there are no “inner city” gay people or gay teachers. /s

    • fuow

      Somehow, I suspect I’m not the only person who cringes at the thought of young boys and girls being left alone with the catholic priests to be ‘educated’ in these ‘schools’.

      • Sk3ptic

        Nope.

    • Gene

      Straightgrandmother…I have seen snipers hit their targets less than you. This is so obvious…but, I never even THOUGHT about it! never entered my mind. THANKS for the post. knowing your opponants motivations is the first step to defeating them

      • Strepsi

        If there are ever JOE MY GOD Awards, I think we’d vote StraightGrandmother “Best Ally”… or a Lifetime Achievement Award!

        No one is as fierce as SGM!
        http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mbtqjjaJV11rvo8ws.gif

        • People4Humanity

          … and we are unanimous in this!

    • Tony Adams

      Exactly. The issue is not “religious freedom.” It’s “financial freedom.” I.e., freedom from the obligations shouldered by the rest of us.

    • Six Pins Delores

      Their fight against equality was always and only about the federal cha-CHING and had nothing to do with traditional views. Marriage is the in road to their losing funding and they know it. TeeHee!

  • Homo Erectus

    Since when have the christian’s right to dissent been restricted?

    • Gustav2

      It’s not about the dissent, it’s about tax dollars going into their ‘ministries’ and they still want to discriminate.

  • Mark

    If it changes nothing – then what the fuck do YOU need it for???

    • BearEyes

      right. it’s redundant and unnecessary.

      • popebuck1

        And redundant.

        • Ed Burrow

          And unnecessary.

          • Sk3ptic

            It’s not needed and it repeats itself.

          • And repetitive.

          • Ginger Snap

            Over and over again and again.

        • Gest2016

          Really redundantly redundant.

    • Blake Jordan

      These rethuglicans really do not understand what being fiscally responsible means!!!

    • “This is must pass legislation” oh but don’t worry about it, it doesn’t change anything. This was the same nonsense that we saw in Indiana, “oh don’t worry about the law it doesn’t even do anything” well then why did you all pass it.

      • Christopher

        Sounds similar to Pelosi saying (paraphrasing here) “We need to pass the bill first before we find out what’s in it.” In regards to the healthcare bill a few years ago.

    • JoeNCA

      Right. If they already have the first amendment in the CONSTITUTION, what do they need a LAW for?

      • joshie

        The Constitution is the highest law of the land, no normal law can supersede it, only another amendment to the Constitution itself. Therefor there is no need to protect the First Amendment from anything…unless someone was trying to amend it (which isn’t the case) and then the protection would be to work against the amendment.

        Of course, this law does the opposite of what its name says anyway.

        • JoeNCA

          Damn right it does. It grants one particular religious view, the view that marriage only belongs to a man and a woman, and grants that bit of dogma special government protections no other religious view. It’s a violation of the establishment clause of the very amendment is portends to evoke.

  • Oscarlating Wildely

    The poor little dear! I mean, I understand that his boyfriend turned down his proposal for marriage and all but damn, sweetheart! Do you really have to take it out on everyone else? If you want a cuddle, come over here and we’ll hug it out and then have a nice drink down at the….

    wait, what? He’s not?

    Then he’s just an asshole with a losing cause.

    • Marc

      I’m confident he thinks everyone buys into his totes hetero if he keeps attacking LGBTs

    • fuow

      Oh, he is, he is. The nastiest of the christers always are.
      Nothing in this world is a vicious and hateful as a closeted queen.
      Look at Richard Nixon.

  • Marc

    “This bill simply continues the practice of the United States for all of our history. It takes nothing away from anyone. It changes nothing.” Then Anderson agrees that this bill is unnecessary and is nothing more than a temper tantrum!

    • D. J.

      It doesn’t take anything away, but guarantees them a taxpayer paid revenue stream. It gives them a lot of money to continue to operate bigoted organizations.
      Lyin’ Ryan. His fingers are on the keyboard again. This piece “published” where they remove all dissenting opinions, just like Maggie does with her missives.

      • guarantees them a taxpayer paid revenue stream

        ding ding ding!

    • Gerry Fisher

      “…except stripping away LGBT anti-discrimination laws modeled after the Civil Rights Act of ’64. But that’s no biggie, right?”

  • j.martindale
    • BudClark

      “Go find a corner and somebody to lick your dick.”

      Fixed it.

      • Marc

        That would give him too much release, Bud!

      • Sk3ptic

        Would someone please take one for the team and give him a mercy fuck? It really couldn’t take much to get him to embrace his inner diva.
        I’d volunteer but he’d have to be gagged and restrained first. Ok, I’ll volunteer.

        • 2karmanot

          I’ll be your assistant restrainer. “Oh the slings and arrows of an outrageous Folsom.” Mr. Shakinghisspear

      • 2karmanot

        Exactly so

  • The FA works fine all by itself.

  • lymis

    The problem is the constant shifts in what’s seen as a religious organization.

    I’ve seen nobody seriously discuss removing First Amendment protections from actual churches conducting religious services.

    But when things like hospitals, adoption agencies, counseling services, schools, public wedding chapels, beachfront gazebos, television stations, and hell, probably hardware stores and pet shops at this point, are considered “religious organizations” just because they are owned by a church or run by a zealot, there needs to be some serious legal clarification.

    You only get to say that “this doesn’t change the way things have always been done in this country” if everything else associated with it is the same as it’s always been done as well.

    If things are extended to “members of a religious organization” without strict definitions, what prevents someone from starting a “$1 to join for a lifetime membership Christian Chamber of Commerce” that holds anti-gay discrimination as one of its core values?

    • Gustav2

      There are already legal distinctions. The charities and hospitals are separate corporations from the ‘church’ and have been since the 1960’s and the start of government funding. Those of us involved in religious organizations at the time remember heated battles because we knew we would be giving the state more power in decision making in ‘our’ charities if we took government monies. In order to receive the tax dollars/students with Pell Grants our seminaries had to be separate from our universities and the universities had to be separate from the church.

      The distinctions are there in the law, they have muddied the waters with the public.

      • D. J.

        They have muddied those waters intentionally.

        • RoFaWh

          In real life, a degree of bemuddlement where legal matters are concerned is often a pretty good idea. Muddy water isn’t always a bad idea. The law needs fuzzy edges if justice is to be served, not rigid bureaucratic protocols with no wiggle room and sharp edges. This is anathema to technocrats but if you don’t take human nature into account, your efforts at anything are doomed to failure.

          Example: the prudery in the US that results in there being few or no public urinals. People still have to pee, so with no proper place to do it, they pee pretty much all over the place.

          I believe Joann is a lawyer, so perhaps she can tell us all if I’m full of shit in writing the above.

          • D. J.

            I agree that laws enforced without some mercy does not deliver justice.

    • McSwagg

      You have identified the Trojan Horse contained in this legislation. They will trumpet the lie that nothing will change, then when the legislation becomes law, we see how everything has been redefined as a ‘religious institution’.

  • Jack

    “Will the right to dissent be protected?”

    But of course!

    “Will our right to speak and act in accord with what Americans have always believed about marriage — that it’s a union of husband and wife — be tolerated?”

    Aha! Thought you could just slip that in!

    We’ve never even pretended to protect all acts. While your burning a cross on your property may very well be a protected act, your burning that same cross on MY property is NOT, even though cross burning is very much a part of your religious belief. And then there’s the fact that there are an awful lot of Americans who DON’T believe that marriage is something between one man and one woman, a lot of whom base their on belief on their own religious conviction.

    • fuow

      Ah, but only their version of christer belief is true religion.

  • cminca

    aka “special rights for Christians”.

