Mediaboss Marketing

Donald Trump AP Photo/Cheryl Senter

Donald Trump has been courting the LGBTQ vote throughout this presidential election, claiming he would be the better choice for the community than opponent Hillary Clinton and promising to protect us from terrorismin his Republican National Convention speech.

That argumentgets harder to believe by the week, as he gives speeches at anti-LGBTQ events, sticks up for homophobic and transphobic legislation and surrounds himself with bigoted politicians and advisers. Now we have a new offense to add to the list.

Related:Cher: I shudder to think what President Trump will do to trans Americans

Trump has pledged to sign the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA), if passed by congress. It was first introduced in the House on June 17, 2015 and would effectively legalize anti-LGBTQ discrimination across the board, includingamong employers, businesses, landlords and healthcare providers,as long as they claim to be motivated by a firmly held religious beliefs.

It would act to overturn the executive order signed in 2014 by President Obama prohibiting anti-LGBTQ discrimination among federal contractors.

Related:Mike Pences top seven most homophobic moments (out of many)

The statement, added to Trumps website on Thursday under the title Issues Of Importance To Catholics and the subtitle Religious Liberty,reads:

Religious liberty is enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution. It is our first liberty and provides the most important protection in that it protects our right of conscience. Activist judges and executive orders issued by Presidents who have no regard for the Constitution have put these protections in jeopardy. If I am elected president and Congress passes the First Amendment Defense Act, I will sign it to protect the deeply held religious beliefs of Catholics and the beliefs of Americans of all faiths. The Little Sisters of the Poor, or any religious order for that matter, will always have their religious liberty protected on my watch and will not have to face bullying from the government because of their religious beliefs.

FADAs text reads:

Prohibits the federal government from taking discriminatory action against a person on the basis that such person believes or acts in accordance with a religious belief or moral conviction that: (1) marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or (2) sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage.

Defines discriminatory action as any federal government action to discriminate against a person with such beliefs or convictions, including a federal government action to:

Requires the federal government to consider to be accredited, licensed, or certified for purposes of federal law any person who would be accredited, licensed, or certified for such purposes but for a determination that the person believes or acts in accordance with such a religious belief or moral conviction.

Permits a person to assert an actual or threatened violation of this Act as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding and to obtain compensatory damages or other appropriate relief against the federal government.

Authorizes the Attorney General to bring an action to enforce this Act against the Government Accountability Office or an establishment in the executive branch, other than the U.S. Postal Service or the Postal Regulatory Commission, that is not an executive department, military department, or government corporation.

Defines person as any person regardless of religious affiliation, including corporations and other entities regardless of for-profit or nonprofit status.

Here is the original post:
Donald Trump pledges to sign anti-LGBTQ First Amendment ...

Gene Policinski, Inside the First Amendment 9:30 a.m. MST December 25, 2016

Gene Policinski writes the First Amendment column distributed by Gannett News Service. (Gannett News Service, Sam Kittner/First Amendment Center/File)(Photo: GNS)

Our First Amendment freedoms will work if we still have them around to use.

Those five freedoms religion, speech, press, assembly and petition have been challenged at various times in our nations history, as many would say they are today.

But the very freedoms themselves provide the means and mechanisms for our society to self-correct those challenges, perhaps a main reason why the First Amendment has endured, unchanged, since Dec. 15, 1791.

Case in point: The tragic mass shooting in Orlando, Florida, on June 12 was followed by a burst of anti-Islamic rhetoric across the country after the killer declared allegiance to ISIS. The speech, however hateful, generally was protected by the First Amendment.

But in turn, those attacks were followed by pushback in the other direction. Muslim leaders decried the use of their faith to justify hatred of the United States or homophobic terrorism. Opposition was ramped up to the idea of increased surveillance of Muslims in America and now-President-elect Donald Trumps suggestion for a temporary ban on Muslims entering the United States.

In two rounds of national polling in the Newseum Institutes annual State of the First Amendment survey, support for First Amendment protection for fringe or extreme faiths actually increased after the Orlando attack, compared with sampling done in May.

The number of people who said First Amendment protection does not extend to such faiths dropped from 29 to 22 percent. In both surveys, just over 1,000 adults were sampled by telephone, and the margin of error in the surveys was plus or minus 3.2 percentage points.

The First Amendment is predicated on the notion that citizens who are able to freely debate without government censorship or direction will exchange views, sometimes strongly and on controversial subjects, but eventually find common ground.

