Catholic Charities, Rick Warren, ask Obama for right to use fed funds to discriminate against gays

Right-wing religious activists are wasting no time in their ongoing attempt to gut the civil rights of gays and lesbians in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s decision this week in the Hobby Lobby case.”

The court ruled that crafts chain Hobby Lobby is a “person” entitled to disobey federal law based on its “religion.”

We’ve written before about Catholic Charities’ ongoing jihad against gay Americans.  And Rick Warren’s role in the Proposition 8 fiasco is already well-documented.

God hates windbags.

God hates windbags.

Well, Catholic Charities and Warren have now launched a campaign to gut the impending executive order banning employment discrimination against gay and trans people working for federal contractors.

The groups are asking President Obama to include in the executive order a religious exemption that has already caused deep concern in the gay community, even before Hobby Lobby.

And now that the Supreme Court has decided that corporations are people who can not only practice religions, but who are permitted to violate any federal law that they claim offends their religion, what is to stop religious right bigots from simply declaring that hiring gays, Jews, blacks or Muslims (or women, for that matter), is an affront to their religion?

Don’t forget, the Mormons, for example, have long-standing issues with blacks.

The Baptists, in addition to a history of racism, have rather interesting positions on the non-role of women in business.

And then there’s Catholic Charities’ ongoing willingness to hold children hostage in order to advance its anti-gay agenda.  (Catholic Charities also tried to hold Latinos hostage.)

If groups like Catholic Charities, that suck at the government teet to the tune of nearly $3 billion a year, are now claiming that the work they do for the government somehow involves their religion, then some rather hard questions need to be asked about why the US government is funding religion at all.

NOTE FROM JOHN: I know I say this a lot, but I’m not kidding, we need your help sharing our content on social media if we’re going to keep AMERICAblog alive. Please share our stories, which brings us visitors, and helps us earn more ad revenue.” Thanks for your help. JOHN

CyberDisobedience on Substack | @aravosis | Facebook | Instagram | LinkedIn. John Aravosis is the Executive Editor of AMERICAblog, which he founded in 2004. He has a joint law degree (JD) and masters in Foreign Service from Georgetown; and has worked in the US Senate, World Bank, Children's Defense Fund, the United Nations Development Programme, and as a stringer for the Economist. He is a frequent TV pundit, having appeared on the O'Reilly Factor, Hardball, World News Tonight, Nightline, AM Joy & Reliable Sources, among others. John lives in Washington, DC. .

Share This Post

76 Responses to “Catholic Charities, Rick Warren, ask Obama for right to use fed funds to discriminate against gays”

  1. Indigo says:

    Why would anyone expect anything other than bait-and-switch scheming from the Catholics?

  2. angelitawnord says:

    Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail



  3. ruthiempatterson says:

    My Uncle
    Riley got an almost new red GMC Canyon just by some parttime working online
    with a laptop. visit their website C­a­s­h­f­i­g­.­C­O­M­

  4. cminca says:

    If religion is so powerful in this country that it can bend federal law it is clearly no longer necessary for religion to be a protected class under Federal and State discrimination regulations.

  5. knight4444 says:

    Listen, theres a clear solution to this whole religious fake christian right wing NONSENSE!! strip away all tax exempt status from ANY so called church who just are determined to to bigots!! SEE MONEY TALKS!!!

  6. craigbhill says:

    More confused “philosophy”. Parts of which contradict other parts of it. A trait it shares with the mishmash that is the Bible.

  7. lindajvera says:

    Peyton . true that Jessica `s blurb is shocking, last
    monday I got a gorgeous Peugeot 205 GTi after having earned $6860 this past 4
    weeks an would you believe ten-k this past-month . with-out a doubt this is the
    easiest-job I’ve ever had . I actually started six months/ago and pretty much
    immediately started to bring in minimum $84… p/h . Read More Here C­a­s­h­f­i­g­.­C­O­M­

  8. LeftleaningTx says:

    This ruling while very broad was intended to strike at the heart of gay civil rights because of the undeniable march toward gay marriage acceptance socially and legally. This ruling sets presedence and literally creates window signs that say “No Gays served here” for the bakerys and photographers that are now being sued for refusing to service gay people. This ruling will be thier first line of defense and I believe the intention of the SCOTUS.

