REPORT: Trump drafting “Religious Freedom” executive order.

Image © Getty

President Donald Trump’s administration is reportedly drafting a religious freedom executive order, protecting Christians who oppose same-sex marriage, contraception coverage, along with other protections preventing religious beliefs from being forcibly suppressed by the government. This action is believed to be similar to the “Religious Freedom Bill” signed by Vice President Mike Pence, when he served as the Governor of Indiana.

The action, “Establishing a Government-Wide Initiative to Respect Religious Freedom,” would increase religious freedom protections to ”any organization, including closely held for-profit corporations, operated for a religious purpose, even if its purpose is not exclusively religious.”

Unsurprisingly, this has triggered outrage among members of the liberal left and the radical LGBT community.

“This reported executive order, a draft of which has been shared in the media, would legalize sweeping discrimination against the LGBTQ community and could seriously undermine some of our most important progress of the past decade,” Zeke Stokes of GLAAD expressed in an email alert.

GLAAD continued to cite the effects of Trump’s potential executive order.

“If the reported order is signed, it could mean: Employers without penalty may fire an LGBTQ person from their job because of religious freedom. Child welfare and adoption services without penalty may deny LGBTQ couples the ability to adopt children. Schools without penalty may openly discriminate against LGBTQ teachers, faculty, and students. Government officials without penalty may deny LGBTQ people services – including county clerks who issue marriage licenses for couples. Businesses without penalty may deny LGBTQ people services…,” the email read.

This order would prevent cases such as where Christian bakers were forcibly required to bake same-sex wedding cakes, resulting in a complete draining of their bank accounts after state penalties.

This executive order is simply an affirmation of the First Amendment’s freedom of religion clause.



  1. George Lujack

    George Lujack

    February 2, 2017 2:28 am at 2:28 am

    This is YUGE!
    Worst president to best!
    My president in action!

  2. Chuck Anziulewicz

    February 2, 2017 9:07 am at 9:07 am

    In Mississippi, the recently-passed House Bill 1523 says people can deny services or goods for the “celebration or recognition of any marriage, based upon or in a manner consistent with a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction,” which would include pre-ceremony celebrations, post-wedding celebrations, anniversary celebrations and other related celebrations. It isn’t about just weddings, it is about ANYTHING that acknowledges the legal right of Gay couples to marry in Mississippi.

    It will be interesting to see which government agency in Mississippi concludes that the owner of a bakery can turn away a couple that wants a wedding cake, but also concludes that a restaurant cannot turn away the same couple, 20 years from now, who wish to have an anniversary dinner party. What constitutional standard will be used to determine this?

    It will also be interesting to see how judges and courts determine which cases of discrimination are motivated by “religious freedom,” and which are motivated by simple animus. Do we simply take the business owner’s word for it? And if the baker is an Atheist who doesn’t like Gay marriage, is he out of luck?

    Can this bill also be used to turn away Muslim or Atheist couples? It goes without saying that there is a great deal of animosity toward Muslims among evangelical Christians these days. If a Christian florist, for example, refused to provide flowers for a Muslim couple’s wedding, saying that to do so would be an “endorsement” of Islam, will the law in Mississippi allow her to refuse service?

    The bill ALSO permits any taxpayer-funded government official to turn away Gay couples who are seeking a marriage license, as long as the official uses his “religious freedom” as an excuse. Imagine your tax dollars paying the salary of someone who discriminates against YOU.

  3. Chuck Anziulewicz

    February 2, 2017 9:59 am at 9:59 am

    Over at TheNation.com, here’s how one person responded:

    “As they say “careful what you wish for, you just may get it”.

    “This “religious freedom” croc is not new to the part of the country from where I live. In a desert community that voted about 60% for the current president. I wrote an opinion piece to our local paper about this legalized discrimination.