Of course, that kind of vigorous and robust exchange in the marketplace only can happen if there is a marketplace freedom for all to speak and a willingness to join with others in serious discussion, debate and discourse that has a goal of improving life for us all.

Heres where the survey results turn ominous: Nearly four in 10 of those questioned in the 2016 State of the First Amendment survey, which was released July 4, could not name unaided a single freedom in the First Amendment.

Perhaps not identifying by name even one of the five freedoms is not the same as not knowing you have those core freedoms. But neither does the result build confidence that, as a nation, we have a deep understanding of what distinguishes our nation among all others and is so fundamental to the unique American experience of self-governance.

We have thrived as a nation with a social order and a government structure in which the exchange of views is a key to solving problems. The nations architects had a confidence and optimism that such exchanges in the so-called marketplace of ideas would ultimately work for the public good.

What would those founders think of a society in which so many seem to favor the electronic versions of divided marketplaces that permit only that speech of which you already approve or that confirms your existing views?

Or worse yet, a society in which the five freedoms are used as weapons from cyberbullying to mass Twitter attacks to deliberate distribution of fake news to figuratively set ablaze or tear down an opponents stand?

As a nation, we cannot abandon the values of our First Amendment freedoms that protect religious liberty, that defend free expression at its widest definition and that provide a right to unpopular dissent, without fundamentally changing the character of our nation.

As a people, we must stand in defense of the values set out in the First Amendment and Bill of Rights some 225 years ago, even as we face one of the deepest public divides on a range of issues in our history.

And we must revisit and renew our faith in a concept expressed in 1664 by English poet and scholar John Milton and later woven deep into the institutional fabric of America: that in a battle between truth and falsehood, who ever knew truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter?

Gene Policinski is chief operating officer of the Newseum Institute and senior vice president of the Institutes First Amendment Center. He can be reached at gpolicinski@newseum.org. Follow him on Twitter: @genefac.

Read or Share this story: http://www.thespectrum.com/story/opinion/2016/12/25/first-amendment-works-and-if-we-still-have/95705830/

Read more from the original source:
First Amendment works and will if we still have it

U.S. President-elect Donald Trump arrives to speak during a USA Thank You Tour event at Giant Center in Hershey, Pennsylvania, U.S., December 15, 2016. Lucas Jackson / Reuters

FADA would prohibit the federal government from taking "discriminatory action" against any business or person that discriminates against LGBTQ people. The act distinctly aims to protect the right of all entities to refuse service to LGBTQ people based on two sets of beliefs: "(1) marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or (2) sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage."

Ironically, the

On December 9, Sen. Lee's spokesperson, Conn Carroll, told

"Hopefully November's results will give us the momentum we need to get this done next year," Carroll said. "We do plan to reintroduce FADA next Congress and we welcome Trump's positive words about the bill."

"During oral arguments in Obergfell, President Obama's solicitor general admitted that if a right to same-sex marriage were created, religious institutions, including many Catholic schools, could have their tax exempt status revoked by the IRS," Carroll told NBC Out on Wednesday. "The First Amendment Defense Act was created to make sure that does not happen."

But while Carroll claims "FADA in no way undermines federal or state civil rights laws," it would take away the government's recourse in terms of punishing businesses, institutions or individuals who break civil rights law by discriminating against LGBTQ people.

Jennifer Pizer, Law and Policy Director at Lambda Legal, told NBC Out FADA "invites widespread, devastating discrimination against LGBT people" and is a deeply unconstitutional bill.

"This proposed new law violates both Equal Protection and the Establishment Clause by elevating one set of religious beliefs above all others," Pizer said, "And by targeting LGBT Americans as a group, contrary to settled constitutional law."

Pizer warned that the bill's language also left room for individuals and businesses to discriminate against unwed heterosexual couples and single mothers, because of the clause stating that "sexual relations are properly reserved" to marriage between a man and a woman.

"There cannot be even one iota of doubt that this bill endorses one set of religious beliefs above others, and targets people in same-sex relationships, married or not, as well as unmarried heterosexual couples who live together," Pizer said. "It's an unconstitutional effort to turn the clock back to a time when unmarried mothers had to hide in shame, and LGBT people had to hide, period."

RELATED:

FADA was first filed in the House and Senate in 2015, but was met with protests from Democrats and resulted in just one House hearing amid concerns that Obama would veto the bill. It is currently co-sponsored by 171 House Republicans and just one Democrat (Daniel Lipinski of Illinois.)