  9. slavdude says:

    How about when Texass executes one? I’d be all for that.

  10. jayjonson says:

    These people shouldn’t be receiving federal funds in the first place, and if they are, they should not be able to discriminate. Period.

  11. Rev. M. Vernon Hunt says:

    Not only is Satanism a real religion, but the Church of Satan was the first organized, Western religious group to be openly welcoming and affirming of the LGBT+ community at all levels of worship and service.

  12. Houndentenor says:

    Obama thought he could make nice with the wackos. They still hate him and he threw supporters under the bus in doing so. Can we find a presidential nominee in 2016 that won’t take gays for granted and sell us out so easily?

  13. Houndentenor says:

    there is a difference here. HL was required by law to do something. (I disagree with the HL decision but bear with me!) You are not obligated to bid on federal contracts nor do you have a right to one. If Warren wants to discriminate against gay employees he can do that (depending on the state he’s operating in) but he can’t take federal money AND discriminate against gay people (well, maybe he can, the executive order isn’t written yet).

  14. JayRandal says:

    Far-right fanatics are waiting to roll back Gays into being closeted again. Sodomy to be a crime again.
    Some even want Gays stoned to death. Could happen so might have to move elsewhere someday.

  15. So, then the Reagan Cult and its worship of the god Pruneface can start a corporation (or merge with one) and start discriminating against Democrats?

  16. I call it the Reagan-Bush-Roberts Court. At one time, the group was — in seniority — White, O Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas, so I just called them the WORST! I will hold any detailed remarks on the latest bow to the corporate state until I actually read and analyze the opinions and dissents. Oh, and SKTRA (like a Polish consonant cluster: Skuh-trah) to the latest one! At least it’s easier to pronounce that Nixon’s BBPR, especially with Whizzer White! (Bibper) Just remember I, Alopex, came up with it.

  17. Stev84 says:

    Hahaha. Southern Baptists make up the vast majority of the chaplains in the US military. All their “principles” fly out of the window when they have access to helpless victims they can convert.

  18. Stev84 says:

    Mother Theresa was awful. She glorified suffering – thinking that it brought people closer to Jesus. The medical standards in her homes were horrible and way below substandard. People often went there to die. Maybe they were made somewhat comfortable, but not necessarily better.
    Meanwhile, she herself flew to western countries for the best medical care available.

    She also opposed things that would have helped poor people like access to contraception.

  19. TruthNotReligion says:

    Unlikely to succeed. That’s the benefit of this type of corporation … you get the personal control, with most or all of the protections of “regular” corporations.

    And some “closely-held” corporations are . . . perty goldurn huge (e.g., Mars [candy] Corporation is one, if my memory serves me correctly).

  20. TruthNotReligion says:

    Satanism is as “real” as any other religion.

    You could ask Anton LaVey, but he is fatally deceased at this time, and this condition is unlikely to change.

  21. TruthNotReligion says:

    Satanism is as “real” as any other religion.

    Y’r welcome.

  22. Steve Groh says:

    So that would mean that corporations would have to be incorporated as either male or female and must keep that orientation throughout their existence. They would not allow male corporations to marry, and what if after 50 years of existence and profitable merger with Exxon, Mobil wants to become transgender! How does one explain that to the subsidiaries?

  23. Demosthenes says:

    Another interesting question is, if corporations can reflect the purported religious views of its shareholders, can the owners be sued for actions of the corporation? It’s called “piercing the corporate veil”. The more a corporation is not seen as independent of its shareholders, the greater the chance any law suit, including criminal actions, can attack the shareholders directly. This is an unintended consequence if the issue Mr. Aravosis discusses.

