Beliefs Ethics Faith Faith 2016 Institutions News Politics

Trump’s secretary of state pick may anger social conservatives

Exxon Mobil Chairman and CEO Rex Tillerson speaks during the IHS CERAWeek 2015 energy conference in Houston on April 21, 2015. Courtesy of REUTERS/Daniel Kramer

(RNS) Donald Trump’s pick for secretary of state, Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson, has come under fire for his friendship with Russian President Vladimir Putin — who is suspected of trying to tip the election to Trump — his lack of diplomatic experience, and the fact that he is a corporate bigwig who champions fossil fuels even as the threat of global warming grows.

But Tillerson, whose nomination was announced Tuesday (Dec. 13), may also face criticism from an unexpected quarter — social conservatives whose support was critical to Trump’s unexpected election last month.

The reason is twofold: While Tillerson headed the Boy Scouts of America from 2010 to 2012 he helped convince the organization to admit gay youths, and Exxon Mobil contributes to Planned Parenthood, which provides abortion services and has become a top target for Christian conservatives.

Tillerson “may be the greatest ally liberals have in the cabinet for their abortion and LGBT agendas,” Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council, wrote in a sharply worded message to supporters Monday.

“To hear that Donald Trump may be appointing a man who not only led the charge to open the Boy Scouts to gay troop leaders but whose company directly gives to Planned Parenthood is upsetting at best,” Perkins wrote.

Evangelicals like Perkins have been furious over the Obama administration’s insistence on putting LGBT rights at the center of its foreign policy agenda and for permitting foreign aid for organizations that provide access to birth control and abortion.

How much Tillerson would push for such initiatives is unknown, and he would be serving at the pleasure of a president who has vowed to enshrine the social conservative agenda in his policies.

But this incipient opposition may augur an unexpectedly early end to the honeymoon with evangelical Christians — Perkins was one of Trump’s most vocal supporters on the religious right during the campaign. And Trump won 81 percent of the white evangelical vote on Nov. 8.

It might hurt Tillerson when it comes to confirmation hearings in the Senate, where some Republicans have already signaled their concern over the CEO’s close ties to Putin.

Trump gave Tillerson his full-throated backing in a statement announcing the pick.

Tillerson has a “deep understanding of geopolitics,” Trump said, and is “the embodiment of the American dream.”

“Through hard work, dedication and smart deal making, Rex rose through the ranks to become CEO of ExxonMobil, one of the world’s largest and most respected companies,” the president-elect said in a release.

About the author

David Gibson

David Gibson is a national reporter for RNS and an award-winning religion journalist, author and filmmaker. He has written several books on Catholic topics. His latest book is on biblical artifacts: "Finding Jesus: Faith. Fact. Forgery," which was also the basis of a popular CNN series.

100 Comments

Click here to post a comment

  • The thesis of this article is a classic example of liberal RNS magnifying everything that departs from an assumed orthodoxy of belief and practice among those Mr Trump is choosing to serve in his cabinet. Their presumption is that all his people must be conforming evangelicals, so this focus is on bringing any possible negative attention to The president elect.. If Mr. Trump chose people for his cabinet who faithfully subscribed to the same positions on everything, then RNS would provide us with an article about his uniform choices proving a lack of diversity.

    A more even-handed article would accurately discribe Mr. Tillerson as someone whose foreigh policy and energy positions line up with the President-elect’s, but who has an independent streak regarding social issues. But that’s more objectivity and fairness than we can ever expect from RNS.

  • Given that religion is their beat, I would expect RNS to report on religious responses to cabinet nominees.
    Their next story might be, “Religious conservatives willing to live with Planned-Parenthood donating, lgbt-rights allowing cabinet members as long as their gas stays cheap and it appears ‘We’re Winning.'”

  • Tony Perkins is a hate group leader. This sort of thing does not surprise me one bit. I am still amazed by how much credulity mainstream news services give the guy.

  • Tillerson’s approval is iffy according to several news organizations, but the focus there is on his tight relationship with Putin and his efforts to make a deal to drill for oil and gas in eastern Russia. It’s an ongoing effort and for several Senate Republicans that’s a conflict of interest too big to ignore.

  • “But Tillerson, whose nomination was announced Tuesday (Dec. 13), may also face criticism from an unexpected quarter — social conservatives whose support was critical to Trump’s unexpected election last month.”

