Progressive One

Published June 17, 2016
After Republican leaders claimed to “stand in solidarity” with the LGBT community following the tragedy in Orlando, GOP leaders rejected a proposal to protect LGBT people from discrimination.

By Kaitlyn D’Onofrio

pete sessions, orlando
Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas)

A proposal that would protect LGBT employees from discrimination by federal contractors was rejected by House Republican leaders — just days after GOP members publicly pledged their “support” for the LGBT community.

For the third time, openly gay Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (D-N.Y.) proposed the amendment, attached to a Defense Department spending bill, that would put into law an executive order made by President Barack Obama in 2014 that forbids federal contractors from discriminating against LGBT people.

On Tuesday night, Chairman of the House Rules Committee Pete Sessions (R-Texas) blocked Maloney’s amendment from even being voted on.

Maloney said that to at least bring the amendment to a vote would have been a sign of standing together with the LGBT community after the largest mass shooting in America’s history targeted this populace and left 49 people dead with over 50 wounded.

“It’s hard to imagine that any act that is so horrific could lead to anything positive. But if we were going to do anything, it would be a very positive step to say that discrimination has no place in our law and to reaffirm the president’s actions in this area,” Maloney reported to The Hill. “Seems to me a pretty basic thing to do.”

When making the case for his amendment to the committee, Maloney compared the Orlando tragedy to the Charleston, South Carolina, shooting that left nine Black churchgoers dead last June. The massacre sparked a debate about the Confederate flag, and what it represents after numerous photographs surfaced of the killer, Dylann Roof, with Confederate memorabilia. South Carolina removed the flag from its Capitol grounds, and Roof has since been charged with a hate crime.

“They also responded by acting and recognizing that symbols and language matter,” Maloney said. “Because hate has no place in our flags, in our workplace, in our country. And it should have no place in federal law.”

Sessions, like other notable Republicans, expressed on social media a vague sentiment regarding the shooting — failing to acknowledge LGBT people at all.


My thoughts and prayers are with the people of Orlando and everyone who was impacted by last night’s senseless attack.

— Pete Sessions (@PeteSessions) June 12, 2016



He went a step further when speaking to reporters, saying that Pulse, the nightclub where the shooting took place, was not a gay club.


Asked Rules Chair Sessions if Orlando shooting changes calculation on LGBT Maloney amdmt. He argued Pulse was not a gay club.

— Daniel Newhauser (@dnewhauser) June 14, 2016




“It was a young person’s nightclub, I’m told. And there were some [LGBT ppl] there, but it was mostly Latinos” https://t.co/c5qvdSk0kF

— Daniel Newhauser (@dnewhauser) June 14, 2016



On its website, Pulse describes itself as a gay nightclub. Sessions’ office later clarified that the chairman was mistaken in his statement.

Two Republican House members, Reps. Ilena Ros-Lehtinen (Fla.) and Richard Hanna (N.Y.), co-sponsored Maloney’s amendment.

Last month, Maloney proposed the same amendment, attached to a Department of Veteran Affairs spending bill. It was slated to pass until a number of Republicans, facing pressure from fellow party members, changed their votes from “yea” to “nay” after the clock had expired. Infuriated Democrats chanted, “Shame! Shame! Shame!”

Maloney described the incident as “one of the ugliest episodes I’ve experienced in my three-plus years as a member of this House.”

One week later Maloney proposed the amendment once again, this time in an Energy Department spending bill. The amendment was approved but the whole bill collapsed the following day.

These instances led House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) to put a limit on amendments that can be attached to spending bills.

Maloney’s amendment comes in response to one proposed by the GOP in April, which would provide exemptions to Obama’s order based on religion. Democrats argued that the amendment is written with such ambiguous language that it could apply to any institution and would, in effect, repeal Obama’s order.

“The way this amendment is written, it doesn’t matter if you are a religious organization,” Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) said at the time. “You can basically be a private contractor and this just gives you the right to discriminate if you decide you just don’t want to do business with gay people or with anybody else for that matter on a discriminatory basis within a protected

robmull Loc: florida

Hola, pro-Sharia!!! I didn't think you cared!!!

mwdegutis Loc: Illinois

Gee do you think that maybe they had issue with what it was attached to?