  24. Silver_Witch says:

    Wiccan’s welcome everyone (unless the individual person has a personality flaw which the practice of wicca does not foretell), even Christians are welcome. I would insist however that they keep their hatred outside the door of my shop.

  25. Indigo says:

    That approach in turn gets the Competitive Dictator thing going: who’s the least evil one, Mussolini, Hitler, Franco, or Stalin? and I accuse the Tea-baggers of trying to add FDR to that list.

  26. lynchie says:

    The same Rick Warren Obama had at his inaugeration. How is that working out O’Highness? This religious crap has really come to the fore since all this faith based religion started by Bush and continued by Obama funded a lot of their bullshit.

  27. jomicur says:

    “He made the trains run on time.” Apparently doing something good gets you a pass for perpetrating evil (if you’re a Christian, that is).

  28. Don Chandler says:

    They, the signees, want to sue in the event of an executive order meeting their insidious request–“financial burden”. They want to discriminate against “openly married gays and lesbians”…ofc, there is no other kind of marriage, than open.

  29. vickif says:


  30. vickif says:

    MY ex-husband and I adopted a baby from Catholic Charities in 1972. Guess what, that baby who is now 42 is gay and got married to his husband in when NY passed gay marriage. He can’t be the only baby that turned out to be gay that were adopted from Catholic Charities.

  31. Indigo says:

    That’s exactly the message I get from them.

  32. berthamdonovan says:

    Jacqueline implied I’m taken by surprise that a mom can earn $8130 in 1 month
    on the computer . see post F­i­s­c­a­l­p­o­s­t­.­C­O­M­

  33. rmthunter says:

    Wicca’s a very inclusive religion — you won’t find a lot of bigotry among its followers.

  34. Mike_in_the_Tundra says:

    This could get quite interesting if a business is owned by a Christian Science Practitioner.

    Also what would a owner to if they were a practitioner of Wiccan?

  35. BeccaM says:

    I know what you mean. It’s like they’re saying, “We turn out a few really good ones. Why are you all complaining about a few lousy child-buggering priests? You should be grateful there aren’t more of them!”

  36. Indigo says:

    Ah! The word “religion” means whatever the speaker wants it to mean, in other words. And so you take upon yourself the authority to determine what qualifies in your perception as “religion.” That’s kinda nutty, really, and suspiciously like Christian fundamentalism which has a reputation for rejecting everything that is not them.

  37. crazymonkeylady says:

    What is the difference between government allowing discrimination on religious grounds and The Taliban which demands it?? Not a damn thing. What next?

  38. Indigo says:

    In my experience, that is a traditional Catholic gambit. I’ve had that reasoning process thrown in my face for reproaching Roman clergy over the issue of their veiled pederastic reputation with the response to the effect that the Holy Church also produces many Mother Teresa types who do wonderfully good work. Not to discredit Mother Teresa but, so what?

  39. BeccaM says:

    Y’know, for a self-professed law student, the legal definition of ‘religion’ seems to escape you. Interestingly, both Satanism and Scientology are recognized as ‘real’ by the U.S. military — as well as the IRS.

  40. Elijah Shalis says:

    Satanism isn’t a real religion. It is like Scientology

  41. Elijah Shalis says:


  42. Elijah Shalis says:

    Amazing, you love Satanism which isn’t even a real religion but rather a part of Christianity and Judaism.

  43. Elijah Shalis says:

    Mental illness is an issue ever since Saint Reagan started destroying the mental health system.

  44. BeccaM says:

    Well, being allowed to hate gay people — on the gov’t dime no less — is the only reason they can bring themselves to help anybody at all.

    I mean, it’s all right there in their letter.

  45. BeccaM says:

    If there was ever any doubt, we need only look at what they’ve been doing in Russia, France, and the various anti-gay African nations…

  46. PeteWa says:

    it’s sweet and real Jesusy that they want to use our own tax dollars to discriminate against us.