    Well duh, it’s not like the Trump campaign has seemed to care the slightest bit about social conservatives.

    “While Tillerson headed the Boy Scouts of America from 2010 to 2012 he helped convince the organization to admit gay youths”

    As someone who went through the BSA closeted, good on him!! I don’t agree with him, or any political figure for that matter, on everything, but he did good there.

  • They have an obligation to give us fair, objective coverage. I don’t see that happening. RNS’ liberal cheerleaders think they’re doing a tremendous job–whatever burns the conservatives and makes evangelicals look like neanderthals.

    I’m so glad this is a free service!

  • Can you please explain to me how Tony Perkins is a hate group leader? What amazes me is how the ‘tolerant’ left are so intolerant of people who disagree with them and starts calling them names because they have no substance to back up their fake claims. I understand your position though, especially if you get your information from fake news like CNN or MSNBC etc.

  • Do you know what he advocates in public or are you just trolling?

    The man spends his efforts and resources to attack the civil rights of others, to defame segments of the population and undermine first amendment freedoms.

    As good a definition of bigot and hate group leader as one gets. I do not have to tolerate attacks on the lives and rights of others. So take that, “you are intolerant of my intolerance” argument you were hamfistedly trying to make and shove it somewhere painful.

    Let me guess, you are a regular Breitbart reader. You don’t strike me as someone who bothers to inform themselves on a subject before taking a belligerent stance with others.

  • I tend to agree that RNS leans left, but they provide a fair amount of space to conservative religious commentators, and if nothing else they provide a forum for the balance of us to make our positions and arguments known, for that they are to be applauded, thus herein I do so. I would add that any skepticism that I have towards Tillerson is not based primarily on his social views but his probable thought that, (to paraphrase a former GM chairman); “What’s good for Exxon/Mobil is good for the USA.” I never put my trust in plutocrats, even though I am a capitalist, with the caveat that Capitalism untempered by Christian charity is an awful prospect.

  • “The man spends his efforts and resources to attack the civil rights of
    others, to defame segments of the population and undermine first
    amendment freedoms.” By this definition, practically every pro-LGBTQ advocacy organization is a hate group.

  • The millions of Americans who oppose same-sex “marriage.” LGBTQ groups have made it clear by both word and deed that they want to completely eradicate any actions or assertions that question/challenge the validity of SSM. The efforts on their part routinely violate portions of the 1st Amendment.

  • Not even close.

    What you are really saying is that LGBTQ people object to being discriminated against, demonized and subject to attacks under color of law and have voiced it clearly.

    The arguments against marriage equality are based entirely on bigotry. Naturally, it is losing social acceptance as its legality was established. Those “objectors” are not being silenced or sanctioned under color of law. They are being criticized. No rights are being attacked here .

    Now all you have are people trying to use religion as an excuse for violating civil liberties of LGBTQ people. There is no first amendment right to maliciously harm others, discrimination is such harm.

  • You argued that “the definition of a bigot and hate group leader” includes the effort “to undermine first amendment freedoms.” So, let’s look at those freedoms. I’ll cut and paste them for your convenience: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” It is indisputable that LBGT groups seek to prohibit the free exercise of religion and abridge the freedom of speech of some people. So, I was able to identify specific freedoms identified in the amendment that LGBT groups seek to undermine. Please do the same for those who oppose SSM. Remember, the text is provided for you. Simply point to specific, particular parts of the First Amendment and let me know which ones they specifically undermine.

  • No you didn’t. There is no first amendment right to attack others in the name of your faith. There is no first amendment freedom from being criticized by the public.

    At no point does the government or anyone else in an official capacity silence your opinion or ability to express it. You have no trouble voicing it here. It is ridiculous to claim you are being silenced when you have zero problems voicing your opinion here or anywhere else.

    You are deliberately mistaking a loss of undue privilege with discrimination. You are not a victim, just a whiner. Your whole argument is based on being annoyed at being called a bigot for voicing your opinion. Well tough luck. We are both entitled to our opinions.

  • When the government fines people for not participating in a SSM ceremony due to their religious objections their freedom to exercise their religion is being undermined. When laws identify as hate speech the mere stating of opposition to SSM then those laws undermine the first amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech. These are specific actions advocated by LGBT groups and enacted into law or policy via their lobbying efforts. By your definition, therefore, they are hate groups.

