Georgia Governor kills Religious Freedom Bill

[TitanTiger 20,482]

Not aggravated aujeff, just thankful to our Georgia Governor that along with the SEC, NCAA, NFL, NBA, MLB, might just be accepting, non-judgmental citizens who reject any kind of discrimination. All good.

I think you not only misunderstand what the free exercise of religion is, but what discrimination is as well.

[MDM4AU 332]

Really? This bill certainly gives the right for business owners that receive government support in the way of fire/police protection from ALL tax payers to be allowed to deny services to anyone. So if my religion follows the new testament teachings literally and not with selective interpretation that benefits my beliefs, then as in Leviticus I can deny serving a woman with braided hair or a women that wears a hat or gold jewelry? ...smh.

Just an FYI...many churches follow a strict New Testament teaching and Leviticas isn't in the New Testament.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

Really? This bill certainly gives the right for business owners that receive government support in the way of fire/police protection from ALL tax payers to be allowed to deny services to anyone. So if my religion follows the new testament teachings literally and not with selective interpretation that benefits my beliefs, then as in Leviticus I can deny serving a woman with braided hair or a women that wears a hat or gold jewelry? ...smh.

Just an FYI...many churches follow a strict New Testament teaching and Leviticas isn't in the New Testament.

It's a favorite tactic to completely ignore any New Testament teaching or historic church teaching on the ways in which the Law was fulfilled or superceded to claim some sort of hypocrisy by Christians. Not that Christians aren't sometimes hypocrites. But this Leviticus maneuver isn't a way to prove it.

[homersapien 11,374]

What would be refreshing is if people would start using some common sense. There is a big difference between a pastor performing a wedding for a same sex couple and a pastor allowing a homosexual to eat at his/her church's soup kitchen. Why not make the law specific enough so that no one's right get violated?

FOGET THE REST. THANKS FOR POSTING IT TITAN. I do not have access to the actual bill at my current location. If anyone has the time/desire/ability to post the specifics of the bill it might help us know if the bill was actually discriminatory or not.

Since when are pastors required to perform weddings or anything else for anyone?

[homersapien 11,374]

How is this different from allowing Sharia law?

[AUDub 11,149]

Eh. No sane person thinks such an thing would constitute an "event." It's not vague, it's being twisted into something it's not to foment opposition to it.

Would you consider a 1-2 week stay in a shelter by, for instance, an unwed couple, an event?

I don't think you'd let a Christian group claiming potential discrimination against them get away with hysteria on such flimsy grounds.

I'm not saying they would do it. Only that the language of the bill legally allows them to do so.

[homersapien 11,374]

Really? This bill certainly gives the right for business owners that receive government support in the way of fire/police protection from ALL tax payers to be allowed to deny services to anyone. So if my religion follows the new testament teachings literally and not with selective interpretation that benefits my beliefs, then as in Leviticus I can deny serving a woman with braided hair or a women that wears a hat or gold jewelry? ...smh.

Exactly

[MDM4AU 332]

Pope Francis follows a strict interpretation of the New Testament. Just sayin'...

[homersapien 11,374]

• 
  "33 no faith based organization shall be required to hire or retain as an employee any person
  
• 
  134 whose religious beliefs or practices or lack of either are not in accord with the faith based
  
• 
  135 organization's sincerely held religious belief as demonstrated by practice, exp<b></b>ression, or
  
• 
  136 clearly articulated tenet of faith."
  
• 
  
• 
  So as a business owner that receives tax payer government support, as the bill reads, I can fire or hire based on Leviticus' beliefs that include women with braided hair, gold jewelry, tattoos, that are divorced or have ever touched a pigskin or eaten shellfish. Got it.
  

So a convent can be forced to hire a Satan-worshipping convicted rapist. Got it.

So you think that is the target of this law?

[TitanTiger 20,482]

Eh. No sane person thinks such an thing would constitute an "event." It's not vague, it's being twisted into something it's not to foment opposition to it.

Would you consider a 1-2 week stay in a shelter by, for instance, an unwed couple, an event?

No. And neither would any court of law. An event is exactly what it sounds like: a party, a ceremony, a meeting, etc. It's intended to prevent churches and religious organizations from being forced to rent out their facilities for events that violate their beliefs.

I'm not saying they would do it. Only that the language of the bill legally allows them to do so.

No it doesn't. And I don't think if the situation were reversed you'd see it that way.

[Grumps 3,704]

• 
  "33 no faith based organization shall be required to hire or retain as an employee any person
  
• 
  134 whose religious beliefs or practices or lack of either are not in accord with the faith based
  
• 
  135 organization's sincerely held religious belief as demonstrated by practice, exp<b></b>ression, or
  
• 
  136 clearly articulated tenet of faith."
  