  47. Outspoken1 says:

    How about the Atheists asking for ‘In God We Trust’ removed from all money and the Pledge of Allegiance (‘FYI – In God We Trust was added in the 1950s to show them Godless Commies we were the Goddy (pun intended) ones!!).

  48. Colin says:

    “Religious organizations, because of their religious faith, have served their nation well for centuries”
    There are many people in Salem who if they were living could debate that easily. As a matter of fact there are many ‘Christian’ groups here and abroad who would do the most despicable things to the LGBT community if the leashes were taken off.

  49. Indigo says:

    And they still aren’t registered as representatives of a foreign country.

  50. MyrddinWilt says:

    Umm we already do. Its not an issue.

    Even in Texas the open carry laws permit owners to ban guns if they choose. The difference is that before it was illegal to take a gun to a bar whether or not the owner approves.

    I have a better idea, lets jump on this stupid NRA scheme to pretend that the real problem is mental illness. Seems like a great idea to me. The logical way to deal with the mental illness problem is to require every gun owner to have an annual mental health checkup.

    This would take a full day and include their mandatory millitia training.

  51. 1jetpackangel says:

    Seriously, somebody call the Quakers and Seventh-day Adventists, and any other branch/offshoot of Christianity that puts an emphasis on pacifism, and encourage them to file suit saying their religion allows them to turn away open-carry enthusiasts, because wasn’t Jesus a pacifist? Then sit back and watch Republican heads explode.

    Sidenote: while looking up Pacifism on Wikipedia to see who else I could add to this list, I was struck by this: “The Southern Baptist Convention has stated in the Baptist Faith and Message, “It is the duty of Christians to seek peace with all men on principles of righteousness. In accordance with the spirit and teachings of Christ they should do all in their power to put an end to war.”” (

  52. jm2 says:

    BEST comment ever!

  53. nicho says:

    I’ll believe that corporations are persons when they start paying taxes.

  54. nicho says:

    It’s important to remember that Hobby Lobby is closely connected with an extreme right-wing religious — and violent — cult.

    This isn’t just a bunch of “faith filled” people. They are dangerous.

  55. MyrddinWilt says:

    Well they know that they have lost the marriage equality fight so now they are hating on other targets and in different venues. Employment discrimination is their next target.

    But we still have to avoid the trap of being reactive to their hate. Or else they are the ones deciding our targets and forcing us on the defense.

    Trying to block LGBT rights seems to me to be a scheme to get us to focus on just that rather than on fair pay AND non-discrimination. The fact that the US taxpayer subsidizes Walmart with tens of billions in welfare payments to their employees every year is disgusting. We should raise the minimum wage certainly, but lets also claw back welfare payments to employees from employers with more than 50,000 employees.

    The mistake we made with Obamacare was meeting the GOP halfway. They fought the insurance based scheme just as hard as they would have fought the public option. So why did we compromise?

    If we can get an employment rights act through Congress we can attach the ENDA to that and the reptiles will do their usual panty-twist. But they will fight that just as hard as the ENDA on its own.

  56. BeccaM says:

    Indeed. The “Roberts Gang of Four” is even worse — all they have to do is get Kennedy to agree with them and they can (and will) do anything.

  57. BeccaM says:

    This particular concern-troll-y sentence from the Christobigots’ letter keeps jumping out at me:

    “That is why we are asking that an extension of protection for one group not come at the expense of faith communities whose religious identity and beliefs motivate them to serve those in need.”

    (Emphasis added.) Translation: “We know you want to protect LGBTs, but you need to let us go on hating and discriminating against them or else we’ll stop doing anything nice for anybody else.”

  58. caphillprof says:

    Why stop with just one?

  59. Ron Beasley says:

    Too many Christians not enough lions!

  60. Colin says:

    Thanks to the Hobby Lobby decision , we are likely to see a firestorm of this kind of activity. They are going to pull out all the stops now. It’s something akin to the Right to Work travesty. Sure you have a right to be LGBT , but we have the right to starve you.

  61. Colin says:

    Like I ‘ve said many times. Keep your marching shoes polished. We aren’t there yet.

