Georgia Governor kills Religious Freedom Bill

[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.

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

Yet as we are seeing, it seems that the First Amendment is being severely limited these days. Apparently, the free exercise of religion is subordinate to all other rights granted us and can (at least for now) only apply to worship services, private prayer and professional clergy.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

Is this a problem?

You think it isn't? Or couldn't be? You can read amazing worst case scenarios into non-existent wording but you can't see this as a potential problem?

[icanthearyou 4,463]

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.

I agree. And, that is why I would question the motives without having examined the details.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

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

We don't need laws permitting such discrimination.

We agree. Which is what's great about the bill that was passed. It did no such thing. It simply acknowledged and specified that the free exercise of religion is just as primary a right as any other and that said free exercise isn't limited to private prayers and worship services.

[homersapien 11,374]

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.

So is the right to choose who you do business with limited to religions?

[homersapien 11,374]

Is this a problem?

You think it isn't? Or couldn't be? You can read amazing worst case scenarios into non-existent wording but you can't see this as a potential problem?

I don't think we need to legislate against such "potential" civil problems

[TitanTiger 20,482]

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.

So is the right to choose who you do business with limited to religions?

To some extent and within certain parameters, yes. That's what the 1st Amendment guarantees us - that we can exercise our religion freely without the government coercing or forcing us to violate the tenets of it.

Is there some reason you seem particularly eager to force people to violate their beliefs or be run from the public square?

[AUDub 11,148]

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.

And a short stay by a couple "living in sin" doesn't apply to that definition of event, how? I think you're drawing the line too arbitrarily.

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

Yes, I believe it does.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

Is this a problem?

You think it isn't? Or couldn't be? You can read amazing worst case scenarios into non-existent wording but you can't see this as a potential problem?

I don't think we need to legislate against such "potential" civil problems

And I don't think we need to flip out over vague "potential" civil problems that aren't in the proposed legislation to begin with. This is not some broadbrush bill that will do anything close to the bogeyman disasters being attributed to 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?

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?

It's unnecessary.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

And a short stay by a couple "living in sin" doesn't apply to that definition of event, how? I think you're drawing the line too arbitrarily.

And I think you're stretching the meaning of the word "event" beyond any logical or reasonable meaning.

Yes, I believe it does.

It's so funny to me how many times these discussions come up and when a person sees a potential religious discrimination problem, it's pooh-poohed as "slippery slope" and scaremongering. But the second something crosses a sacred cow on your side of things, all manner of fantastical problems are as bright and clear as the noonday sun to you.

[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?

It's unnecessary.

When people and organizations are being sued for these very things around the country, it is obvious it's quite necessary.

[homersapien 11,374]

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.

So is the right to choose who you do business with limited to religions?

To some extent and within certain parameters, yes. That's what the 1st Amendment guarantees us - that we can exercise our religion freely without the government coercing or forcing us to violate the tenets of it.

Is there some reason you seem particularly eager to force people to violate their beliefs or be run from the public square?

False premise

Is there some resin you seem particularly eager to use your religious beliefs to discriminate?

[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.

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

It's unnecessary.

When people and organizations are being sued for these very things around the country, it is obvious it's quite necessary.

BS. As long as a church establishes their policy and makes it known, they will be fine against such a suit, assuming it's truly a religious matter instead of common commerce.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

What's amazing to me is just how "not vague" the bill actually is. The specific ways it defined the rights here were quite well crafted. For instance:

- It isn't a blanket exemption for regular businesses to refuse service.

- It limits the exemption to having to host such events on one's property or to being forced to attend such an event. That's a very carefully crafted wording that treats those who would have to be present at a ceremony or event that violates their beliefs differently from just someone that sells stuff to the public.

- It specifically mentions "events", which rules out discriminating against just associating with people or people being at your property.

I mean, to read the stories about this bill I expected some hamfisted crap bill. Then I read it and realized this was the biggest mountain being made of a molehill I've seen in a while. It's as if someone was purposely misrepresenting the bill for underhanded reasons or something.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

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.

So is the right to choose who you do business with limited to religions?

To some extent and within certain parameters, yes. That's what the 1st Amendment guarantees us - that we can exercise our religion freely without the government coercing or forcing us to violate the tenets of it.

Is there some reason you seem particularly eager to force people to violate their beliefs or be run from the public square?

False premise

Is there some resin you seem particularly eager to use your religious beliefs to discriminate?