PeterS

So did we expect them to change their stripes? A conservative is a conservative is a conservative. Never change no matter the implications, ya know what I mean!

Progressive One

yep...trapped in a ideological prison and refusing to evolve........

Trooper745 Loc: Carolina

The main purpose of the amendment was to punish any Christian companies by denying them government contracts, unless they hired almost all people claiming to be gay that applied for jobs.

Simple reasons for not hiring, or firing, like lack of job skills, lack of ability to do the job, poor past employment performance, etc. would have been useless, if the applicant claimed to be gay. Like everything else the liberal democrats want passed, this is all about controlling people who do not swallow the democrat BS, especially Christians.

Progressive One

fair enough...religious discrimination should not be allowed...period. Hire atheists, Muslims and anyone else qualified to do the job, regardless.

Trooper745 Loc: Carolina

Therein lies the fallacy of anti-discrimination laws. Once the government passes those laws, "qualified" as a standard for hiring no longer exists. A totally unqualified applicant will always use race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc. to claim discrimination.

Progressive One

oh, can you find where I can read where unqualified people are eligible for hire? That is the same argument presented for affirmative action but I fail to find that in writing.

no propaganda please Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun

I think that you are correct. It is costly to fight over not hiring someone because they were unqualified if they are black or homosexual safer to hire them even if they are totally incompetent and not hire the white male who was extraordinarily qualified for the job.

Progressive One

I like the way that statement implies that only a white male would be the qualified one.....that is why I went out and got more education than damn near all of them. being a black man with a stigma is tiring...it is better to just let them read about you on paper and verify it than having to do all of that explaining...that is what I tell young black males...get a serious degree such as engineering in your twenties...try to get a Masters in your late twenties and if you get a doctorate in your early to mid thirties..you can shake the "black man's burden" and live off of your reputation moving forward...a much easier way of life...geesh!!

Trooper745 Loc: Carolina

Good advice for anyone!

no propaganda please Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun

Note that they are really upset that the claim that this nightclub catered to homosexuals was not emphatically acknowledged and celebrated but no one is upset that the order that Islam and terrorist were never to be mentioned in the discussion.

Progressive One

I give it to anyone also.....seriously.........

PLizarraga

I just want to ask why no one seems to be able to bypass the smaller issues, i.e.; discrimination, gay nightclub vs latino vs young(?) . . . Who CARES what type of business establishment it was, (other than to point out that Islam, and ALL muslims, whether "radical", "moderate", or otherwise, are, "holy-book-mandated" to hate, despise and revile, and oh yes, suffer not to live abominations, blasphemers - basically anybody NOT muslim, gays, Christians, Jews, atheists, unless they:(convert or die!), or are permitted yo or afree to beinf humilated, tortured, fined or taxed, etc... the last of which makes it appear that the Prophet or suthor(s) of their Queran' apparently were willing to overlook the mandate to kill all Infidels, should some occasional said Infidels hold sufficuent ir vast amounts if wealth or properties, businesses, etc that could be extorted, I mean, "gotten" - I assume in exchange for their necks? I believe I have that right, with the exception of addibg that the muslim(s) who hold these decisions are left free to independently decide to chop off their heads, or grant a stay if execution in exchange for ...???? So if I have this wrong, I would welcome some muslum/Islamic correction and clarification - that is verifyable in writing. So back to the seemingly LOST critical factor, that it was a 2nd gen, American birn and raised muslim who decuded to commit the atrocity that we just endured on Orlando, Fl. And does it even really matter that, much like San Bernadino, we don't have to wait fir our porous borders or "Presidentially-pushed" agendas with regards to huge new and hurried influx of extremely questionable and impossible to "vet" or screen check backgrounds on HORDES more of so-called refugees! Our enemy is already here, as the aforementioned incidents proove. What we should be looking at in Orlando isn't about being gay, or young, or drinking, or lifestyle choices - those things are all irrevelant to the main issue that America DOES have an enemy, IS at war with tjat enemy