  62. Of course, we all know that the Hobby Lobby decision reeks of the corporate state. If corporations be so persons, then corporations should marry before mergers, else they be committing sin. We must replace one justice and tilt the Court back from its right-leaning since Nixon’s Gang of Four.

  63. caphillprof says:

    The federal government has absolutely no business contracting with any self-styled “religious” group for anything other than non-denominational civil services and since they are non-denominational civil services there is no reason in the firmament to permit any discrimination against the gay.

  64. John Masters says:

    That World Relief organization appears to be a group working against human trafficking. How can you be involved in that, and want the right to discriminate against a group of people? I’ll be calling their office local to me Monday.

  65. Houndentenor says:

    Evangelicals are too stupid to realize that such discrimination is more likely to be used against them than against gay people in most of the country.

  66. Houndentenor says:

    This was the intent of the decision. Yes, they CLAIMED it was narrow but they’ve pulled that stunt several times in recent years. Now there’s an end-run around civil rights legislation which is what the right has been jonesing for for decades now.

  67. TruthNotReligion says:

    But why shouldn’t the law cover a “Satanist,” too ?

    Religion = Religion . . . right ?

    Oh, wait . . . the HOBBY LOBBY decision is a gift of “special rights” to Christians, only. SORRY.

  68. Houndentenor says:

    Of course Rick Warren, who pushed for Uganda and other countries to jail people for being gay wants it to remain legal for gays to be discriminated against here in the USA.

  69. TruthNotReligion says:

    How about those whose “sincerely held religious beliefs” . . . require that they ignore traffic laws (laws against speeding, laws requiring signaling for turns, etc.) . . . if traffic laws “substantially burden” the exercise of one’s religion, then one is “entitled” to be free from the application of such laws.


  70. BeccaM says:

    Aye… it’s probably why “let us discriminate against those icky Geys” is next on the list.

  71. jomicur says:

    Slight emendation: The radicalized far-right *CATHOLIC* SCOTUS majority. I find it hard to interpret the HL ruling in any way other than that they are doing the bidding of the Conference of Catholic Bishops. (Both local bishops. of the Pittsburgh and Greensburg dioceses, have been cackling like hens pleased with the egg they’ve laid, and they’ve all but openly said that the Conference had a hand in the ruling.)

  72. jomicur says:

    If you don’t already think “low” of him, you haven’t been paying attention.

  73. BeccaM says:

    I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised they jumped at trying for permission to discriminate against LGBTs this quickly…but I am. But only that they didn’t wait at least a few weeks.

    The radicalized far-right SCOTUS majority opened the floodgates, and now it would seem the coming months we’ll see “religious” objections to all kinds of laws and regulations. Personally, I’m betting equal pay for women and sex discrimination will be next on the list, as well as the Family Leave Law. Either that, or someone will say their corporation’s official religious beliefs are that health insurance is immoral and demand an exemption from the entirety of the ACA. (Lucky for them, the SCOTUS-5 have said that religious reasons need not comport with facts or reality at all.)

    Then they’ll go after the minimum wage, child labor laws, environmental protection laws — the works. In short, they won’t be satisfied until they’re repealed the Enlightenment itself.

  74. BeccaM says:

    Why should anybody be allowed to use religion as an excuse not to hire someone, regardless of that applicant’s faith. Why are certain religions okay by you, but others apparently beyond the pale?

    Title VII of the Civil Rights Act is pretty clear in that it prohibits discrimination by covered employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. It doesn’t say, “Unless the applicant is a Satanist.” (Or any other ‘objectionable’ religion according to whoever is subjectively doing the defining.)

  75. nicho says:

    then I will really think low of him

    I’d like to say that, but as far as I’m concerned, that ship has sailed. He’s already pretty low on my list.

  76. Elijah Shalis says:

    If Obama puts in the Religious exemption clause then I will really think low of him. Unless a Satanist is applying to work for a Christian boss, I see no reason to object to a person. I mean really.

© 2021 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS