10.7 F
Chicago
Friday, February 3, 2023
HomeIllinois NewsUPDATE x3: Four IL GOP U.S. House members support banning "sexual orientation"...

UPDATE x3: Four IL GOP U.S. House members support banning “sexual orientation” discrimination

Date:

spot_img

Screen Shot 2016-05-27 at 8.40.06 AM

WASHINGTON – Social conservatives are constantly reprimanded by social moderates for being so "obsessed" with those boring and frustrating issues such as abortion, same sex marriage, illegal drugs, when Leftists never pause their social agenda to move further and further away from traditional values.

Take for example President Obama's executive order calling on federally-funded government schools to allow transgender students to use the bathrooms, showers and dressing rooms of the opposite sex. Obama's agenda goal forces schools to accept and embrace students' demands based on the vague terms "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" or lose federal funding assistance.

Conservatives ask if the president and Congress interpret those terms so that school administrators may know they're avoiding discrimination charges?  The terms' definitions are unclear, and thus difficult to enact and enforce.

However, 43 Republicans joined U.S. House Democrats this week to ban federal contractors from discriminating in their private businesses based on those same vague terms "sexual orientation" and "gender identity." 

Four GOP members of the U.S. House's Illinois delegation – Bob Dold, Rodney Davis, Adam Kinzinger and John Shimkus – joined the Democrats in supporting the effort. 

Congressman Shimkus' support for the measure was especially confusing since he made a public statement in favor of keeping and supporting the term "one-man, one-woman" in the IL GOP's platform last weekend

UPDATE X2: Congressman Shimkus' office sent Illinois Review this explanation after this story was posted:

WASHINGTON – Congressman John Shimkus (R, Illinois-15) released the following statement after requesting the Congressional Record reflect that his vote on the Maloney Amendment, As Amended by Pitts Amendment was recorded incorrectly on the night of Wednesday, May 25:

“My position on this issue has not and will not change. I’ve consistently defended religious liberty and I always will. During a series of 14 votes on the House floor, I accidentally cast a ‘yea’ vote for the Maloney Amendment when I intended to vote ‘nay.’ I regret the mistake.” 

Neither of the other three that supported the President's non-discrimination executive order of 2014 voiced their opinion publicly on the IL GOP's same sex marriage controversy.

UPDATE x3: Congressman Rodney Davis's spokesperson Ashley Phelps sent over the following statement:

The Maloney Amendment was simply about preventing employer discrimination, and had nothing to do with Obama's executive order on school bathrooms. Voting for that amendment was a vote to uphold the First Amendment while also protecting religious freedoms.

Also more to the point, Congressman Davis voted for another amendment offered by Rep. Pittenger that prevents the Obama Administration from withholding federal funds from North Carolina if it does not comply with Obama's executive order because he believes in states' rights.

It's also important to remember that these are amendments to spending bills and if we continue to let them be derailed on these issues, we take away Congress' 'power of the purse' and let the president's run-away spending continue.

UPDATE x1: Congressman Adam Kinzinger's spokesperson Maura Gillespie explained Kinzinger's vote: 

The Congressman doesn’t believe in discrimination in federal workplace hiring, and the amendment voted on includes protections for religious freedoms. It’s a shame for so-called “non-profit” organizations to use this as a means to fundraise.

Ryan Anderson of the conservative, non-profit Heritage Foundation wrote in the Daily Signal this week:

On Wednesday night, 43 Republican members of Congress joined the Democrats to vote for President Barack Obama’s transgender agenda.

Whereas last week Congress voted to reject this proposal—known as the Maloney amendment—last night they voted to ratify Obama’s 2014 executive order barring federal contractors from what it describes as “discrimination” on the basis of “sexual orientation and gender identity” in their private employment policies.

And, of course, “discrimination” on the basis of “gender identity” can be something as simple as having a bathroom policy based on biological sex, not gender identity, as we learned last week from Obama’s transgender directives. And “discrimination” on the basis of “sexual orientation” can be something as reasonable as an adoption agency preferring married moms and dads for orphans, than other arrangements.