  • You are a dishonest piece of work.

    What you call “refusing to participate in a ceremony” is more honestly called denial of goods and services in open commerce. No more a part of your 1st Amendment rights of religion as it would be for a brick and mortar store open to the public to not sell products or services for an interracial or interfaith marriage. Discrimination in open commerce is an attack upon others. No more part of your free exercise of religion than human sacrifice.

    The same acts done against someone objecting to an interfaith or
    interracial marriage would still be called discrimination no matter what
    your religious belief is. Discriminatory bigots lost that battle 50
    years ago when they claimed their Christian White Supremacist beliefs
    entitled them to deny goods and services to black people in open
    commerce. Changing the type of bigotry involved does not make the act
    any more acceptable.

    You are not describing discrimination against anti-gay Christian types. You are describing penalties for their own discriminatory actions and demonstrating a whininess in how it is reacted to.

    So no, by my definition, you still haven’t shown the LGBTQ advocacy groups are hate groups, but you have shown me that their opponents clearly are.

  • So, the denial of good and services in open commerce is an intolerable attack upon others. So, have you condemned all of the fashion designers who have proclaimed that they will not design Mrs. Trump’s dresses as First Lady?

  • Let’s start with all of the lies that Perkins tells about gay people, starting with the one that gay men are thirty more times likely to molest boys than heterosexuals are to molest girls.

  • Sure, because demanding an end to legalized prejudice on the basis of religion or sexual orientation is just oppressing the rights of others who want to use the civil law that governs all of us to oppress others in the name of religious belief..

  • They are not participating. That’s a story you people tell yourselves to justify discrimination on the basis of religious belief.

    Funny how all of these so called Christian business people, a relative handful in the face of the facts, can “participate” in the weddings of god rejecting atheists, demon worshipping Hindus, Jesus rejecting Jews, god rejecting buddhists, idol worshipping sikhs, and on and on and on.

    But treating gay people the same as all of the other people rejecting the entirety of their religious beliefs is just too much.

  • Is that open commerce? Can anyone go to them to get a dress designed for them? Nope. They are rather selective in whom they chose to work for and do not have avenues of sales open to the general public for their wares.

    Nice try.

  • Believe whatever you like, too. Also, keep it out of civil law. If you think two people of the same sex constitutes a marriage or is good for society, or several people of various sexes can be “married” and such a union is good for society, then fine. But don’t impose your view on everyone else. That is basically your argument, and it can obviously be used against you in the same way you use it. So where does that leave us?

  • Tillerson provided huge amounts of unrestricted money to Planned Parenthood which they were free to spend on providing abortions. But that’s okay because to the RTL leadership a baby is less dead when killed by the private sector.

  • BS. The goal was the availability of civil marriage. People are free to have their religious beliefs about marriage.

  • ” It is indisputable that LBGT groups seek to prohibit the free exercise …”

    I dispute it. People have these freedoms.

  • I don’t “think” it, I KNOW it. Just because you don’t think my marriage is a marriage doesn’t mean it isn’t, nor does it mean that it is not good for society. After all, marriage IS a building block of society, and my life, love, family, children, faith, Freedom and assets are every bit as important as yours, entitled to the same legal protections as our presidents THIRD fornicating and adulterous union. The view is only being “imposed” upon you because you don’t like it, or think your particular and peculiar version of god doesn’t like it.

    I wouldn’t invite you to my wedding, nor will I expect a gift. But I will insist that I have the same rights to legal protection of my life and faith as you do. My marriage costs you nothing except unhappiness that you are no longer able to make me know my place.

  • No one has been fined for not participating in a SSM ceremony. The participants in a ceremony are the happy couple and their guests. A vendor is not a participant any more than a vinter is a participant in Mass because he sells a bottle of wine used for sacramental purposes.

  • They are not discriminating against a class of people, not a protected group of people, but stating that will not serve a particular person. Totally within their rights as business people.

    I was a high end wedding photographer for thirty years. There were all kinds of people, even hyper Christians who wouldn’t hesitate to punish me for being an uppity gay man, whose weddings I did. There were also plenty of people whose weddings I refused to do, but not because of their faith, but because I didn’t like them. Well within my rights.