    • Marc

      but only for the right type

    • Steverino

      FADA sounds like a christianist FATWA to me.

  • Jack

    Do we have ANY national laws that protect a specific religious belief? This seems as unnecessary as a law that would offer such protection to any group that espouses polytheism to protect them from, you know, Republicans.

    • RoFaWh

      Actually, these is at least one such law. It permits the Native American Church to use peyote legally, it being a religious sacrament of very long standing.

  • Ninja0980

    Why the hell do you need this law if it won’t change anything?

  • bryan

    Another article that reveals Anderson’s internal struggle. He can dissent by not marrying another man and not having gay sex…. even though that seems to make him unhappy.

  • Marc

    From the comments over there

    • Marc

      It’s all about the cake

    • Eric in Oakland

      That makes no sense at all. It’s the anti gays who are the ones trying to define marriage in a way that turns the making of wedding cakes into a religious act.

  • Mark

    Every time I see this little shit – I expect him to announce his coming out…

    That scruffy face with those brown eyes….well, for him, it IS a man’s world…

    • Marc

      As I had to tell my parents when they questioned why their early-30s son wasn’t married to a nice woman: “Really? You can’t do the math on this?”

      (Although both my brothers are in their early 30s as well and neither are married.)

      • HomerTh

        From the Washington Post puff piece on Ryan: Besides all of their advanced degrees, the Anderson brothers share something else: Only one has married.

        “Working on it,” Ryan Anderson says. “Hopefully in the near future.”

        It’s not so unusual for millennials with advanced degrees to delay marriage, he says.

        “It’s always a little weird when people say: ‘You’re the marriage scholar. Why aren’t you married?’

        “Partly, you don’t want to marry the wrong person,” he says, “if you believe, like I do, that marriage is until death do you part.”

        • Justin

          Then there’s the little issue of finding someone stupid/desperate enough to put up with him.

        • BobSF_94117

          One thing the Anderson bros don’t share is a position on SSM. Ryan is the only one who opposes it.

        • “…you don’t want to marry the wrong person,” he says….”

          No heterosexual man would say he’s waiting to meet the “right person” you self-loathing closteted faggot.

        • Marc

          Ugh. In many ways he reminds me of a co-worker who’s parents recently married him off to a nice (and very beautiful) young doctor. He doesn’t want to move in with her until he’s done with his career. Anything to keep the illusion going, I guess…

  • Mike in Texas

    That little weasel’s entire argument depends entirely on a false definition of “discrimination,” attempting to equate the enforcement of civil rights law with discrimination.

    • Eric in Oakland

      Yes. And there is no “right” to government funds.

  • bambinoitaliano

    Chip away the facade of religion we see stacks of piggy banks he and his cronies have been so vocal to protect. Why not go ipo and list on wall street? I’m sure it will do tremendously well. Heck! I might even pick up a few jesus stock since it’s selling like hotcakes.

  • NMNative

    Will my right to call you a waste of oxygen be threatened?

  • rextrek1

    “The First Amendment Defense Act would prevent the federal government from discriminating against any citizen or organization because they believe marriage is the union of same race husband and same race wife. It would ensure that no federal agency will ever revoke non-profit tax-exempt status or deny grants, contracts, accreditation, or licenses to individuals or institutions for following their belief that marriage is a union between a same race man and a same race woman. There I fixed it ….

  • vorpal

    Ryan blithered like a brain-damaged llama in the death throes of a severe stroke: “This bill simply continues the practice of the United States for all of our history.”

    Tradition is clearly the best way to do things, so we should also tack some other things onto that bill to protect the rich and diverse traditions of religious freedom, like the right to own slaves and the right to feed ornery Christians to lions.

    • fuow

      And just what, exactly, makes you want to poison lions?

      • my sincerely held belief is to put them all in jail. i’m compassionate like that.

  • Nax

    There is no first amendment right to tax exempt status, government contracts, accreditation, or licenses. Those have nothing to do with the first amendment.

