(US) Bill passed to allow discrimination against LGBT people

[Jacob]

WASHINGTON ― The House passed a massive National Defense Authorization Act late Wednesday, and tucked inside of it, a provision that would allow federal contractors to fire employees for being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender.

The language, slipped into the bill by Rep. Steve Russell (R-Okla.), would dismantle President Barack Obama's 2014 executive action that makes it illegal for government contractors to fire or harass employees based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. In its place, Russell's provision applies a broad exemption that would open the door to contractors discriminating against LGBT people based on that contractor's religious beliefs.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/lgbt-workplace-discrimination-ndaa_us_573cd273e4b0aee7b8e8e176?utm_content=bufferdc229&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Religious freedom to discriminate against people here we come!

[Valmy]

LOLZ Jokelahoma.

Oh wait this was a federal bill? Goddamn it.

[Martinus]

Seems like a bad PR move by Republicans with little actual consequences.

As far as I understand, this bill removes an executive order which stated government contractors must have non-discrimination policies in place to apply for government contracts. I assume most if not all of the companies that apply for government contracts are big corporations that have such policies already on their own, and would not remove them simply because of both the customer backlash and employee backlash it would create (most companies these days recognise that having such policies allows them to compete better for both customers and employees). That's why I think it has little actual consequences.

At the same time it kinda confirms the "worst fears" of liberals, and allows to legitimately continue the "opposition from day one" without seeming obstructionist - that's why it is a moronic PR move. Hell, if I were Obama, I'd veto that bill just for the hell of it.

By the way, how does one "slip language into the bill"? Don't Representatives read what they are voting on?

[Valmy]

By the way, how does one "slip language into the bill"? Don't Representatives read what they are voting on?

Welcome to the US Congress. It is a classic play to slip loads of stuff on to bills to sneak it into passing. They do this with all kinds of unpopular things, like pork project bribes.

[Jacob]

Seems like a bad PR move by Republicans with little actual consequences.

I think you've misread the current batch of GOP revolutionaries. This is not a bad PR move. This is a good PR move. It tells those feckless liberal pussies that the US isn't going to continue to put up with their pointless whining that they're special. Religious freedom and the constitution guarantees the right to discriminate against people who aren't white Christians.

This kind of thing is the point for a big part of the alliance that gave the GOP majority in both houses and congress. And for the section of the alliance who have other priorities it's an acceptable casualty. Liberals being upset is a bonus.

One in five times, or so, maybe Trump or a congressional leader will put their foot down and say "that's a little much fellers, we won't allow this" to score a disproportionate amount of brownie point to allow the "we don't care" people to say "see, it's not as bad as you say" (ignoring the 4 in 5 times they don't); but the slide will continue.

You have Christian supremacists and white supremacists running the US government. It's going to make a difference, especially for people who aren't white and/ or Christian.

[Syt]

By the way, how does one "slip language into the bill"? Don't Representatives read what they are voting on?

Welcome to the US Congress. It is a classic play to slip loads of stuff on to bills to sneak it into passing. They do this with all kinds of unpopular things, like pork project bribes.

AKA "I will vote for this bill if we add this additional, unrelated thing that plays to my constituency"

[The Minsky Moment]

I assume most if not all of the companies that apply for government contracts are big corporations that have such policies already on their own, and would not remove them simply because of both the customer backlash and employee backlash it would create (most companies these days recognise that having such policies allows them to compete better for both customers and employees).

Bad assumption.  Plenty of small businesses participate in federal contracting, there are actually preferences to encourage them.  About 25% of prime contracts and 1/3 of sub go to small businesses.

And not ALL large business have gay friendly policies.  Remember Hobby Lobby?

[MadImmortalMan]

There also preferences to encourage minority/veteran/female/Alaskan native/etc owned businesses to get the contracts. If they aren't at least one of those it's near impossible. I honestly don't know if LGBT-owned preferences are a thing. I assumed it was one of the preferences, but it might not be.

[Valmy]

There also preferences to encourage minority/veteran/female/Alaskan native/etc owned businesses to get the contracts. If they aren't at least one of those it's near impossible. I honestly don't know if LGBT-owned preferences are a thing. I assumed it was one of the preferences, but it might not be.

No it is not a thing. Maybe some day.

[Admiral Yi]

No it is not a thing. Maybe some day.

I hope not.  That would be silly.