  • denial of good and services in open commerce in a discriminatory way based on race or other legally protected groups is illegal. I’ve not made any supportive comment on the fashion designers. Personally, I’m more offended by when Mrs. Trump markets herself without clothes rather than with.

  • Yes, that is open commerce. Anyone willing to pay the price can approach them to get a dress designed by them. Nice try.

  • Florists, bakers, etc consult with the couple to plan the event. They are at the event. They play an active role while there, even if it is a minor one. They are more than mere vendors. Plenty of vendors have no problem, for instance, selling a cake to people they know to be gay, but balk when the situation changes from a mere transaction to being actively involved in the event.

  • Far too many people think that people are free to have their religious beliefs about marriage, but they better not express those beliefs in public, particularly if they are contrary to their beliefs regarding marriage.

  • There are plenty of people who are working and will continue working to make sure that my view never gets aired publicly. They may say I am free to hold my view, but they don’t want it espoused.

  • Not sure how your “rights to legal protection of my life and faith” are in any way being questioned or threatened. You seem to be overreacting a bit. My opposition to SSM is based on logic and nature. Both lead me to the conclusion that so-called SSM is not marriage, and ultimately not good for society as a whole. Happy to go through that with you if you’d like. Or you can just resort to impugning my motives as most others in such discussions do.

  • Read closely Kurt. SEEK TO PROHIBIT. No one is saying those freedoms don’t exist now. You are right. People do have these freedoms. But what I said was, some are SEEKING (that is future tense Kurt) to prohibit them.

  • Bullshit. They do not advertise or sell their wares to the general public. Their distributors might. But the designers do not. If she couldn’t get something off the rack, you wouldn’t sound so silly here.

    Again First Ladies are not a class of people covered by anti discrimination laws either. But religious people are. If the anti gay Christians were being discriminated against they would be covered. But they aren’t. Your whole argument is based on lying about what people are doing and pretending religious belief confers a privilege which does not exist.

  • “If she could not get something off the rack, you wouldn’t sound so silly here.” Well, by that logic, gays sound silly when they act as if only Christians are available to bake cakes, provide flowers, and take pictures at their “weddings”? Couldn’t they get those services “off the rack” sort of speak, meaning from other sources?

  • Designers offer their services to people willing to pay them for those services. You are taking the position that they should be free to discriminate against individuals who believe, say or allegedly do things they disagree with. That is your position, like it or not.

  • Mrs. Trump is not being discriminated against because she is a First Lady. She is being discriminated against on the basis of what it is believed by some that her husband espouses. It is discrimination based ultimately on disagreement with a particular ideology or set of beliefs (those of her husband’s). Are you really prepared to defend discrimination of that sort?

  • Spuddie, you are the one who started this discussion of First Amendment freedoms. The First Amendment freedom of the exercise of religion has long been held to include the concept that one can not be forced to violate their sincerely held religious principles unless doing so causes actual harm to others. By seeking to bring the force of law against those who on the basis of sincerely held religious beliefs refuse to do anything associated directly with homosexuality is therefore a violation of that person’s First Amendment rights.

  • Wrong. In the famous Oregon bakery case, the store had a picture book of cake designs. The client ordered by number and was picking the cake up from the store. The bakery was rightfully fined.

  • If that is the case then I would be inclined to say that particular baker was in the wrong. But one instance does not mean florists, bakers, photographers in every and all instances are never active participants in a wedding ceremony. Let’s not be too quick to declare “Wrong”

  • Not at all. Those vendors you reference do their business to the general public. A fashion designer does not. You are being too dishonest to treat seriously here. Changing the subject because your prior analogy was a complete stinker.

    Those cakes, flowers and pictures are the same products and services to anyone who walks in the door. The goods are sold to the general public. The only difference being the person asking for them. You are trying to pretend obvious forms of discrimination are just religious opinion. They are not. Lets make this real easy, if you are going to use analogy, imagine if the same the vendors did the same thing to someone because they were of a different race or religion. It still would not be religious opinion, it would be considered discrimination.

    ” Couldn’t they get those services “off the rack” sort of speak, meaning from other sources?

    Separate but equal. Where have we heard that before? Like 50 years ago, if black people can’t be served at a restaurant, hotel, or given service at a hospital, they can go elsewhere for the same services.

    Your “religious exercise” is fairly obviously just euphemisms for discrimination.

  • So, if a gay couple offered to pay a famous chef to bake their wedding cake, but this chef, who only bakes for a small number of very wealthy clients, said no because of what the couple believes, then you would be OK with that because said chef does not “do their business to the general public”?

  • They don’t offer them to ANYONE willing to pay them for those services. Certainly not the general public. You are going to dishonest extremes to make a bad analogy stick. Typical of people who do not have arguments they can defend on their own merits.

    “You are taking the position that they should be free to discriminate
    against individuals who believe, say or allegedly do things they
    disagree with.”

    If they are not in open commerce or serving the general public, that is their right. Just like any vendor can do so if they do things like: Sell through a select membership club, do business strictly within a closed community or word of mouth, do not advertise to the general public. Closed commerce.

    Your deliberate omission of the term open commerce makes your statement dishonest. You are lying about my position. As I said before you are a dishonest piece of work. You have been demonstrating that quite clearly.

    How is what you are pretending is “religious expression” any different from discrimination? It isn’t. An honest person would see parallels between the behavior you are supporting and older forms of discrimination made in the same context. But you are not an honest person.

  • At no point have you shown that the whiny anti-gay Christian bigots are being discriminated against or having their first amendment rights attacked.

    ” The First Amendment freedom of the exercise of religion has long been held to include the concept that one can not be forced to violate their sincerely held religious principles unless doing so causes actual harm to others.

    Discrimination is not harm? Of course it is. That is why it is actionable under the law as a tort and subject to fines and penalties under the law. It is a malicious act meant to demean and attack others. There is no such thing as well intentioned discrimination.

    You are entitled to your beliefs. You are not entitled to harm people in service of them. I already said this. You acknowledged that in your statement above. But you don’t actually believe it since you advocate harming others in service of your faith. In your zeal to defend malicious harm to others, you have already admitted your position was wrong and not a first amendment freedom.

  • You are going to have to explain that. I guess almost everyone doesn’t “want” to see expressions they find disagreeable espoused but don’t suppress others right to say such things. People certainly have the right to control their private property so if you are coming into people’s homes, etc. yeah, they might kick you out.

  • No she isn’t. She is not being denied goods and services in open commerce. Fashion designers work in a closed commerce setting. Word of mouth, limited access, not available to just anyone sort of thing. Your analogy is terrible. Get over it.

  • Give me the name of a national LGBT rights group and the legislative proposal they have publically endorsed that you find says this.

  • I appreciate that you accept that in the case most cited by the anti-gay activists, you agree they were wrong. I will return the favor as best I can. I believe that if a person is offering floral, bakery, photography or other personal services as an UNINCORPORATED business, then they should not be subject to civil rights laws prohibiting discrimination on race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.

    My issue is with INCORPORATED businesses. I would be happy to elaborate if the reasons for the distinction are not clear.

  • Exactly. That is by definition closed commerce. It may be malicious and bigoted, but not a violation of anti discrimination laws. Now if the baker went out of business, or lost their basic cable show because of the bad publicity. That would not violate the first amendment either.

  • They were questioned threatened every single time there was a vote on my marriage and my participation in society, every time my marriage was called a threat to so iety, as you just did, every time not a peep was raised about 75 marriages total concluded by Gingrich, Limbaugh, Rooney, Taylor and Lynda Wolfe.a

    Your motives are impugned the second you say that my life and my marriage are somehow not good for society, when it is good for exactly the same reason that heterosexuals marriages are. Logic and a
    Nature? Marriage is not found in nature. Marriage is a human, legal and social institution.

  • There is no seeking to prohibit anything, except bigotry, religious and otherwise, given legitimacy under cover of law. What you want is the right not to be challenged.

  • So your objections to my marriage and my full participation in society are not based upon your religious belief. Ok.

  • What is the thesis in this article you find objectionable? It merely reports that some social conservatives aren’t happy with Tillerson. And it quotes Perkins in support of that fact. You’d rather they just not mention it? You might want to get in touch with Perkins and tell him to take it off the FRC webpage then, and stop tweeting about it. And BTW, the story was reported first in the Washington Times, a conservative paper.

    So in your initial comment you blame RNS for reporting a story the FRC wants out there, a story which has been in other press. What gives?