State-level legislation similar to FADA has failed in recent years, usually resulting from lawsuits and nationwide boycotts. When Vice President-elect Mike Pence passed a "religious freedom" bill as governor of Indiana in March 2015, it was met with

Mississippi's

A lawsuit brought by Mississippi religious leaders alleges the state law actually violates religious freedom by determining that religious belief necessitates anti-LGBTQ discrimination. The group of ordained ministers suing the state said in the lawsuit,

Barber v. Bryant is currently at the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, after a federal trial court ruled HB 1523 violates the federal Equal Protection and Establishment Clauses. Pizer said the case stands as an example of the legal explosion that would occur in reaction to FADA.

"If Congress were to pass the federal FADA as currently written, and the next president were to sign it into law, I'm confident heads would spin at how fast the constitutional challenges would fly into court," Pizer said, adding "we're likely to have a great many allies because these attempts to misuse religion for discrimination offend enormous numbers of Americans who cherish both religious liberty and equality for all."

Follow NBC Out on

See the original post:
First Amendment Defense Act Would Be 'Devastating' for LGBTQ ...

The First Amendment Defense Act (often abbreviated FADA) (H.R. 2802) is a bill introduced into the United States House of Representatives and United States Senate on June 17, 2015. The Senate sponsor of the bill is Mike Lee (R-Utah), and the House sponsor is Raul Labrador (R-Idaho).[1] The bill aims to prevent the federal government from taking action against people who discriminate against LGBTQ people for religious reasons.

The bill provides that the federal government "shall not take any discriminatory action against a person, wholly or partially on the basis that such person believes or acts in accordance with a religious belief or moral conviction that marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or that sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage."[1]

The FADA was introduced into both the House and Senate on the same day (June 17, 2015), by Mike Lee and Raul Labrador. As of November 21, 2016, the House version had 172 co-sponsors, and the Senate version 34.[1] Also as of that date, the House bill had not been considered by either of the two committees it had been referred to.[1]

When asked by Heritage Action, FRC Action, and the American Principles Project if they would pass the bill in their first 100 days in office, three of the top four Republican presidential candidates in the 2016 election said they would, the exception being Donald Trump.[2] It was also supported by the Family Research Council, the American Family Association, and the Liberty Counsel, among other groups, shortly after it was introduced.[3] On September 22, 2016, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump changed his mind and said in a press release, "If I am elected president and Congress passes the First Amendment Defense Act, I will sign it to protect the deeply held religious beliefs of Catholics and the beliefs of Americans of all faiths."[4]

On July 21, 2015, the Los Angeles Times editorial board wrote that FADA was "unnecessary and could allow discrimination against gays and lesbians."[5] Later that year, Walter Olson of the Cato Institute wrote in Newsweek that the bill does not "try to distinguish rights from frills and privileges," and also criticized it for only protecting those who opposed same-sex marriage, not those who supported same-sex marriage or cohabitation or non-marital sex.[6] It has also been criticized by Ian S. Thompson, legislative director for the American Civil Liberties Union, who claimed that it would, if passed, "open the door to unprecedented taxpayer-funded discrimination against LGBT people."[3]

A version of the FADA was introduced in Georgia on January 21, 2016, by Greg Kirk, a Republican state senator.[7] The bill would, if passed, protect government employees who do not want to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples because they object to the practice for religious reasons. Kirk cited Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis as an example of the people who would be affected by the law.[8] This bill was passed by the Georgia State Senate on February 19. The bill was then sent to the State House for consideration.[9][10] Governor Nathan Deal vetoed this bill in March 2016.[11]

An even more limiting bill[12] in Mississippi, HB 1523, was passed and would have gone into effect in 2016 had Judge Carlton Reeves not blocked the measure three days before it would have taken effect.[13]

The rest is here:
First Amendment Defense Act - Wikipedia

Here's what you should know about President-elect Donald Trump's Nov. 29 tweet calling for a ban on burning the U.S. flag. (Sarah Parnass/The Washington Post)

The president-elect woke up Tuesday morning with a clear agenda before him. Poised to announce his pick of Rep. Tom Price to lead the Department of Health and Human Services and with a day of meetings slated including one with onetime foe Mitt Romney Donald Trump hopped on Twitter to talk about where his attention was focused.