  • Richard Rush

    I wonder if there could be a hidden agenda here. If the First Amendment needs a Defense Act in order to be fully binding, doesn’t it imply that the Constitution cannot stand on its own as the nation’s foundational document? Doesn’t it seem like a effort to weaken the status of the Constitution? Going forward, will all provisions of the Constitution need Defense Acts to make them fully binding? If the Religious Right got their Marriage Amendment, would a Defense Act be required to seal the deal, or would that be an exception?

    • RoFaWh

      Those are certainly implications of this Act, but the hatealoonies don’t do well at foreseeing the consequences of their antics. If they did, they’d be pushing this Act even harder.

  • fuow

    She is such a hack.
    And so desperately wants a dick up her ass.
    Pity her, the others gays all take a pass.

    Sorry, couldn’t resist. This jerk is as evil as he is pretty.

  • JW Swift

    “Will the right to dissent be protected? Will our right to speak and act…”Absolutely. You’ll still be able to verbalize any bigoted shit you want, and even act-out on your bigoted beliefs to your heart’s content.

    You won’t, however, be protected from the consequences of whatever you decide to say or do, and THAT’S what you’re upset about.

  • TJay229

    (see pic)

    • Nursling

      I am confident Ryan will come around, and will one day tie the knot with a man, so he can truly
      ‘know of what he writes’.
      Just give him time.

  • delk

    It takes nothing away from anyone. It changes nothing.

    Except of course, the ability to discriminate against, with no penalty, same sex marriages.

  • PeterC

    Sort of like issuing an “IN-FADA” ??

  • Jean-Marc in Canada

    Seriously…….these people can’t even see the inherent idiocy of this thinking. It’s the same BS they used to justify slavery, segregation and host of other laws based on religious freedom. Hate to tell you Ry-Ry (not really) but you can scrub all you want; the fact remains, you’re still just a bigot trying to justify his ignorance.

  • Ray Butlers

    Hiring is not protected speech. Doing business is not protected speech. Harassment is not protected speech. Licensing is not protected speech. etc.

    This is about BYU getting federal grant dollars. If they continue to break federal anti-discrimination law, they will lose their federal funding. So, basically, this is socialism.

  • JT

    This bill simply continues the practice of the United States for all of our history. It takes nothing away from anyone. It changes nothing.

    If so, then it’s not necessary, bubblehead.

  • goofy_joe

    You are fighting a straw-man like I’ve never seen before. None of those things you claim this protects are in danger. You have the right to believe anything you want, preach anything you want, but not discriminate in a public sector workplace. No different than before, only now gays can get married.

    It’s infuriating how simple this whole thing is and they just.don’t.get.it.

    • NedFlaherty

      Don’t think for one second that Heritage Foundation, Ryan Anderson, et al. “just don’t get it.”

      They get it perfectly.

      They drafted harmless-sounding legislation precisely so that — once it becomes law — all discrimination becomes legal whenever it arises out of “sincerely held religious belief.” Such beliefs can’t ever be proven or disproven in a court of law, so anyone claiming them always wins.

  • Bill

    “This bill simply continues the practice of the United States for all of our history. It changes nothing.”

    If it ‘changes nothing,’ why is it needed? What a stupid man.

    • John P.

      That’s what caught my eye. Worthless legislation.

      • Bj Lincoln

        That seems to be the cornerstone of the GOP. That and doing nothing at all.

  • Pete

    His PhD is in HATE, and he studied under Robert George, a founder of NOM who recruited Maggie Gillamonster.

  • bkmn

    The fundie Christinas are a lot like the radical Muslims. The fundies are pushing FADA, the radical Muslims push intifada.

  • Ginger Snap

    We’ve tolerated your sides hate for too long. It’s time your side shows it religions tolerance and love, ya know like your bible says.

  • uhhuhh

    Okay, And what does Marjorie Smith of Coeur D’Alene, Idaho, think about the bill? About as relevant.