  • It is hypocritical to defend legal coercion to force people to violate sincere, legitimate and long-held religious convictions while at the same time condoning discrimination against a woman because of what her husband allegedly stands for.

  • No, they are not based on my religious views. My views are based on the fact that it is obvious that when it comes to sex, nature intended for it to take place between people of the opposite sex. And logic indicates that it is ideal for children to be raised by a heterosexual couple and for a society that wishes to increase it population to encourage natural reproduction. That does not mean that homosexuals can’t be good parents, or loving and committed to their “spouse”. I know they can.

  • I’ve been traveling, hence the radio silence. I will be at a wake all day tomorrow and then traveling again the next. I need to excuse myself from this conversation due to these circumstances. I disagree with you, but must say you all generally did a good job supporting your positions (though Spuddie I think it is has a tendency to get too personal and angry). Nevertheless, I wish you all the best.

  • True. But it is not a violation of civil liberties. Closed private commerce is entirely at the whim of the seller.

  • I think you can have reservations about this bill, but I don’t find it a denial of religious freedom. The main part of the bill — and the part that the universities seem to find most objectionable (and this only covers universities, not elementary or secondary schools) it that they must disclose to prospective students any discriminatory policies they have. There is no religious freedom right to lie. If a college believes they have the right to expel or refuse admission to an LGBT student, I fully support requiring them to disclose that to students before they begin an onerous admission process, pay tuition, and move to college. I don’t understand why any religious organization would hide their principles and objecting to stating them.

    The bill does not restrict instructional material in any way. Colleges are free to present the teachings of their religious denomination.

    The Cal Grants is something that should be thought over. I’m not sure I support it, but Cal Grants are a supplemental source of financial aide, the federal programs (Pell Grants and Student loans) being tmajor portion. I don’t think any college is particularly dependent on Cal Grants, but I understand they hope to be eligible.

    However, as a fiscal conservative, I do object to spending taxpayer money to help a student obtain a college degree and then they are expelled in the middle of their studies because they are LGBT. That taxpayer money is then wasted.

  • Then You just refuted your own position, didn’t you?

    If you ever had sex for any reason other tHan procreation, you just refuted your own position.

    If you knew anything about sexuality– homosexuality is quite common in the animal world– you would have refuted your position. But you don’t, do you? Nature “intends” nothing. Nature is what is.

    Your “quotes” around “spouse” tell me exactly what you think about gay people.

    But thank you for admitting it all boils down to irrational prejudice.

    But I knew that.

  • So, when you are unable to answer an argument on its merits I see you resort to distortion. No one here said sex is limited to procreation. We are discussing nature. The nature of human beings makes it clear that when human beings have sex with one another that it was obviously intended that such an act would occur between humans of the opposite sex. That is it. We can get into marriage and all of that eventually – though I can’t in the next few days – but let’s try to stay focused on the topic being discussed instead of jumping around and mixing up categories.

  • Are you purposefully trying to distort the situation here. It is not about a right to lie. Christina colleges in California have student codes of conduct in which they make it clear what is expected in the way of behavior, including sexual behavior. They also make it clear what they believe about sexuality and therefore what will be taught and expected of the students in this matter. This bill simply sought to say that no CHristian colleges could continue to discriminate on this basis – the basis that they make clear up front to everyone – unless it is specifically in a program directly linked to training pastors. So in all other areas of the university such discrimination would be deemed illegal. I don’t care if federal financial aid is cut off. But no government should be telling religious institutions to routinely violate what are clearly long established and legitimate religious principles that are clearly grounded in their book of faith, in this case the BIble.

  • I didn’t resort to distortion. I resorted to fact, not supposition.

    Obvious? To whom? Intended? By whom? You want to talk about distortion ,let’s talk about THAT. Your assumptions about the nature of sexuality aRe just that: assumptions.

    This is the fact which you seem to wish to ignore. In nature, among primates particularly, and all warm blooded animals, homosexual sex and homosexual pair bonding occurs. You might want to read a book called “biological exhuberance.” In all of human history, homosexual sex and homosexual pair bonding is a fact of life, as far as we know, and in every single human society.

    So that is natural to human beings. And as the failures of vicious and ruthless suppression, religious conversion, and wishful thinking have shown repeatedly, it is a NATURAL part of humanity, and especially, of homosexual people.

    Anything else you want to claim, especially “facts and logic”, is simply your prejudices speaking.

  • You misunderstand the legislation. The legislation requires those with a Title XI exemption to disclose that information to prospective students. I think it is entirely fair to have to tell prospective students on the application form that the school does not accept LGBT students.

    The schools are free to not accept (or expel) LGBT students so long as they inform applicants of that and do not accept Cal Grant funds. They can follow their principles, they just need to be more up front about it.

  • Sorry but you misunderstand it. If it was just a matter of informing potential students, then the sponsors of the bill but not have dropped it. No one is opposed to informing potential students. This legislation but well beyond that.

  • Distortion again. Because something occurs every now and then does not make it natural or logical. Nice try though

  • No one is opposed to that? The Title IX exempt school said in their testimony the oppose that requirement. You need to coordinate your rhetoric better with the institutions seeking to discriminate.

  • Sorry if you think that it is dishonest to point out that something that is aberrant does not make it natural or logical. It appears you don’t know the meaning of the word dishonest. It appears you prefer to argue by throwing around words you don’t understand.

  • Surely you don’t believe that Christian schools wish to hide their moral code and beliefs from incoming students and only reveal it to them after they have broken one or the other and then use it against them to expel them. That is what it appears you are saying in your comment above, and if so, then it is completely erroneous.

  • Christian schools? The great majority of Catholic and Protestant schools are openly willing to educate LGBT people.

    Yes, I am saying that these six fundamentalist schools in California are opposing a law to prevent just that. Here is the first part of the bill. Please explain to me why you think the plain language here means something else:

    SECTION 1. Section 66290.1 is added to the Education Code, to read:

    66290.1. (a) Beginning with the 2017–18 school year, each postsecondary educational institution in this state that claims an exemption pursuant to Section 901(a)(3) of the federal Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (20 U.S.C. Sec. 1681(a)(3)) or has an exemption pursuant to Section 66271 shall disclose to current and prospective students, faculty members, and employees the basis for claiming or having the exemption and the scope of the allowable activities provided by the exemption.

  • Any school that claims to be Christian and does not stand with the New Testament’s clear, explicilt, indisputable identification of homosexual activity as sin can no longer be called “Christian.” I don’t know what bill you are referring to. I am guessing you are referring to a more recent controversy by your mentioning of only 6 schools. The controversy I am referring to involved more than 6 and occurred earlier in the fall. This article from the ERLC explains it, and it says nothing about not wanting to warn students ahead of time that homosexual activity is prohibited. http://erlc.com/resource-library/articles/religious-liberty-trouble-in-california-an-interview-with-the-president-of-biola-univerity

  • “I don’t know what bill you are referring to….”

    Well, that says a lot. This is the exact bill, by bill number (Senate bill 1146) , that is referenced in the two highly polemical links YOU provided. And of course, when I provide the EXACT LEGISLATIVE TEXT of the bill, you don’t even recognize it.

    On that I have no debate. The right wing rhetorical hysterics about this legislation has no relation to the actual language of the bill. When presented with the actual bill language, your response is “what is that? I was talking about something else>”

    This is the sorry state that conservative “thought” has fallen to.

  • Thanks for the kind reply. This particular bill as I understand it has been amended several times. And I assumed you were talking about the latest rendition of the bill if not a completely new one. Pardon me for not being completely up-to-date on the bills being considered in the California legislature. The point is that at one point this bill sought do much more than you assert. And as I understand it advocacy groups were in support of the earlier versions. Allow me to remind you that this conversation is focused on whether or not advocacy groups are lobbying to undermine the first amendment rights of other people. This bill at least in it’s earlier forms certainly sought to do that . And it is just one example of such efforts. The fact that the section you cut and pasted appears in the bill doesn’t mean that that is the section Christian leaders objected to. You are going to have to do more than cut and paste part of a bill to support your assertion.

  • I guess you will dismiss the liberal LA Times as a “highly polemical link” too. That is because this article points out exactly what I asserted. That the bill has morphed over time. A typical Liberal ignores such nuances and also dismisses any opposition source as invalid or highly polemical. This is the sorry state that Liberal “thought” has always and will always be mired in.

