Equality is nice but SB 2 is Orwellian and UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

Share with: Everybody. Sharing is caring, ya know.


Reeducation:

(1) A program of public education calculated to eliminate attitudes upon which practices of discrimination because of race, { + color, + } religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, + } marital status { + , + } { – or national origin – } { + age or disability + } are based.

Perceived Protection:
How do you know if you’re discriminating against a protected person?
You don’t. Why? Because it also covers people who PERCEIVE themselves
to be a gender that they weren’t born with.

{ + (6) 'Sexual orientation' means an individual's actual
or perceived heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality
or gender
identity, regardless of whether the individual's
gender identity, appearance, expression or behavior
differs from that
traditionally associated with the individual's
sex at birth. + }


So if you're hiring for a hostess and your purple haired, tattooed,
drag queen applicant does not project the kind of image you
want as the hostess of your restaurant and you don't hire him/her??
Screwed. That's what you are.

State must determine bona fide church status:
The Bill says if you operate a “Bona fide” church with you don’t have to hire
one of these protected person so long as the state determines you’re bona fide
AND it’s an important job. So, for instance, if you operate a church you might
have to hire a flaming drag queen as the janitor under this law. Or the Sunday
School bus driver might be a flamboyant gay man, who may be the nicest
guy in the world, but ain’t the kind image your want your Sunday
School kids to emulate. Who decides what’s “bona fide”? The state of course.

{ +  (3) + } { + Nothing in this chapter prohibits + } a bona fide church
or sectarian religiousinstitution
, including but not limited to
a school, hospital or church camp, from preferring an employee or applicant for
employment of one religious sect or persuasion over another when:
(a) That religious sect or persuasion to which the employee or
applicant belongs is the same as that of { + the + } church or institution;
(b) In the opinion of { + the church or institution + },
such a preference will best serve the purposes of { + the + } church
or institution; and (c) The employment involved is closely connected
with or related to the primary purposes of the church or institution and
is not connected with a commercial or business activity { + that + }
has no necessary relationship to the church or institution, or to its
primary purposes.

Joe Sixpack can be sued. Who knew?
The poor schmuck who works with the protected class of people could be sued.

(b) The operator or manager of the place of public accommodation,
the employee or person acting on behalf of the place,
and any aider or abettor shall be jointly and severally
liable for all damages awarded in the action;

Could some attorney tell me if this section is boilerplate? It seems
awfully strange to me. SECTION 17 of SB 2. Find the whole bil
here.
Tell ’em where you saw it. Http://www.victoriataft.com

Share with: Everybody. Sharing is caring, ya know.


13 thoughts on “Equality is nice but SB 2 is Orwellian and UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

  1. Oh, man, this is great. The next job I don’t get will be the last one I need to apply for.

    The dems have to be the most guilt-ridden racist homophobes around. You can’t be just a person.

  2. Bona fide Church: I got it!
    Like the CHURCH OF Global WARMING with The REV.ALGOREEEEEEEEEEEEEE

    On Line Universitys sound pretty good for the Future.

  3. “Value and dignity of yet another excluded group”.

    I can not wait until they recognize child molesters have a right to work at a daycare center.

    Go, Dems, go! It’s a race to the bottom, and I want Oregon to win!

  4. When do the “reeducation camps” get built?

    Seems to me, every country that instilled Communism included “reeducation camps” for any who broke with “group think!”

  5. The amendments are bad enough, but look at it as it is. This is already law, they’re just adding the “sexual orientation” wording and some other misc. wording changes. The entire law as it stands right now is here:

    http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/659a.html

    The program is the law and it’s requirements, not reeducation camps. If they were a requirement we would already have them for the existing protected classes, with “sexual orientation” now included.

    The wording for churches is just an amendment to what’s already there for wording and to add the “sexual orientation” terminology.

    The snip at the last of the blog on who is liable is already in the law as well, just scroll down to 659A.885 Part 5, section (b) and you’ll see it.

    I oppose the amendments anything denying equal protection is unconstitutional (14th amendment). The most alarming thing is the definition they add to amend the current law ORS 174.100 which is located here:

    http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/174.html

    The proposed amendment adds to the current list of definitions:

    6) Sexual orientation’ means an individual’s actual or perceived heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality or gender identity, regardless of whether the individual’s gender identity, appearance, expression or behavior
    differs from that traditionally associated with the individual’s
    sex at birth.

    That is mind boggling and the lawsuits it opens up are mind boggling. Any guys here that are unemployed and need a few bucks could go to a strip club and apply for a job. If they turn you down, say you perceive you’re a woman and sue them. Might even be able to get the ACLU to take up your case. πŸ˜€

  6. I have issues with the bill as well. I am not in favor of the bill at all.
    However, when I read posts which equate the categories mentioned in the bill with pedophiles, I wonder if some (re?)education is needed.
    Victim versus Choice HUGE Difference.

    UNIFORMS. If I were an employer, of people who worked with the public (represented my company to others) I would probably implement Uniforms.
    Uniforms which are exactly the same for Boys and Girls.
    Dress Codes are allowed.
    In fact, perhaps an employer could implement dress codes for interviews as well.
    Hygiene matters. The ability (and Willingness) to follow a Dress Code matters.
    Personally, I would hate to have a job with a strict dress code, or a uniform. But I am seeing the value in having one.

  7. oin us at 4:15PM TODAY to hear the reasons this bill should never have come before the legislature and why it should be opposed by ALL of our elected officials.

    Please go to http://www.stopthebilloregon.com, SIGN the Petition, and forward our email to as many friends and family they possibly can. The STOP SB 2 / HB 3526 PETITION will be presented to all seven Representatives on the Rules Committee, which COULD STOP THE BILL. If the Rules Committee fails to stop these bills and it goes to the full House for a VOTE all 60 will receive the latest updated results.

    1169 people have SIGNED The Petition opposing SB 2 since it was first announced last weekend. If you have not signed the PETITION yet, do so as soon as possible, and ask your friends to do so as well, and ask them to ask their friends to do so.

    Prayerfully
    David Crowe
    Executive Director

    “For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds, casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ.” 2 Corinthians 10:3-5

  8. In the 24th chapter of the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus said, “Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words shall not pass away.” Earlier, as recorded by Matthew in chapter 5, Jesus said, “For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished.”
    Unchanging Authority
    In other words, Jesus was proclaiming the ongoing, unchangeable authority of the Pentateuch, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, written by Moses under the direction and inspiration of the Spirit of God.

    That included what God called an “abomination” in the book of Leviticus and what the Apostle Paul described in the epistle to the Romans as men and women committing “indecent acts,” “shameless deeds,” as a result of “degrading passions”, men with men and women with women.

    Exchanging the Glory
    Why have we, a people who live in such abundance, affluence and comfort, amongst trappings of wisdom and knowledge, become such a confused, self absorbed, pleasure seeking, and morally corrupt society?

    Paul said it is because we became ‘fools,’ preferring to worship and idolize human idols, wild men and women of the world in pursuit of the lusts of the flesh and pride of life, the creature rather than the creator.

    Embracing The Foolish
    And that is at the heart of what is wrong with Oregon Senate Bill 2, now before the Oregon House of Representatives. It embodies our rejection of what is wise from the hand of God and embraces the foolish.

    And If SB 2, or its counterpart HB 5326, is allowed to pass, we will have, as Michael Medved said, “embraced the pathetic” and played the fools, at the expense of our children and their future.

    What Will The Righteous Do?
    Oregon’s Christians will either choose to believe that homosexuality and lesbianism is still as God said it is, an ‘abomination,’ by telling their Representatives NO, this week–or that it is NOT, by remaining silent, and doing nothing. If we remain silent we will have said that it is worthy of being taught to our children as a legitimate “alternative lifestyle;” that it is good for our lawmakers to grant a right where there is no right; to redefine morality when they have no right or authority to do so.

    Have they not become ‘fools’ if they do such a thing, ‘futile in their speculations,’ with ‘foolish hearts’ and ‘darkened minds?’ And have we not become fools to stand idly by when it is in our power to say “NO!”?

    Say ‘NO.’ Go to http://www.stopthebilloregon.com , WATCH the 2 minute Video and then CLICK on SIGN the Petition. Then PASS THIS EMAIL or the website address on to your friends and associates. This is the only means we have of spreading the message about how dangerous this bill is.

    “And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God (i,e. hold Him in esteem and worthy of worship) any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, malice; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.” Romans 1:28-32

  9. The Church-State Divide

    Freedom has allowed faith to flourish in America. But the proper relationship between church and state β€” including at places such as George Fox β€” is still a matter of debate.

    George Fox senior Pisey Sok is denied a $3,000 grant from the state of Oregon because he majors in Christian ministries. A U.S. Supreme Court decision due by summer could make religion majors like Sok eligible.
    When George Fox University senior Pisey Sok declared himself a Christian ministries major, he gave up his $3,000 Oregon Opportunity Grant. Sok could have studied biology or business and kept the annual award, but his desire to be a youth pastor cost him the grant. The Oregon state constitution bars state funds from being spent on religion.

    A private donor has made up the difference in Sok’s financial aid, but Mark Hall, associate professor of political science, sees Sok’s loss as a violation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Hall last summer signed a Friend-of-the-Court Brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in support of a Northwest College student who is challenging a similar law in the state of Washington. The case, Locke vs. Davey, was heard last month. A decision, perhaps by a 5-to-4 vote, is expected this summer. If the Washington law is ruled unconstitutional, similar constitutional provisions or laws in 36 other states β€” including Oregon β€” also will be overturned.

    The Locke vs. Davey case follows several high-profile court battles over the volatile church-state relationship. Each side claims victories. The chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court recently was ousted for refusing to remove a Ten Commandments monument from a state building. In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled state-funded vouchers could be used to pay for tuition at religious schools. That same year, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the phrase “under God” could not be included in teacher-led recitations of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools.

    “Pervasively Religious”
    George Fox University has an interest in how the courts define the relationship between church and state. The Christian mission of George Fox has cost the school hundreds of thousands of dollars in state support. A 1982 American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) suit charged Oregon with violating its state constitution because it was providing aid to institutions that were “pervasively religious.” At the time, Oregon private colleges received a stipend from the state for each Oregon student they educated. During the 1970s, George Fox received between $130,000 and $225,000 annually from the state. Because of its large number of Oregon students, George Fox was one of the biggest beneficiaries. “We were the primary institution they were after,” says Don Millage, who was business manager at the time. George Fox initially resisted the suit, but it became obvious the case would hinge on the school’s mission. “We admitted we were pervasively religious and let it go,” says Millage.

    One Powerful Phrase
    One 16-word phrase has unleashed more than two centuries of church-state legal battles. It is found in the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The First Amendment begins “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . .”

    Pisey Sok (center) works with youth as an intern at First Baptist Church in Portland. Sok receives federal financial aid, but is denied state aid by the Oregon Constitution because he majors in religion.
    The possibility of future Christian ministries majors receiving state grants depends upon how the Establishment Clause β€” the part of the sentence before the comma β€” and the Free Exercise Clause β€” the part after the comma β€” are interpreted by the Supreme Court.

    “It was never really defined to anyone’s satisfaction what ‘establishment’ meant,” says former U.S. Sen. Mark Hatfield, who now teaches at George Fox as the Herbert Hoover Distinguished Professor. “We’re going to wrestle with that until the Lord comes.”

    Banning National Religion
    Professor Hall β€” the author or editor of three books on the topic, including the soon-to-be-released “The Founders on Faith and Civil Government” β€” says there are two major views on the Establishment Clause. One view interprets it to mean Congress cannot establish a national religion. This was a relatively new idea at the time. “Most countries, maybe all countries, would have had either established churches or very close connections between the state and the church,” he says. The Lutheran Church in Germany, the Anglican Church in England, and the Roman Catholic Church in France all were state supported. Hall notes 11 of the 13 colonies supported established churches β€” the Anglican Church in the South and the Puritan and Congregational churches in the North. Since the First Amendment applied only to the federal government at the time, many states continued to fund and promote their churches after the amendment became law.

    Those who argue for this view say that if the clause does more than ban a national church, it prohibits the government from favoring one religion or denomination over another. “For instance, it can’t hire only Baptist chaplains for the military or fund only Roman Catholic schools,” Hall says.

    Strict Separation
    The other major view of the Establishment Clause is that there should be strict separation between church and state. The ACLU and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State are high-profile advocates of strict separation, arguing that any government support for religion violates the amendment and threatens religious liberty. They have embraced President Thomas Jefferson’s description of the Establishment Clause as creating a “wall of separation between church and state.” The phrase β€” used in an 1802 letter to a group of New England Baptists β€” came to prominence in a 1940s church-state case and has been quoted often in recent court decisions.

    Even today, one could argue the “wall of separation” isn’t an accurate description of the current relationship between religion and government, since the state closes its offices for Christmas, hires military chaplains, exempts churches from taxes, and declares “In God We Trust” on its money. Rather than a “wall of separation,” one judge jokingly called it a “sponge of separation.”

    “No Money … for Religion”
    It is the Oregon constitution that bars Sok from his grant. States are allowed to develop their own laws governing the church-state relationship as long as they don’t violate the U.S. Constitution. Oregon and Idaho β€” the two states where George Fox offers classes β€” have more restrictive laws than the federal government. The Oregon constitution was adopted in 1859 with the mandate, “No money to be appropriated for religion.” Hall says this and many of the other state laws barring aid to religious institutions were created by Protestant majorities to block government aid to Catholic schools.

    Religious Discrimination
    Several Supreme Court cases in recent years have moved the federal and state governments away from strict separation. Influenced by the First Amendment’s Free Exercise and Free Speech clauses, the court has ruled states cannot discriminate against religion. For example, 10 years ago it ruled that non-religious and religious clubs must receive equal access to facilities.

    “Evangelical religious expression owes its very existence to the concept of separation of church and state. … It is in our direct interest to ensure that the state continues to remain distant from religious institutions.”
    β€” Robin Baker, provost, George Fox University
    Hall believes this line of reasoning will carry over into Washington’s Locke vs. Davey case. “No one is claiming that students studying religion or theology should be favored,” he argues. “But Washington may not discriminate against students because they choose to major in Christian ministries, rather than physics.” That equal treatment is why the federal government allows Sok, the religion major, to receive a $3,500 Pell Grant. The grant is available to any financially eligible student enrolled at an accredited institution, no matter the major.

    The Legacy of the First Amendment
    Despite the potential negatives of a strict interpretation of separation, Robin Baker, George Fox provost and professor of history, says evangelical Christians should be grateful for the First Amendment. With the end of the Congregational and Anglican religious monopolies, he says dissident groups such as the Baptists, Methodists, and Quakers were allowed to grow. “Evangelical religious expression owes its very existence to the concept of separation of church and state,” he says. “Certainly the church would have found ways to reach people even in a society with a state church, but the nature of religious toleration in the United States provided an environment that enabled passionate men and women to convert thousands for the cause of Christ.”

    In this environment of religious freedom, colleges with Christian theological commitments β€” such as George Fox University β€” sprouted up across the nation. Today, more than 100 American colleges are members of the Council for Christian Colleges & Universities. Many of them could be affected by the upcoming Locke vs. Davey ruling and all certainly have an interest in the future of the church-state relationship. While many would probably like to see the state prohibitions on aid to religion overturned, they likely are even more adamant about protecting their ability to teach, operate, and worship as they feel Christ leading them. “It is in our direct interest to ensure that the state continues to remain distant from religious institutions,” says Baker.

    One thing seems certain: whatever decision the Supreme Court makes on the role of church and state in Locke vs. Davey, it will not silence the two-century-old debate.

Comments are closed.