Disparaging CNN and more unexpectedly reigniting the once-virulent debate over flag-burning.

Where this came from is anybodys guess. (Update: Apparently it overlapped with a Fox News segment.) Theres an operating theory among some that Trump throws out tweets like this to distract attention from something else, as though 140-character messages demand our total (100 percent) brain capacity. On MSNBCs Morning Joe, host Joe Scarborough speculated that maybe Trump was tossing a bit of red meat to the angry social media lions before announcing that he would pick Romney as secretary of state.

The suggestions of this tweet and the context in which it was issued, though, make it far from just a simple distraction.

Flag-burning is not an issue that has occupied a central position in the American political consciousness of late. Its absolutely the sort of fight that Trump would relish, mind you, pitting egghead supporters of free speech and the First Amendment against the patriotism of people who find flag-burning unacceptable.

Some quick history is in order. Fights over how the flag is depicted have been fought at the Supreme Court for more than a century, including the 1989 decision Texas v. Johnson which established that burning the flag was a constitutionally protected act.

One of the justices who supported that 5-4 decision was Antonin Scalia, the jurist whose death earlier this year created the vacancy that it seems Trump will get to fill with someone, he has said, he hopes will be in the mold of Scalia. Scalia also voted to protect flag-burning when Congress passed a national law hoping to avoid the problems of Texas v. Johnson even though he found the practice to be repugnant.

If it were up to me, I would put in jail every sandal-wearing, scruffy-bearded weirdo who burns the American flag, he said last year, adding an important disclaimer: But I am not king. In an interview with CNN, he explained the distinction simply: Flag-burning is a form of expression, and therefore is protected by the First Amendment.

A group of demonstrators, many carrying American flags, gathered on Nov. 27 outside the campus of Hampshire College in Massachusetts. (Instagram/@axle_maximus via Storyful)

Congress has tried to work around the decision. Shortly afterward, it passed a law banning flag-burning, which was again thrown out (with Scalias agreement). A decade ago, the Senate narrowly failed to approve a constitutional amendment banning flag-burning, with now-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) voting in opposition.

If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, Justice William Brennan wrote in response to the decision to strike down the 1989 federal law, it is that the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.

Trump doesnt seem to adhere to this idea. He has railed against the oppositional media repeatedly, suggesting at one point that he might open up libel laws to make it easier to sue the media. He disparaged protests earlier this month as being incited by the press and being illegitimate because the protesters were paid (a claim for which theres no evidence). When protesters in Chicago disrupted one of his rallies, he suggested that they should be thrown in jail. His proposals to address the threat of terrorism often seem to tiptoe beyond the free-expression-of-religion boundaries established in the Bill of Rights.

When Trump finds free expression offensive or disagreeable, he seeks to curtail it and, in some cases, impose harsh penalties. The suggestion that those who burn flags should lose their citizenship is remarkable in part because its such a drastic response one that would itself rescind any number of legal protections to which the culprit would otherwise be entitled. Incidentally, this suggested punishment is barred as a result of a 1958 decision from the Supreme Court, as Louis Nelson notes at Politico.

Weve often seen Trump dash off a Twitter opinion that goes no further. Theres a fair argument to be made that, in the absence of any broader debate or proposed policy, this tweet about the flag should be treated as a curiosity. But it comes on the heels of Trump tweeting about how the results of the election should be questioned because of fraud (something that, again, lacks evidence). Its a pattern of pushing back against fundamental pillars of our democracy: elections, free speech, Supreme Court decisions. He has every right to do so, of course. If nothing else, thats important context. And it reinforces a desire to treat those who oppose him or his values harshly, even when he lacks the power to do so.

Why now? Who knows. Given the attention he has paid of late to casting his opponents in a negative light (like those claims about voter fraud that were the subject of his tweets Monday), perhaps he wants to force them to defend an unpopular position. Perhaps he even hopes that protesters will appear outside Trump Tower and burn flags. That certainly wouldnt hurt his efforts to rally support from otherwise indifferent Americans.

Anyway. Time for Trump to tick off the next items on his to-do list. Something about putting together a government? With the important stuff done, might as well move on to that.

More from The Fix:

Why we cant and shouldnt ignore Donald Trumps tweets

A running list of how Donald Trumps new position may be helping his business interests

Steve Bannon once suggested only property owners should vote. What would that look like?

See more here:
Donald Trump v. the First Amendment, Part 5