    “It boiled down to, all will be “fine and good” until the white guy with a “make american great again” bumper sticker is stranded on a desert highway, out of gas or broken down in 100+ degree heat, the tow truck driver that finally arrives, is Mexican or Iranian or Gay or whatever and refuses the man service based on his convictions that the “Red neck SOB” is getting what the tow truck driver believes is God’s will and leaves the stranded motorist to die of exposure.”

    • David H.

      February 3, 2017 11:48 am at 11:48 am

      Once again chuck apples and oranges. As a Christian, if I see a stranded motorist in the desert it is my obligation to help them as a Human being in need, without considering their religion or sexual identification. A Gay man wanting a wedding cake is not a person in need. The Simple mind cannot differentiate between wants and needs. Instead they lump things into social justice categories of have’s and have not’s, And then pit them against one another. This is where the divisiveness in this country comes from, not the other way around.

      I Will give you an example from my Past. When My wife and I were looking to get married, we went looking for a church to get married in. We were not members of any church at the time, and some churches reserved that privilege to members only. We then went out and found a place to get married that did not have these restrictions. I Never felt discriminated against or offended by the churches that refused to marry us in their building, that was their right to refuse.

      Some restaurants have dress codes, and refuse to serve someone coming in wearing sweat pants and sandals. Are they discriminating? Are they breaking the Law? There are certain jobs I will not take, and even bid on as a carpenter. Am I discriminating? Am I breaking the law? Even if that person happens to be Gay, or Muslim, I have every right to refuse the Job based on the criteria my business sets. Because I work with wood, does not mean I have to build wooden sex toys for the gay man who wants me to make them for him. They cannot force this work upon me. That is what baking a wedding cake is like for a gay couple to a Christian. Even if the guy offers 10x more than what its worth, I will still refuse to do that. I also will not carve an idol for a Hindu person based on my religious beliefs. He can go out and find a Hindu artisan to do that, or an atheist, or what have you. My decision is not based on hate, but rather on religious conviction. This is why the founders of the country made the free exercise of religion the first right of the people. Religion supercedes the right to the pursuit of happiness, and the practicing of religion by its very nature takes away carnal liberty from its followers, who submit to the Authority of the religion.

      Another example is the Amish. They are not allowed by their faith to join the military. There freedom of religion rules over the authority of government mandate such as the draft. The right to the practice of religion has preeminence over other rights. It is first for a reason.

      • Chuck Anziulewicz

        February 7, 2017 9:31 am at 9:31 am

        DAVID: “We then went out and found a place to get married that did not have these restrictions. I Never felt discriminated against or offended by the churches that refused to marry us in their building, that was their right to refuse.”

        You are absolutely correct, and nothing is changing now that Gay couples are allowed to marry. Gay couples aren’t banging on church doors demanding a wedding ceremony. Why would any Gay couple wish to be in a hostile environment on the happiest day of their lives, when there are plenty of churches that are more welcoming? Muslim and Atheist and Jewish couples are allowed to marry, and churches have never been compelled to provide them with so much as the time of day.

        DAVID: “Some restaurants have dress codes, and refuse to serve someone coming in wearing sweat pants and sandals. Are they discriminating? Are they breaking the Law?”

        Of course not. Business get to choose dress codes, and the get to choose what products and services they provide. But businesses do NOT get to say, “We’ll serve White customers but not Black customers.” They do NOT get to say, “We only hire Christians. Muslims and Jews need not apply.”

        Let’s say a couple comes into your bakery, and they’re interested in getting a nice wedding cake. You ask them how much they want to spend, how many people will be served, the flavor of the cake and frosting and so forth. Most bakeries have catalogs or photos of cakes they specialize in. As for the cake “topper,” you can choose from what they offer, but these days most couples purchase one on their own.

        Making a cake for the couple doesn’t mean you’re being forced to participate in the ceremony itself.

  4. George Lujack

    George Lujack

    February 2, 2017 1:41 pm at 1:41 pm

    The Mexican, Iranian, or gay ALREADY discriminates with impunity against white Christian males.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

To Top