    “Faced with intense opposition from religious colleges in California, a
    state Senator said Wednesday he has decided to amend a bill by dropping
    a provision that would have allowed gay and transgender students to
    more easily sue private universities for discrimination if they are
    disciplined for violating church teachings.

    Sen. Ricardo Lara (D-Bell Gardens) is removing a provision of his bill
    that sought to take away the exemption of religious schools to
    anti-discrimination laws. Instead, he will press forward with the
    amended bill that would still require such schools to disclose if they
    have an exemption and report to the state when students are expelled for
    violating morality codes.” http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-sac-essential-politics-updates-senator-drops-proposal-that-had-angered-1470853912-htmlstory.html

  • Do you wish to take back your baseless assertion that “The right wing rhetorical hysterics about this legislation has no relation to the actual language of the bill”???

  • So that is it? I’ve spoken to the proposal that is on the table today, which you are now indicating is not an offense to religious freedom. So we don’t have a real world example of this proposed denial of freedom you falsely asserted was happening. And even under the previous version it just withheld Cal Grants, a secondary part of student aid. Yes, you are really grasping at straws.

  • Grasping at straws. Really? ROFL. I’ve clearly explained how you lost this debate, how your assertions have been disproven. LGBT activists are lobbying lawmakers to undermine the 1st amendment rights of their opponents, and the effort by Sen Ricard Lara proves it. As does the example of the Houston mayor initially seeking to require pastors in the city to submit copies of the sermons. Or the example in Massachusetts, where an effort to include churches in an anti-discrimination law, according to this article, was just stopped. http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2016/december/religious-liberty-win-for-massachusetts-churches

  • So you admit defeat? Even you can’t defend the right wing bigotry of expelling LGBT kids from college. And you can’t show a proposal on the table that does more so you reach back to an earlier draft that doesn’t shut down schools that discriminate but just doesn’t provide Cal Grant funding, again something you pulled back from totally objecting to.

    The attack on religious freedom in this country is coming mostly from the right wing and directed against the Islamic community.

  • LOL. You Liberals are all the same. Can’t argue your way out of a wet paper bag. I love it though; it is quite entertaining. Thanks for the chuckles Kurt 20008

  • The first obvious problem with your statement is that after you presented the bill text the conversation did not end. I wish it had, as I am growing weary of it. But apparently you can’t even grasp when a conversation has ended or not. The second obvious problem is that you can’t seem to grasp that bills get changed over time. You refuse to acknowledge earlier versions of the bill which were much more controversial and threatening. The whole point of the conversation is whether or not LBGT activists and their partisans in public office are seeking to undermine the 1st Amendment rights of others. When I present you with evidence of it, you just ignore most of the evidence and then point to the latest version of the bill, and say, “see, it’s not that bad.” But it started off bad. Why don’t you read this to see why Christians objected to the earlier versions of the bill and saw it as a threat to religious liberty: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2016/july-web-only/california-sb-1146-religious-freedom.html

  • Well, I appreciate your admission that the right wingers protesting the current proposal on the table are a bunch of bigots and even you can’t bring yourself to support them. As for the early draft, it is hardly a war on the first amendment rights of Fundamentalist Protestants to ponder the idea of not sending discretionary taxpayer dollars to school that would take the money but then refuse to allow LGBT students to complete their degree program. I’m okay with amending the bill, recognizing this is all a complicated matter. But no, discriminatory colleges do not have a RIGHT to taxpayer money just because their discrimination is based on Fundamentalist Protestant principles.
    The First Amendment protects one’s right to speak, not one’s right to speak with someone else’s money.

  • According to this LA Times article http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-sac-essential-politics-updates-lgbt-group-withdraws-endorsements-from-1474419459-htmlstory.html some Christian “schools initially fought an early version of the bill that would have subjected them to civil litigation if they discriminated based on gender preference,” but the article says nothing about schools opposing the final version of the bill. Show me your evidence that some Christian schools opposed the final version. Maybe some did, but I can’t find any evidence of it. Also, if some did then they will fall into the same category as the 6 Democrats highlighted in the article who usually support LGBT issues but who voted against the final version of the bill. Are they bigots too? Also, you may note that the LA Times indicated that the earlier version of the bill was not just about colleges alerting people to their policies. Rather, it subjected them to civil litigation. Nor was it about using taxpayer money, as you suggested.

ADVERTISEMENTs