House erupts into chaos after LGBT protection amendment narrowly fails


The House floor erupted Thursday into a tense, chaotic situation after an amendment to protect members of the LGBT community failed several seconds after it looked like it had enough votes to pass.

The amendment from Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney, D-New York, would have barred federal contracts to companies that discriminate against LGBT employees. It was an attempt to undo a provision inside a major defense bill the House passed a night earlier that would reverse President Obama’s executive order extending anti-discrimination protections to federal contractors’ LGBT employees. Democrats warned the provision will allow any federal contractor to discriminate against gay, lesbian and transgender people.

Maloney’s amendment narrowly failed Thursday 212-213 after it looked like it was going to pass 217-206 a few seconds earlier. Republican leaders held open the vote and Democrats say Republicans twisted arms, pressuring members of their conference to switch their votes so that it would fail.


What exactly is the rationale in favor of granting federal contracts to companies despite their discriminating against LGBT workers?


In the beginning,…of our county, some of the founders did not want any specific rights enumerated. Others did. The others ended up with the bill of rights in 1791.

The founders who were opposed to a bill of rights used this logic:

The pseudonymous Anti-Federalist “Brutus”[a] wrote,

We find they have, in the ninth section of the first article declared, that the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless in cases of rebellion — that no bill of attainder, or ex post facto law, shall be passed — that no title of nobility shall be granted by the United States, etc. If every thing which is not given is reserved, what propriety is there in these exceptions? Does this Constitution any where grant the power of suspending the habeas corpus, to make ex post facto laws, pass bills of attainder, or grant titles of nobility? It certainly does not in express terms. The only answer that can be given is, that these are implied in the general powers granted. With equal truth it may be said, that* all the powers which the bills of rights guard against the abuse of, are contained or implied in the general ones granted by this Constitution.**[17]*

He continued with this observation:

Ought not a government, vested with such extensive and indefinite authority, to have been restricted by a declaration of rights? It certainly ought. So clear a point is this, that I cannot help suspecting that persons who attempt to persuade people that such reservations were less necessary under this Constitution than under those of the States, are wilfully endeavoring to deceive, and to lead you into an absolute state of vassalage.[18]

They thought that once you start enumerating rights, where do you stop? Were they right?


I get that we should respect the LGBT community.

But to start a civil war over it, I don’t think it’s that necessary.


From LGBTQ Nation:

“This reveals them for who they are,” said Democrat Steve Israel. “They are bigots. They are haters.”

Logical fallacy. Might as well get out the tar and feathers.



I’d like to know exactly what the definition of discriminating is



Being retrograde and all as I am, I’m still wondering what “transgender” is. How many body parts, if any, must one alter in order to be a “transgender”? Or is it entirely notional and directed at others; i.e., I am what I say I am and you had better believe it even if you don’t and even if I don’t either?


Zero. You can be a “transgender” female but still feel fine in your male body. Gender (in popular [lack of] thought) is a mental image that does not have to match the physical reality. Don’t even get me started on “gender fluid” (I’m male today; now I’m female; oh wait, Barbie, I’m Ken [whatever gender he is]; and now??? I’m a banana). As you say it is completely based on the person’s opinion and you have to accept they are what the espouse they are at that moment. The fun part? They can change their mind at any point.

The problem is discrimination can be leveled at a company for ridiculous reasons. Just look at the thing in New York City where you can be fined for not using “ze” or “zir”. If it had passed I’m sure there would have been religious groups that have federal contracts that would be targets as discriminatory for not hiring a married homosexual, or a woman with a beard spilling over her breasts.

Lord, stop the world. The asylum inmates are running the rides and I’m ready to get off.


Whatever happened to the concept of giving the bid to contract to the lowest bidder?


So are people supposed to be mind readers in trying to figure out what the appropriate gender to refer to people as? :shrug:


When our church leaders oppose discrimination, they always make clear that they oppose UNJUST DISCRIMINATION, or at least they should. To discriminate means to discern a difference, and many discerned differences require us to choose differently. This is one more case of people manipulating the language to win an argument. See “gay”, “pro-choice”, “right”, and “freedom” under “the words mean whatever I want them to mean” section of their dictionaries.

It is not right to discriminate against someone for some things, and perfectly reasonable or even required for other things. A judge does not send an equal number of guilty and innocent people to jail in order to avoid discrimination against the guilty.


Well frankly, and I have sent a few messages to different people about this, that democracy. Its not negotiable. If you lose, you lose. All these democrats that are whining should get a job in Russia or another country if they want things their way. Seriously, Democrats take a good look at the clock because its time to stop!


Yes, though I have a problem with that bill. I identify as an AC-130 aircraft, wheres my bathroom? See how ridiculous this is?


This world has gone crazy.


Good one. But Humpty Dumpty beat them to it. “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”



Speaking of clocks, that is why they are upset. They weren’t “whining” about losing, they were angry because the GOP employed its usual underhanded dirty procedural blocks. The bill originally passed, there were more votes in favor and the clock on the vote ran out. But because the Republicans don’t know how to lose with grace, the person in the Speaker’s chair refused to gavel the vote like they are supposed to when the clock runs out on the vote, allowing other Republicans to strong-arm their Republican colleagues who originally voted for the measure into changing their votes.


How do you determine if homosexuals are being discriminated against ?


Pretty much. Heck even if they told you yesterday that they are opposite gender they could change their mind the next day and claim the opposite. Don’t know if a lawsuit would hold up, but doesn’t stop them from tying a defendant up in court.

The whole goal is normalization, not tolerance. If you don’t accept their delusions are fact (and celebrate it) then you must be crushed and pushed out of the public space.


You could do worse. If I self identify as Napoleon, do I get a throne?:slight_smile: Do I get an army and some cannons? Reality is relative and irrelevant. :shrug:


I am sorry to hear that.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit