Posted on May 4, 2017
Presidential Executive Order Promoting Free Speech and Religious Liberty
1.91K
39
39
7
7
0
For all of the hoopla about this EO, it really doesn't DO anything. It's a lot of hot air that the President can point to and said, "I did something." But, it doesn't really DO anything, does it? It seems more like a placebo to make the religious right-wing happy.
Presidential Executive Order Promoting Free Speech and Religious Liberty
Posted from whitehouse.govPosted in these groups: 
Religion
Donald Trump
Religion Donald Trump
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 9
4
4
0
I don't know, I think it does do a few things... like support churches acting as Political Action Committees (PACs) and attempt to provide cover for religious people who want to use their religion as an excuse to discriminate against LGBT folks:
2. Respecting Religious and Political Speech... In particular, the Secretary of the Treasury shall ensure, to the extent permitted by law, that the Department of the Treasury does not take any adverse action against any individual, house of worship, or other religious organization on the basis that such individual or organization speaks or has spoken about moral or political issues from a religious perspective, where speech of similar character has, consistent with law, not ordinarily been treated as participation or intervention in a political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) a candidate for public office by the Department of the Treasury. As used in this section, the term "adverse action" means the imposition of any tax or tax penalty; the delay or denial of tax-exempt status; the disallowance of tax deductions for contributions made to entities exempted from taxation under section 501(c)(3) of title 26, United States Code; or any other action that makes unavailable or denies any tax deduction, exemption, credit, or benefit.
This would seem to be a move toward making sure employers get to block insurance from covering birth control:
3. Conscience Protections with Respect to Preventive-Care Mandate. The Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Labor, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall consider issuing amended regulations, consistent with applicable law, to address conscience-based objections to the preventive-care mandate promulgated under section 300gg-13(a)(4) of title 42, United States Code.
2. Respecting Religious and Political Speech... In particular, the Secretary of the Treasury shall ensure, to the extent permitted by law, that the Department of the Treasury does not take any adverse action against any individual, house of worship, or other religious organization on the basis that such individual or organization speaks or has spoken about moral or political issues from a religious perspective, where speech of similar character has, consistent with law, not ordinarily been treated as participation or intervention in a political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) a candidate for public office by the Department of the Treasury. As used in this section, the term "adverse action" means the imposition of any tax or tax penalty; the delay or denial of tax-exempt status; the disallowance of tax deductions for contributions made to entities exempted from taxation under section 501(c)(3) of title 26, United States Code; or any other action that makes unavailable or denies any tax deduction, exemption, credit, or benefit.
This would seem to be a move toward making sure employers get to block insurance from covering birth control:
3. Conscience Protections with Respect to Preventive-Care Mandate. The Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Labor, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall consider issuing amended regulations, consistent with applicable law, to address conscience-based objections to the preventive-care mandate promulgated under section 300gg-13(a)(4) of title 42, United States Code.
(4)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
I see that it TRIES to support preaching from the pulpit by telling the IRS to not make them a priority, but it doesn't change the Johnson Amendment at all. Besides that, churches have been preaching from the pulpit for decades and the IRS hasn't gone after them - this is just more of that.
I don't see how #2 affects LGBTQ communities. It doesn't even really speak to anyone but the Treasury. Could you elaborate?
#3 just asks those departments to "consider" changing regulations to address the birth-control insurance issues - but that's something they could have considered regardless. These aren't directing them to do anything new.
It just seems like a fluff piece to give the President something to point to and say he did something.
I don't see how #2 affects LGBTQ communities. It doesn't even really speak to anyone but the Treasury. Could you elaborate?
#3 just asks those departments to "consider" changing regulations to address the birth-control insurance issues - but that's something they could have considered regardless. These aren't directing them to do anything new.
It just seems like a fluff piece to give the President something to point to and say he did something.
(2)
(0)
SPC Deon Holmes
It's mostly for organizations, particularly Sec. 2 is all about the church. And if anyone who's in the know, really knows about certain churches and 501(C)(3) you know what they really are. But don't any of you get it twisted! You speak up in the wrong place at the wrong time and you'll still get a boot on your neck!
(1)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
SPC Deon Holmes - your metaphorical boot is nothing more than paying taxes lake any other organization. What this executive order attempts to do is water down the Johnson amendment until its pretty much meaningless.
MAJ Bryan Zeski - So a church owned business who believes it shouldn't hire or provide services to LGBT people also seems to be more insulated. That church bookstore, daycare, school or mega-mall now has a little more liberty to discriminate without worrying that the treasury or justice department will step in and do something about it. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-07-18/how-the-mormons-make-money
MAJ Bryan Zeski - So a church owned business who believes it shouldn't hire or provide services to LGBT people also seems to be more insulated. That church bookstore, daycare, school or mega-mall now has a little more liberty to discriminate without worrying that the treasury or justice department will step in and do something about it. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-07-18/how-the-mormons-make-money
How the Mormon Church Makes Its Billions
(0)
(0)
SPC Deon Holmes
Churches don't pay taxes. I over and understand on a deeper level what the purpose of a 501C3 is. Not what I "believe", What I know!
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
I listened to commentary on this. This EO will help stop a large central government from bullying religious institutions and people.
It is a blow to the New Age.
M. Morris RVT
It is a blow to the New Age.
M. Morris RVT
(3)
(0)
Cpl Mark A. Morris
Do you need me to look it up for you? I will give you directions.
Search Google for Trump EO on religious freedom and read just a little bit of the info.
Have a good evening.
M. Morris RVT
Search Google for Trump EO on religious freedom and read just a little bit of the info.
Have a good evening.
M. Morris RVT
(2)
(0)
SSG Warren Swan
I'll give you that to a point......now that this has made it to the point where we can pick and choose, where does it stop? So those cake makers can say "God didn't like Marines and we only serve Sailors" due to religious freedoms. Well where does it state he didn't like Marines? It's in how we take the word. This is a very slippery slope that will be eaten alive in court. Where does it end? Abortion? If you can take public cash, and you have no stipulations on that, then you should be bound by public law. If God likes green, he doesn't care who it came from, as long as he got it.
(0)
(0)
Cpl Mark A. Morris
If you take public funds, I would agree with you.
Look at how far we have come down the insanity slope SSG. How many genders do we have now? Where will the difinintion of marriage be in the future?
I agree with your argument to a point. The insanity of the New Age has been slowed down and I like it.
M. Morris RVT
Look at how far we have come down the insanity slope SSG. How many genders do we have now? Where will the difinintion of marriage be in the future?
I agree with your argument to a point. The insanity of the New Age has been slowed down and I like it.
M. Morris RVT
(1)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
Cpl Mark A. Morris - I don't see that anywhere in the Order. What language in the order do you think changes some policy or law that affects that?
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
And yet the Left is still having a tantrum about it. Why is that? Could it be that they are programmed to simply denounce all things Trump does?
(2)
(0)
Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin
Assuming they don't already, I'm all about equality. If they want to more overtly jump into the political scene, have at it. Just note, criticism of their positions while likely be interpreted by some to be anti-Muslim when it may very likely be something entirely different. Once again those knee jerk reactions will occur.
(1)
(0)
Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin
SGT Victoria Belbusti - Are you asking me? I believe I posted that opinion already.
(1)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
MAJ Bryan Zeski - I guess I don't see that asking how a executive order is beneficial to anyone is a "negative" attack. The alternative is to fully support whatever comes out without questioning the purpose and usefulness of it. Yes, my default - for any legislation or executive order - is to question the purpose behind it and whether it accomplishes something that benefits the people. That's not negative, I don't think.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google