Trump executive order could impact LGBT community

On Feb. 1, an executive order drafted by the Trump administration that could possibly weaken the protections for the LBGT community was leaked to the public. Although the White House has confirmed they will not sign such an order, its very existence has caused worry among progressive groups.

Trump announced that he would continue Obama’s protections for LBGT rights, but his press secretary Sean Spicer announced that this executive order would condone discrimination on the basis of religious freedom. If President Trump were to sign a document that enforced a specific set of beliefs, then it would violate the First Amendment’s establishment clause. Trump has already teetered on this line when he stated that Christian refugees would be given priority when entering the United States.

Mike Pence, Trump’s Vice President, has also voiced his opinion about the LGBT community in the past, going so far as to say that gay couples signaled a societal collapse. Pence’s new stance on the LGBT community has apparently shifted, as he has noted that “discrimination will have no place in our administration.”

After the executive order was leaked, activist groups took to the streets to protest the passing of this order. GLAAD, a gay-rights group, hosted rallies at the Stonewall Inn in New York City. Thousands of people from the LGBT community gathered to rally against the order, and to show support for “immigrants, asylum seeks, refugees, women and other communities that Trump has already taken aim at.”

This order is one of many, confirmed and rumored, that are floating around the Trump White House. Despite assurances that “President Donald J. Trump is determined to protect the rights of all Americans,” many disapprove of the 45th president.

4191 Total Views 3 Views Today

'Trump executive order could impact LGBT community' has 1 comment

  1. February 9, 2017 @ 3:17 pm Sam

    I don’t see how the order is constitutional and it represents hypocrisy of Christians. If Christians are entitled to discriminate against a person based on sex outside marriage or same-sex, then why can’t a muslim business owner for instance refuse to rent a hotel room to say a muslim women married to a non-muslim man since such marriage isn’t halal.

    The religious right is hypocritical at times,its one thing to have personal views and practices its another thing to be give the right to discriminate but then criticize other religions for discriminating. The Christian right complaints and talks about shariah law and exaggerates its use in the usa which is basically non-existent but wants to use their own law. For instance a hotel owner would refuse to rent a hotel room if the two people were the opposite gender if unmarried and unrelated. The hotel owner wouldn’t know if two men or two women were engaging in premarital sex or merely friends but if they were married they could discriminate since most gays and lesbian couples would probably marry now that is legal nationwide.

    Thus its Christian law,conservatives also fail to realize that isn’t an exclusively christian nation. Conservatives love to talk about how they are opposed to gay marriage and had fought to ban it in many states. However, your religious views shouldn’t dictate policy. For instance, if a hindu temple were being constructed the gop christian members had to vote on its construction they could no doubt say “I am opposed to this temple because its full of idols”.

    The same issue could be with beef/pork, its funny that muslims&hindus contrary to right-wing talk radio often don’t let their religious beliefs get in the way of commerce mostly. For instance in many dunkin donuts&7-11 beef/pork are served. Its true that they would be uncomfortable serving it but I don’t see them trying to lobby for legislation that would ban such items even in their own store on the guise of religious freedom much less ban other people to from eating it.

    Also its hard to be a judeo-christian nation as the right-wingers claim because jews for instance many not be as opposed to abortion but they don’t like pork and want kosher items. The abortion issue is also wrongly framed as many religious folks would force a pregnant woman to carry to term a brain dead fetus rather than allowing a late term abortion to preserve fertility. In this case its not about “choosing life” but rather defining what you believe is not to be life but the state of life.The same could be said about medicare/medicaid which spends a lot of money on end-of-life care to keep a person alive for say a few more months and spends 3x more then say the past 5 years. If you are opposed to assisted suicide&right to die then who has to pick up the tab. Likewise medicaid spending goes mostly to elderly and developmentally disabled, so if you ban abortion or don’t allow fetal defects to be under the hyde amendment then who pays for the care. You could of course cut funding and allow the DD to live in overcrowded,filthy,dilapidated places and deny proper medical care or take funding for it but that would be “pro-life until birth” wouldn’t it. Block granting medicaid may do that, in fact before medicaid children were responsible for care of the elderly parents which is still true in certain states probably regardless of whether the parent was abusive&or irresponsible. In fact in the 1950s block grants did exist.

    How could this matter to gays&lesbians well denying surrogate mother&custody issues or even folks with hiv/aids, it would be cheaper to let them die or incarcerate gays of color for minor offense and deny them pro-tease inhibitors in prison. States have passed laws allowing religious organizations with taxpayer dollars to deny gay foster parents or singles or the unmarried. While there is a debate as to whether we should have marriage or atleast limit its privileges,consequences, and broad scope, the religious right is made that can’t play the unmarried v. married card anymore because now gays can marry although in texas they are trying to deny benefits to gay couples.


Would you like to share your thoughts?

Your email address will not be published.

Images are for demo purposes only and are properties of their respective owners. Old Paper by