I don't seek to discriminate against anyone, but there are limits to what my beliefs will allow me to substantially participate in or facilitate. I can love prostitutes, strippers, and porn stars yet not be willing to host or facilitate what they do. I can love people who have sex outside of marriage or have open marriages, but not be willing to host a swingers gathering at my retreat facility. If that's "discrimination" in your mind, then I would suggest you not use the term so loosely.

[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.

So is the right to choose who you do business with limited to religions?

I do not understand. Are you attempting to create a paradox?

Do religions operate as businesses?

How has a business limited who it is doing business with?

Are the businesses accepting government funding?

Not trying to be smart, maybe dumb. I just don't get it. Help me!

[icanthearyou 4,463]

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?

Is that really practical? Could legislation be crafted so meticulously? We can do away with the judicial branch?

May be a good idea, the implication of fewer lawyers.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

Is that really practical? Could legislation be crafted so meticulously? We can do away with the judicial branch?

May be a good idea, the implication of fewer lawyers.

I don't know that you can do it all the time, but where there seems to be substantial confusion over the parameters of certain rights vs others, we can at least try.

[telling tiger 156]

Good for the governor.....

His statement about the veto.

http://gov.georgia.gov/press-releases/2016-03-28/transcript-deal-hb-757-remarks-0

[homersapien 11,374]

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.

So is the right to choose who you do business with limited to religions?

To some extent and within certain parameters, yes. That's what the 1st Amendment guarantees us - that we can exercise our religion freely without the government coercing or forcing us to violate the tenets of it.

Is there some reason you seem particularly eager to force people to violate their beliefs or be run from the public square?

False premise

Is there some resin you seem particularly eager to use your religious beliefs to discriminate? :rolleyes:/>

I don't seek to discriminate against anyone, but there are limits to what my beliefs will allow me to substantially participate in or facilitate. I can love prostitutes, strippers, and porn stars yet not be willing to host or facilitate what they do. I can love people who have sex outside of marriage or have open marriages, but not be willing to host a swingers gathering at my retreat facility. If that's "discrimination" in your mind, then I would suggest you not use the term so loosely.

I would suggest you not use the terms "force" and "violate" so loosely.

[homersapien 11,374]

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.

So is the right to choose who you do business with limited to religions?

I do not understand. Are you attempting to create a paradox?

Do religions operate as businesses?

How has a business limited who it is doing business with?

Are the businesses accepting government funding?

O

Not trying to be smart, maybe dumb. I dox don't get it. Help me!

Just pointing out the paradoxical irony of bemoaning the influence of businesses in this matter.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

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.

So is the right to choose who you do business with limited to religions?

To some extent and within certain parameters, yes. That's what the 1st Amendment guarantees us - that we can exercise our religion freely without the government coercing or forcing us to violate the tenets of it.

Is there some reason you seem particularly eager to force people to violate their beliefs or be run from the public square?

False premise

Is there some resin you seem particularly eager to use your religious beliefs to discriminate? :rolleyes:/>

I don't seek to discriminate against anyone, but there are limits to what my beliefs will allow me to substantially participate in or facilitate. I can love prostitutes, strippers, and porn stars yet not be willing to host or facilitate what they do. I can love people who have sex outside of marriage or have open marriages, but not be willing to host a swingers gathering at my retreat facility. If that's "discrimination" in your mind, then I would suggest you not use the term so loosely.

I would suggest you not use the terms "force" and "violate" so loosely.

If you demand that I host or attend such events or be fined, jailed or have to close down, that's a perfectly reasonable use of the term "forced." If you prefer "coerced", so be it.

If you think that providing one's property or services to facilitate activities which run contrary to my religious beliefs isn't violating them, I would suggest you don't understand the time "to violate." If that's not violating, the term has virtually no meaning at all.

[homersapien 11,374]

Good for the governor.....

His statement about the veto.

http://gov.georgia.gov/press-releases/2016-03-28/transcript-deal-hb-757-remarks-0

VERY well stated. Covered all my points.

[AUDub 11,148]

- It isn't a blanket exemption for regular businesses to refuse service.

- It limits the exemption to having to host such events on one's property or to being forced to attend such an event. That's a very carefully crafted wording that treats those who would have to be present at a ceremony or event that violates their beliefs differently from just someone that sells stuff to the public.

- It specifically mentions "events", which rules out discriminating against just associating with people or people being at your property.

I would direct your attention to line 91 here