A House panel on Thursday advanced a bill that would allow any individual, business or organization to discriminate against someone for having sex outside of marriage.

The bill says state agencies cannot punish discrimination against anyone who is in a same-sex marriage, is transgender or has sex outside of wedlock.

The legislation advanced 13 to 7 along party lines in the GOP-controlled committee, except for Del. Joseph R. Yost (R-Giles), who voted no. The provision about sex outside of marriage was added to the bill minutes before lawmakers voted.

It is headed for likely passage by the full House next week; Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) has said he would veto the bill if it reaches his desk.

Supporters — including the bill’s sponsor, Del. C. Todd Gilbert (R-Shenandoah) — say the measure anticipates that people with religious convictions could be punished for those beliefs as acceptance of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals becomes the norm across the United States. Donors to nonprofit organizations such as Catholic Charities worry that their contributions may no longer be tax deductible or that a religious charity could lose a government grant, Gilbert said.

Virginia’s legislation was filed by Gilbert, the House deputy majority leader, after Speaker William J. Howell (R-Stafford) asked him to review what other states had done to protect what they call religious freedom.


It gets worse:

Gilbert said the bill is in keeping with “an age-old approach to public policy” in the tradition of Thomas Jefferson.

“I think people of faith feel the tide turning so strongly that all they’re looking for is some reasonable accommodation, because they view that there is this secular church, if you will, that’s trying to impose its belief system upon everybody else,” he said. “As in, ‘You agree with all this or else.’ ”

In the “tradition of Thomas Jefferson?”  Should we all buy a slave and have sex with him or her?  Good grief.  I sure wouldn’t be dragging Jefferson into the mix.  What secular church (oxymoron??) is trying to impose beliefs on other people?  I see people who have different life styles just trying to exercise  the same rights  everyone else does.  They want to live and let live.

Then there are the people who have had sex outside of marriage–do the Virginia Republicans not understand that this is the norm?    Let’s take a poll at the General Assembly….(watch the legislators begin to scramble…)

What the hell is the matter with the Virginia Republican legislators?  Are they sick or just paranoid?  Who is going to punish them?  Perhaps they should be “punished.”  Discrimination is illegal.  No one gives a rat’s ass what someone believes.  Believe away and shut up about it.  We care how you behave.   You cannot discriminate against people because they don’t have sex the way you think they should.

The entire LGBT issue is one thing.  It’s ugly and discrimination there invites lawsuits left and right.  However, the little kicker in there about “sex outside of wedlock” is absurd and pretty much opens up the right to discrimination against 95% of the people in Virginia.   The Virginia Republicans are trying to legalize discrimination.   Make no mistake about it.

Just how do the Republicans plan on determining who has or hasn’t had sex outside of marriage?  Are they going to install sex detectors in our homes?  Are they going to attempt to fire people or  break legal contracts?  How is this legalized discrimination going to work?  I want to know the means of detection.

Will I have to forfeit my VRS check because I have had sex outside of marriage?  Will I be stoned to death?   Is there a time frame here?   Is there a statute of limitations?

How about people who aren’t married and never plan to marry.? Does that mean that they are forbidden to have sex unless they want to invite discrimination?  What are Virginia Republicans thinking!

I am about as outraged over this bill as I have ever been over anything.  Virginia Republicans need to mind their own …pardon the pun…effing business.  I decide who, what, when, and where and no one else.  I am old enough to sleep with whomever I want without permission from the state of Virginia.

If this bill passes the General Assembly, I will never vote Republican again, for any reason.  Every freedom loving Virginian should find this interference in personal liberty to be totally unacceptable and wrong on so many levels.

When will some people learn that its OK  to have beliefs for yourself.  It’s not ok to impose those beliefs on everyone else. It certainly isn’t ok to discriminate against people who believe differently than you do.  Why should we even be having this conversation in the year 2016?

Obviously Virginia is not for lovers.  It’s not for lovers of liberty either.  The Virginia Taliban has moved it and set up shop.

Further reading:  Washington Post:    Religious freedom or license to discriminate?

10 Thoughts to “General Assembly: Virginia is NOT for Lovers”

  1. Scout

    Stupid beyond all belief. Sometimes one just wants to go drink a big bowl of Nepenthe.

    1. What are they thinking? The last time I looked at the post it had changed from unmarried sex to extra marital sex. It doesn’t matter. Its no one’s business and discrimination is illegal.

      For the record, I am all in favor of a bill that would protect ministers, rabbis, priests etc from having to marry anyone they didn’t feel should be married. That’s different from state expectations.

  2. Scout

    We don’t need legislation to protect clerics. That’s constitutionally protected. There has never been an instance in the history of this country under the Constitution where a priest has been forced by the Government to perform a heretical religious rite. He/She can always just say no and that no is protected by the First Amendment. Religious marriage has never been at issue in the debate over same-sex marriage. Only civil status.

  3. Starryflights

    Good to hear that the governor will veto it

  4. Starryflights

    I also believe that the republicans engineered this bill to influence the March 1 republican primary. I can see Cruz coming here to speak in favor of this bill.

    1. That is so lame! How many people seriously want to be ALLOWED to discriminate against people who have sex outside of marriage. Most people don’t go around making announcements anyway.

      Is it really going to be an election issue? Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

  5. Steve Thomas

    The bill will go nowhere. If the intent is to protect clergy for refusing to officiate a same-sex marriage, or a baker who refuses to make a wedding cake, this is a clumsy way to go about it.

    Still, there has been little accommodation to address these concerns since gay marriage was made legal here, and the LGBT advocates continue to push…especially the “T” part of the crowd. With all the pushing, it shouldn’t be a surprise when rhe other side pushes back.

    1. I haven’t felt any pushing at all. Where are they pushing? Help me out here. Is this about bathrooms at schools?

      I am not sure what “the other side” even is. I am most offended by the who is having sex with whom part. Unless they are in the median strip on my street, I really don’t much care, as long as my 5 senses don’t have to come into contact with it.

  6. punchak

    Is this TRUE ?
    Get the government out of our lives – isn’t that with Rep. war cry?

  7. @punchak

    Apparently. I left the link from the Washington Post.

Comments are closed.