  • Blake Jordan

    And LGBTs can pay less tax, in case they are discriminate against.

  • Gerry Fisher

    Well…I suppose we could split hairs and grant them the right to believe that, as long as it doesn’t ripple into actions like hiring or public accommodations.

  • Halloween_Jack

    I’m amused that this stubble-faced munchkin is still banging this drum, when by all indications most businesses that would discriminate want to be boycotted because then they’ll get hundreds of thousands of dollars from strangers during the backlash, way more than they’d make from the business itself. Dude is trying to ban the wingnut lottery.

  • Octavio

    If it doesn’t change anything then why propose it? Ah, yes, grasshopper . . . the rest of us are not as stupid as you presume. 🙂

  • Queequeg

    In his words, the bill “changes nothing”. So it is a pointless, useless bill that he is supporting. Great waste of taxpayer money and legislative time, Ryan.

  • McSwagg

    This proposed legislation is not as innocuous as its supporters are trying to pretend. It is definitely a Trojan Horse of a law.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/first-amendment-defense-act_55a7ffe6e4b04740a3df4ca1

    You can read the text of the bill here:
    https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2802/text

  • joe ho

    more special rights for christers.

    dems had better win in 2016. otherwise scotus will be packed with anti-gay christers for 30 years.

  • romanhans

    “It takes nothing away from anyone.” But it ensures that the tax money of LGBT Americans will, for all eternity, go to organizations that refuse to serve them and, as we have seen, occasionally tell people to kill them.

  • BuckyB12

    What a small, little man.

  • “or deny grants, contracts, accreditation, or licenses” yeah
    well here’s the thing if the government is going to give a grant or contract to do something or an accreditation or license to do something the person getting that grant, contract, ect must be willing to actually do the full job. Having a religious objection to doing the full job totally should be a block to winning the contract. What Ryan T Anderson is advocating here is special rights, pure and simple. He wants his ilk to have equal access to a contract even if they won’t do the same job and another option would, it’s completely absurd to suggest that this is how we should function. They can dissent all they want, they can speak and act in accord to what they belief. What they don’t get is the ability to do all of that without any negative response or to refuse to do a job while still getting it.

  • BobSF_94117

    The obvious question: If religious freedom is such an important thing, why does this law not address religious freedom? It only addresses SSM. Why the narrowing to only one issue? Could it be because the proposed law is simply an anti-gay law and has nothing to do with enforcing religious freedom???

  • Christopher

    “It would ensure that no federal agency will ever revoke non-profit tax-exempt status or deny grants, contracts, accreditation, or licenses to individuals or institutions for following their belief that marriage is a union between a man and a woman.”

    THIS is the most dangerous statement about FADA.

    As far as I know there is nothing currently on record stating that we will NEVER revoke tax exempt statuses.

    This absolutely cannot happen!

  • 2karmanot

    My closetdar is screaming ‘walk in’!

  • MattM

    Love love LOVE that they delete any and all comments they disagree with. Out of sight, out of mind (apparently).

  • JoeNCA

    If the First Amendment already exists in the constitution, what do they need a law for?

  • JoeNCA

    “The First Amendment Defense Act would prevent the federal government from discriminating against any citizen or organization because they believe marriage is the union of husband and wife.”

    But discrimination against citizens who believe marriage is the union of two people of the same gender, totally still legal.

    Ryan T. Anderson, if you don’t give a crap about if discrimination is legal against me, why should I give a crap about if discrimination is legal against you?

  • Baltimatt

    After Court’s Gay-Marriage Ruling, We Need Peaceful Coexistence, Not Culture War

    Now they want peaceful coexistence. What about when they were passing constitutional amendments barring any kind of recognition of same-sex relationships?

  • GanymedeRenard

    Nobody wants to punish you people for your “beliefs,” it’s because you people firmly refuse to provide a service to a specific segment of the population while providing the same service to everybody else. Exactly how is that discriminatory for you people, and not for us?