Once again, who are the ones that are really obsessed with social issues and changing them to reflect non-traditional standards? And who defines these terms? How will they be enforced?

Subscribe

- Never miss a story with notifications

- Gain full access to our premium content

- Browse free from up to 5 devices at once

Latest stories

17 COMMENTS

  1. The fascist freedom stealing four should be shown the unemployment line. The ignorant primary voters could have done that but failed to because they are too lazy to study their voting records.

  2. Maybe we all should identify as Congresscritters, go to DC and clean things up. If I think and feel in my heart that I’m a Congresscritter and want to act in that capacity, who has the right to stop me and tell me I’m wrong, that I can’t do that? Reality apparently is immaterial ~

  3. My congressman (Rep. Dold) didn’t have a primary opponent. I wish a conservative, with political experience, had run. Steve Kim, Willard Helander, or Mark Curran would have been a good candidate. I hope Joe Kopsick, a new party candidate, will win that general election race.

  4. All strong supporters of de facto open borders and amnesty for illegals (yea, even Shimkus), so what do you expect?
    Increasingly, along with others like Kirk and Edgar this is the ‘face’ of the Republican Party in Illinois.

  5. I like Adam Kinzinger but on this one, I am afraid it reminds me of another “Tom Cross Moment” when an elected official tries to be all things to all people and instead he falls flat on his face with his normal base of support. Conservative GOP voters are going to hold this one against Adam. But he can always hope that eventually conservative GOP voters will forget about this blooper. When Tom Cross had that “great idea” to embrace the gay /lesbian political block in Illinois (all 3% or 4% of them) so as to broaden his appeal when he ran for Illinois State Treasurer his normal loyal base of GOP support (conservatives) “dropped him like a hot rock”. It was just too obvious as to what he was doing (playing politics). Tom instantly became “Who is Tom Cross?” after that stupid political idea. He won’t ever recover from it politically either. Much like Dan Rutherford floated into political obscurity with GOP conservatives over a similar subject in nature. Trump illustrates in “a glaring manner” that “being politically correct” definitely has it’s huge downside. Adam chose “poorly” on this one.

  6. Trump has a pro gay agenda. So, lesson from trump? Also funny these congressmen voted against the same amendment without religion protection, but nobody reported that. Do you really support discrimination in federal contracting?

  7. The homosexual movement has had both Illinois parties in their clutches since the Gay Governor Jim Thompson. There are far more homosexual “Republicans” than the “outed” Dan Rutherford. I know at least two of the “Republicans” who voted for this monstrosity are gay. All of them voted for the White Flag budget that gave Obama everything from executive amnesty to more money for the baby part sellers, Planned Parenthood.
    Nothing will change until we conservatives start to act like liberals and primary and third party these people out of office. Ralph Nader got the message through to the Dems—they will only put up litmus test liberals from now on.
    Honest Opinions, it is my honest opinion that you haven’t looked at Kinzinger’s voting record—it’s bad for a Republican, especially for a solid Republican district downstate. He needs primarying badly.

  8. Weird. Thought Christ did exactly that. Witnessed to sinners and ate with them. It was the Pharisees or legalists he scorned, the people that robbed folks of the joy of their salvation. Truth is I am born again, truth is I hope you are too, but I suspect you rob yourself the joy of your salvation daily by focusing on your anger. I used to do that too. Lots of wasted time

  9. There you go twisting words… yes Jesus witnessed to sinner. And then said GO and sin no more. Jesus didn’t say continue to live in sin.
    Big difference between sinning then repenting and sinning w2ithout remorse.
    How do you sleep at night the way you try to deceive people?

  10. 1 Corinthians 5:11
    But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler–not even to eat with such a one.
    1 Corinthians 15:33
    Do not be deceived: “Bad company corrupts good morals.”
    2 Corinthians 6:14-15
    Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever?
    Revelation 2:2 — Floor Nin
    I know your deeds and your toil and perseverance, and that you cannot tolerate evil men, and you put to the test those who call themselves apostles, and they are not, and you found them to be false;