Concerns Rise over Discrimination against LGBT People

Share:

Discrimination Under the Guise of ‘Religious Freedom’ Is Still Discrimination, President Trump

By Ian Thompson

Following press reports that the White House was considering issuing an executive order that would roll back and undermine nondiscrimination protections for LGBT people, the administration made clear that President Trump would not repeal a landmark executive order signed by President Obama in 2014 that prohibits businesses that contract with the federal government from discriminating against LGBT people.

But this is only part of the story.

President Trump has surrounded himself with a vice president and cabinet members who have repeatedly sought to sanction discrimination against LGBT people and women in the name of religion, and nothing in the White House’s statement makes clear that these efforts are now behind us. During the campaign, Trump pledged to sign into law the so-called “First Amendment Defense Act,” the most sweeping, anti-LGBT bill in Congress. In addition, Trump transition officials reportedly gave private “assurances” to a member of Congress who was trying to attach an anti-LGBT religious exemption to the defense bill that the new administration would address the issue early in 2017. Needless to say, there remain significant concerns about what the Trump administration may be planning.

Religious freedom is a core American value that we cherish and defend,  one that is protected in the Constitution. We all have the freedom of belief regarding God and religion, including the freedom to act on those beliefs. But freedom of religion doesn’t give any of us the right to discriminate against other people.

Any executive order that would sanction discrimination under the guise of “religious freedom” would be seen for exactly what it is: a direct assault on the rights and dignity of LGBT people and women. The ACLU has a message for President Trump: You cannot authorize discrimination by executive fiat. We won’t stand for it. Not now. Not ever.

If the administration continues to pursue policies that are unlawful and unconstitutional, the ACLU is prepared to continue to take them to court to protect the civil rights and civil liberties of everyone in this country.

Share:

About The Author

Disclaimer: the views expressed by guest writers are strictly those of the author and may not reflect the views of the Vanguard, its editor, or its editorial board.

Related posts

6 thoughts on “Concerns Rise over Discrimination against LGBT People”

  1. Keith O

     the administration made clear that President Trump would not repeal a landmark executive order signed by President Obama in 2014 that prohibits businesses that contract with the federal government from discriminating against LGBT people.

    So what’s the problem?

    Trump transition officials reportedly gave private “assurances” to a member of Congress who was trying to attach an anti-LGBT religious exemption to the defense bill that the new administration would address the issue early in 2017

    And this is known how?

    This article is just more of the same, fake news Trump hysteria hype.

  2. Tia Will

    Keith

    This article is just more of the same, fake news Trump hysteria hype.”

    I might have agreed with you on this point had not the current president just issued a directive in which Christians would be given preference over members of others with regard to entry into the United States. Certainly sounds like religious discrimination to me.

  3. Eric Gelber

    This article is just more of the same, fake news Trump hysteria hype.

    Can an we stop misusing the term “fake news” to refer to news items we believe to be merely inaccurate? Fake news refers to news stories that are intentionally made up to further a cause or agenda. You ask “And this is known how?” which is a fair question. But unless you know the story was intentionally fabricated, it cannot be said to be “fake news.”

    1. Howard P

      As for me, I can accept a more restrained use of  “fake news”… and I agree with your second, and your last sentence, completely…

      I do reserve the right to challenge untruths as “alt-facts”… a tad more civilized than calling them ‘damnable lies’… the latter would have to be egregious and deliberate…

  4. Jaroslaw Waszczuk

    [moderator: edited

    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    WTF David . Why you censoring me .?  

    [moderator: no more personal attacks. Your comments directed at Tia were not acceptable.

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
$ USD
Sign up for