  • joshie

    “It changes nothing.”

    Oh OK so we don’t need it then.

    What this piece of crap legislation does is it takes one specific religious belief and gives it a special status under our laws. That’s the antithesis of what the First Amendment is about. Which means it’s perfectly named.

    • billbear1961

      It’s a foot in the door, Josh.

      It wouldn’t be long before they’d be using it for a lot more than “just” refusing to recognize the rights of married same-sex couples.

      • joshie

        Of course. The true, fundamental belief in question here isn’t marriage, it’s that gay sex is wrong. They see gay marriage as the embodiment of gay sex (which is silly, ask any long-timed married person if marriage is the embodiment of sex). But once they won this, would they be satisfied with this special status for their so-called beliefs about marriage alone? I doubt it. It’s a stepping stone to giving license to treat LGBT people as second class citizens.

  • billbear1961

    Can I deny YOU your civil rights, deny you service at a government office, because I find you morally reprehensible, offensive to my religious beliefs? No? Why not? Because, even as Scalia understands, it would lead to social chaos, with people turning their backs on others for any trumped-up reason?

    You won’t target any other groups, all other “sinners” will get a free pass? Only the vile gays must be punished? And what is your compelling REASON for singling us out?

    Your right to believe what you like does NOT include the right to use those beliefs to target your neighbours’ civil rights in the public square.

    NO ONE has that right in a free society, and to introduce it now would cause CHAOS, as I’ve said, if religion can be used to turn anyone away OR a new age of SEGREGATION, in the 21st century, against ONE group if you’re allowed to single LGBTs out for special ABUSE.

    You can show us the same courtesy in public you show everyone else and that you DEMAND for yourselves.

    In this day and age, no group will long tolerate the blatant discrimination of segregation.

    You don’t have to LIKE people to be CIVIL and respect their rights.

    If you want to see a society where religion has gotten totally out of hand and people no longer respect one another’s rights, look no further than the BUTCHERY of the Middle East.

    • “And what is your compelling REASON for singling us out?” My _friend_ says the reason is “male and female He created them.” What the fucking fuck?

  • ultragreen

    Considering the equal protection clause in the U.S. Constitution, which was used in part to legalize gay marriage, FADA is unconstitutional because it would allow discrimination against homosexuals and transgendered persons at public expense. Even if this legislation was passed, it is doubtful that it would survive legal scrutiny by the courts. DOMA didn’t survive such scrutiny, and neither would FADA.

    And once again, the haters don’t understand the difference between the first amendment (expressing what one believes) versus discriminatory actions in a public domain (violating equality before the law) and the availability of government subsidies to support such actions in a public domain.

    The tax-exempt status of a non-profit at the Federal level is not terribly important anyway. Instead, the tax-exempt status of a non-profit at the State level is far more important because it determines whether or not a non-profit will pay property and sales taxes. Most states (especially the more heavily populated ones) independently determine the tax-exempt status of non-profits, regardless of what happens at the Federal level.

  • countervail

    Let’s all remember Ryan Anderson is a self-hating gay. All the rest of what is says becomes meaningless after that.

    • joshie

      Allegedly! (He probably is though. A celibate gay choking on his self-deprivation.)

  • anne marie in philly

    STFU, asswipe!

  • Ellipse Kirk

    Now that the government has ruled in favor of the equality of the races, a question arises: Should we protect the rights of Orthodox Believers who believe that God created the races independently of each other intending that they should remain separate?

    Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/422120/first-amendment-defense-act-protects-pluralism-gay-marriage-ryan-t

  • Sean Taylor

    “It would ensure that no federal agency will ever revoke non-profit
    tax-exempt status or deny grants, contracts, accreditation, or licenses
    to individuals or institutions for following their belief that marriage
    is a union between a man and a woman.”

    it took him a few seconds to get to the root of the matter