• 
  
• 
  So as a business owner that receives tax payer government support, as the bill reads, I can fire or hire based on Leviticus' beliefs that include women with braided hair, gold jewelry, tattoos, that are divorced or have ever touched a pigskin or eaten shellfish. Got it.
  

So a convent can be forced to hire a Satan-worshipping convicted rapist. Got it.

So you think that is the target of this law?

Of course not. My scenario is intended to be as ridiculous as Bunkey's, just on the opposite side. But I apologize for distracting from the point of the thread. This is a very important issue.

[homersapien 11,374]

Really? This bill certainly gives the right for business owners that receive government support in the way of fire/police protection from ALL tax payers to be allowed to deny services to anyone. So if my religion follows the new testament teachings literally and not with selective interpretation that benefits my beliefs, then as in Leviticus I can deny serving a woman with braided hair or a women that wears a hat or gold jewelry? ...smh.

Just an FYI...many churches follow a strict New Testament teaching and Leviticas isn't in the New Testament.

It's a favorite tactic to completely ignore any New Testament teaching or historic church teaching on the ways in which the Law was fulfilled or superceded to claim some sort of hypocrisy by Christians. Not that Christians aren't sometimes hypocrites. But this Leviticus maneuver isn't a way to prove it.

"Tactic?" Looked more like an example to me.

One that illustrates the problem with such a law.

[Grumps 3,704]

What would be refreshing is if people would start using some common sense. There is a big difference between a pastor performing a wedding for a same sex couple and a pastor allowing a homosexual to eat at his/her church's soup kitchen. Why not make the law specific enough so that no one's right get violated?

FOGET THE REST. THANKS FOR POSTING IT TITAN. I do not have access to the actual bill at my current location. If anyone has the time/desire/ability to post the specifics of the bill it might help us know if the bill was actually discriminatory or not.

Since when are pastors required to perform weddings or anything else for anyone?

I may be mistaken, but I think that the point of the bill was, among other things, to prevent pastors from being required to perform services that are in violation of their deeply held religious beliefs.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

Really? This bill certainly gives the right for business owners that receive government support in the way of fire/police protection from ALL tax payers to be allowed to deny services to anyone. So if my religion follows the new testament teachings literally and not with selective interpretation that benefits my beliefs, then as in Leviticus I can deny serving a woman with braided hair or a women that wears a hat or gold jewelry? ...smh.

Just an FYI...many churches follow a strict New Testament teaching and Leviticas isn't in the New Testament.

It's a favorite tactic to completely ignore any New Testament teaching or historic church teaching on the ways in which the Law was fulfilled or superceded to claim some sort of hypocrisy by Christians. Not that Christians aren't sometimes hypocrites. But this Leviticus maneuver isn't a way to prove it.

"Tactic?" Looked more like an example to me.

One that illustrates the problem with such a law.

It's a tactic. And one that shows a complete ignorance of Christian teaching.

There is no problem with the law. A religious organization has every right to employ people who conform to their religious practices, be they Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Christian, etc. They should not be forced to employ people who openly live in ways that defy the very purpose of the group.

What exactly do you think the free exercise of religion is supposed to be?

[homersapien 11,374]

• 
  "33 no faith based organization shall be required to hire or retain as an employee any person
  
• 
  134 whose religious beliefs or practices or lack of either are not in accord with the faith based
  
• 
  135 organization's sincerely held religious belief as demonstrated by practice, exp<b></b>ression, or
  
• 
  136 clearly articulated tenet of faith."
  
• 
  
• 
  So as a business owner that receives tax payer government support, as the bill reads, I can fire or hire based on Leviticus' beliefs that include women with braided hair, gold jewelry, tattoos, that are divorced or have ever touched a pigskin or eaten shellfish. Got it.
  

So a convent can be forced to hire a Satan-worshipping convicted rapist. Got it.

So you think that is the target of this law?

Of course not. My scenario is intended to be as ridiculous as Bunkey's, just on the opposite side. But I apologize for distracting from the point of the thread. This is a very important issue.

So why didn't they just specify gays do you suppose?

[Grumps 3,704]

How is this different from allowing Sharia law?

I don't think it is different from allowing Sharia law. Sharia law is allowed in this country up to the point where it infringes upon someone else's rights. Muslims practice Sharia law in their homes all over the U.S. They are free to do so.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

What would be refreshing is if people would start using some common sense. There is a big difference between a pastor performing a wedding for a same sex couple and a pastor allowing a homosexual to eat at his/her church's soup kitchen. Why not make the law specific enough so that no one's right get violated?

FOGET THE REST. THANKS FOR POSTING IT TITAN. I do not have access to the actual bill at my current location. If anyone has the time/desire/ability to post the specifics of the bill it might help us know if the bill was actually discriminatory or not.

Since when are pastors required to perform weddings or anything else for anyone?

I may be mistaken, but I think that the point of the bill was, among other things, to prevent pastors from being required to perform services that are in violation of their deeply held religious beliefs.

That was one purpose. It was also to prevent churches and religious organizations from being forced to make their facilities available to events that violate their beliefs. So for instance, if a religiously-affiliated organization happened to own an meeting hall, they couldn't be forced to rent it out to an adult filmmakers convention, a same-sex wedding or a NARAL rally.

[Grumps 3,704]

• 
  "33 no faith based organization shall be required to hire or retain as an employee any person
  
• 
  134 whose religious beliefs or practices or lack of either are not in accord with the faith based
  
• 
  135 organization's sincerely held religious belief as demonstrated by practice, exp<b></b>ression, or
  
• 
  136 clearly articulated tenet of faith."
  
• 
  
• 
  So as a business owner that receives tax payer government support, as the bill reads, I can fire or hire based on Leviticus' beliefs that include women with braided hair, gold jewelry, tattoos, that are divorced or have ever touched a pigskin or eaten shellfish. Got it.
  

So a convent can be forced to hire a Satan-worshipping convicted rapist. Got it.

So you think that is the target of this law?

Of course not. My scenario is intended to be as ridiculous as Bunkey's, just on the opposite side. But I apologize for distracting from the point of the thread. This is a very important issue.

So why didn't they just specify gays do you suppose?

I don't understand your question, but will be happy to answer it if you will clarify your meaning.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

• 
  "33 no faith based organization shall be required to hire or retain as an employee any person
  
• 
  134 whose religious beliefs or practices or lack of either are not in accord with the faith based
  
• 
  135 organization's sincerely held religious belief as demonstrated by practice, expression, or
  
• 
  136 clearly articulated tenet of faith."
  
• 
  
• 
  So as a business owner that receives tax payer government support, as the bill reads, I can fire or hire based on Leviticus' beliefs that include women with braided hair, gold jewelry, tattoos, that are divorced or have ever touched a pigskin or eaten shellfish. Got it.
  

So a convent can be forced to hire a Satan-worshipping convicted rapist. Got it.

So you think that is the target of this law?

Of course not. My scenario is intended to be as ridiculous as Bunkey's, just on the opposite side. But I apologize for distracting from the point of the thread. This is a very important issue.

So why didn't they just specify gays do you suppose?

Because gay weddings aren't the only possible event that such groups could find themselves being forced to accommodate?

[homersapien 11,374]

Really? This bill certainly gives the right for business owners that receive government support in the way of fire/police protection from ALL tax payers to be allowed to deny services to anyone. So if my religion follows the new testament teachings literally and not with selective interpretation that benefits my beliefs, then as in Leviticus I can deny serving a woman with braided hair or a women that wears a hat or gold jewelry? ...smh.

Just an FYI...many churches follow a strict New Testament teaching and Leviticas isn't in the New Testament.

It's a favorite tactic so completely ignore any New Testament teaching or historic church teaching on the ways in which the Law was fulfilled or superceded to claim some sort of hypocrisy by Christians. Not that Christians aren't sometimes hypocrites. But this Leviticus maneuver isn't a way to prove it.

"Tactic?" Looked more like an example to me.

One that illustrates the problem with such a law.

It's a tactic. And one that shows a complete ignorance of Christian teaching.

There is no problem with the law. A religious organization has every right to employ people who conform to their religious practices, be they Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Christian, etc. They should not be forced to employ people who openly live in ways that defy the very purpose of the group.

What exactly do you think the free exercise of religion is supposed to be?

It wasn't that long ago since racial discrimination was justified by religion.

We don't need laws permitting such discrimination.

[homersapien 11,374]

What would be refreshing is if people would start using some common sense. There is a big difference between a pastor performing a wedding for a same sex couple and a pastor allowing a homosexual to eat at his/her church's soup kitchen. Why not make the law specific enough so that no one's right get violated?

FOGET THE REST. THANKS FOR POSTING IT TITAN. I do not have access to the actual bill at my current location. If anyone has the time/desire/ability to post the specifics of the bill it might help us know if the bill was actually discriminatory or not.

Since when are pastors required to perform weddings or anything else for anyone?

I may be mistaken, but I think that the point of the bill was, among other things, to prevent pastors from being required to perform services that are in violation of their deeply held religious beliefs.

That was one purpose. It was also to prevent churches and religious organizations from being forced to make their facilities available to events that violate their beliefs. So for instance, if a religiously-affiliated organization happened to own an meeting hall, they couldn't be forced to rent it out to an adult filmmakers convention, a same-sex wedding or a NARAL rally.

So test your right in court like everyone else.

[AUDub 11,149]

What would be refreshing is if people would start using some common sense. There is a big difference between a pastor performing a wedding for a same sex couple and a pastor allowing a homosexual to eat at his/her church's soup kitchen. Why not make the law specific enough so that no one's right get violated?

FOGET THE REST. THANKS FOR POSTING IT TITAN. I do not have access to the actual bill at my current location. If anyone has the time/desire/ability to post the specifics of the bill it might help us know if the bill was actually discriminatory or not.

Since when are pastors required to perform weddings or anything else for anyone?

I may be mistaken, but I think that the point of the bill was, among other things, to prevent pastors from being required to perform services that are in violation of their deeply held religious beliefs.

Redundant. That's what the 1st amendment is for.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

What would be refreshing is if people would start using some common sense. There is a big difference between a pastor performing a wedding for a same sex couple and a pastor allowing a homosexual to eat at his/her church's soup kitchen. Why not make the law specific enough so that no one's right get violated?

FOGET THE REST. THANKS FOR POSTING IT TITAN. I do not have access to the actual bill at my current location. If anyone has the time/desire/ability to post the specifics of the bill it might help us know if the bill was actually discriminatory or not.

Since when are pastors required to perform weddings or anything else for anyone?

I may be mistaken, but I think that the point of the bill was, among other things, to prevent pastors from being required to perform services that are in violation of their deeply held religious beliefs.

That was one purpose. It was also to prevent churches and religious organizations from being forced to make their facilities available to events that violate their beliefs. So for instance, if a religiously-affiliated organization happened to own an meeting hall, they couldn't be forced to rent it out to an adult filmmakers convention, a same-sex wedding or a NARAL rally.

So test your right in court like everyone else.

Why should they have to only rely on judicial interpretation of current law? Why not spell it out legislatively?

[icanthearyou 4,463]

If anyone is going to use economic power in the effort to influence government policy or society, I would rather it be done in this manner as opposed to the outright buying of politicians.

Is this am unacceptable undermining of democracy and the electorate or, an acceptable admonishment?

I was thinking the same thing since my last post. At least the economic powers were transparent in their coercion of Georgia's government. It is truly fascinating and also scary that the governor would reject the wishes of the people of his state to pacify the people who control the money.

Scary in the sense that money can essentially override democracy. However, isn't it a feature of our form of democracy?

Perhaps my question is outside the theme of the discussion. My sincere question is only about whether or not this form of economic influence is acceptable. In my opinion, this should be the limit of economic power in politics. In other words, economic power should be limited to wielding it's power "economically". It should have no direct effect on, no direct contact with policy makers. Or, economic power may react to policy but, should never be allowed to influence the crafting of legislation or policy. Or, an individual or organization may exercise economic power only to the extent that there is no collusion with political power. Would it be an acceptable limitation? No PACs, no campaign contributions, no lobbyists. A separation of powers, if you will but, not necessarily a real limit. What do you think?

To answer Titan, no, I think we can examine the influence aside from the actual intentions of the proposed legislation.

[homersapien 11,374]

• 
  "33 no faith based organization shall be required to hire or retain as an employee any person
  
• 
  134 whose religious beliefs or practices or lack of either are not in accord with the faith based
  
• 
  135 organization's sincerely held religious belief as demonstrated by practice, exp<b></b>ression, or
  
• 
  136 clearly articulated tenet of faith."
  
• 
  
• 
  So as a business owner that receives tax payer government support, as the bill reads, I can fire or hire based on Leviticus' beliefs that include women with braided hair, gold jewelry, tattoos, that are divorced or have ever touched a pigskin or eaten shellfish. Got it.
  

So a convent can be forced to hire a Satan-worshipping convicted rapist. Got it.

So you think that is the target of this law?

Of course not. My scenario is intended to be as ridiculous as Bunkey's, just on the opposite side. But I apologize for distracting from the point of the thread. This is a very important issue.

So why didn't they just specify gays do you suppose?

Because gay weddings aren't the only possible event that such groups could find themselves being forced to accommodate?

Is this a problem?