Republican Leaders Block Gay-Rights Bill After Orlando Attack
So much for solidarity.
Assholes. "Less than three days after a popular gay club in Orlando became the site of the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history, Republican leaders in the House of Representatives blocked a vote on a proposal that would ensure federal contractors can’t discriminate against employees on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identification. Hours earlier, a number of notable conservative figures had put on a good show of standing in solidarity with the L.G.B.T. community, making the rounds on cable news to stand up for the dozens of gay men and women who died in Sunday’s attack. On Tuesday night, however, it was back to business as usual as the House Rules Committee prevented the amendment from reaching the floor for a vote."
But, but, but …. they prayed for the victims in Orlando before passing this….
YUP. #panderingViaCrisis
Also note their continued crap with the transgendered bathroom laws. Their deliberate and continued fear mongering makes them part guilty for any hate crime against these groups. Its especially sickening they start trying to turn LGBT groups against Muslims. As if their decades of trying to appeal to the most bigoted of christians makes them any different.
Well said +Thomas Wrobel. I honestly don't get the bathroom thing. WHERE do they think people were going before? And isn't it still a crime to sexually assault someone already? They're not protecting anyone and they know it… they're simply drawing attention to something to create a bigotted scenario where one didn't exist. Cuz as the book says: Everybody Poops.
You know, it is possible to sympathize with victims of a horrible crime and condemn the idea of harming people based on their sexuality, and also still disagree with their political ideas.
+Matt Tucker How is someones sexuality a "political idea" ?
+Thomas Wrobel It isn't, but attaching an amendment directing specific hiring practices for federal agencies to a Defense appropriations bill (the purpose of which is supposed to specifically be about disbursing funds to the DoD) certainly is politics.
+Matt Tucker um… what?
"…the purpose of which is supposed to specifically be about disbursing funds to the DoD…". Right… and this would say to get the funds you can't discriminate. How are those not compatible ideas to you? I personally can't fathom how attaching "hey don't be a dickbag and discriminate" to anything is a negative.
+Paul Spoerry I didn't say that attaching this amendment was a negative thing. I simply stated that it's a policy issue, and there is not necessarily a contradiction between opposing this amendment and feeling sympathy for the victims of the Orlando shooting. Just because you stand with those victims and disagree with violence done to people because of their sexuality on one day, that doesn't obligate you to then go along with every policy proposal relating to LGBT issues the next day. The two stances are not mutually exclusive.
+Matt Tucker I don't stand with people on LGBT anti-discrimination just because a nightclub was shot up. I stand with them because I'm not a bigot.
Now the people adding this might have only been motivated by the shooting. I really don't know their specific motivation… nor do I care. The DOD is an executive branch department of the federal government so they so they simply shouldn't be able to discriminate. Additionally, the US military (which the DOD manages/coordinates) has historically been very progressive so this isn't out of scope. They were major drivers for a lot of social change… minorities holding positions, women holding positions, and right on down to the repeal of DADT.
+Paul Spoerry All of that is great. My only point was that there's no particular reason to tie the response to Orlando to the politics of this amendment. Support for the victims in Orlando does not obligate Congressmen to support any particular policy. The article you posted clearly tried to make the connection, and to paint these politicians as two faced or liars or whatever, because they stood up in support of those victims, but then didn't support this amendment.
+Matt Tucker Maybe I misunderstood what you were saying. Also, I'll grant that I don't know why it's not simply proposed as a bill of it's own.
So I think there are two different things going on:
* One is why is it being attached to bills and not one of its own? It sounds like we're in agreement that discrimination is discrimination no matter how you slice it.
* The other is why this article is trying to make a connection between a mass shooting tragedy and the bill? Unless I'm totally misreading something I think it was pretty clear. Hours before the amendment was added they were making the rounds stating solidarity with LGBT people, and then the amendment was added and the bill failed.
And the later one may sound like simply inferring, however, this amendment has been tied to several different bills and shot down on each after it was added. One of which was slated to pass (had the votes to pass) until this amendment was attached at which times GOP members changed their vote (which this article references and if you click through the links cited in the article it outlines them). I will certainly concede that I can't find anything showing the votes prior to the amendment on THIS bill so maybe the article is inferring on this particular one and should have made it clear it was doing so based on previous actions.
"Just because you stand with those victims and disagree with violence done to people because of their sexuality on one day, that doesn't obligate you to then go along with every policy proposal relating to LGBT issues the next day." – I don't think the claim was that you have to go along with every policy proposal just because it adds LGBT language. But dropping policy proposals, disallowing a vote, or changing your vote only after an amendment to enforce a 2014 executive order prohibiting discrimination against LGBT people does seem contradictory to media statements being made.