Georgia Religious Liberty Bill

[fandandy 3,311]

Has anyone been following this? I read that Disney, Marvel, and the NFL are threatening to blacklist Georgia if the bill passes.

 

Thoughts?

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-georgia-religion-idUSKCN0WJ07E

 

 

A religious freedom bill described by opponents as being discriminatory against same-sex couples passed the Georgia state legislature on Wednesday night in an 11th-hour vote ahead of the session's close.

The legislation, dubbed the Religious Liberty Bill, still has to be signed by Georgia's Republican Governor Nathan Deal to become law. Deal has made clear that he will not sign a bill that allows discrimination, but his office did not immediately respond to request for comment on Wednesday night.

Similar bills in states like Indiana and Arkansas sparked storms of criticism last year, forcing many lawmakers to retreat from the provisions.

The Georgia bill, reworked several times by lawmakers amid criticism that earlier versions went too far, declares that no pastor can be forced to perform a same-sex wedding.

The bill also grants faith-based organizations – churches, religious schools or associations - the right to reject holding events for people or groups of whom they object. Faith-based groups also could not be forced to hire or retain an employee whose beliefs run counter to the organization's.

 

[Sho Nuff 720]

Umm...are pastors being for rced to do such things now?

The party of small government wants more ridiculous laws.

[rholio 339]

I'd be fine with all but the last sentence. Firing someone for their sexual orientation should be the same as firing someone for their sex, age, political party, religion, etc.

[hoytdwow 202]

Faith-based groups also could not be forced to hire or retain an employee whose beliefs run counter to the organization's.

 

I didn't really have a problem with it until this

[Mungwater 588]

I saw an article that the new Falcons stadium won't get a super bowl if this law is passed. How much money does super bowl week bring into the host cities? Couple billion?

[lickin_starfish 1,484]

I don't see a problem with it.

 

We have other exclusionary policies, such as minority scholarships, and not allowing me a free cell phone just because I'm a productive citizen.

[MDC 5,915]

I'd have to know what problem exactly this bill is intended to fix? Are pastors currently required to conduct marriage ceremonies they don't support? That's news to me.

[Mike Honcho 4,055]

I'd have to know what problem exactly this bill is intended to fix? Are pastors currently required to conduct marriage ceremonies they don't support? That's news to me.

 

Nope...you know as per the Constitution.

 

the rest of it is boilerplate pandering to right wing bigots with a law that that will waste millions of dollars in tax payer money as it's declared unconstitutional multiple times.

[KSB2424 3,085]

Yeah this seems unnecessary. At least that part in the OP.

[cyclone24 1,814]

Legislation like this just amazes me that religous folk think they are good people.

[kilroy69 1,010]

This is the bible belt pushing back against the rights of GLBTQ people. It was only a matter of time.

[KSB2424 3,085]

This "law" isn't needed because the first amendment already covers a pastor (religion) not being forced to oversee a wedding (the state). That is separation of church and state.

 

But

 

I don't get the last two posts tough.. Forcing a Priest to perform a same sex marriage is against the 1st Amendment. We should be accepting of the separation of church and state in that way. I didn't read anything in there about commerce (the wedding cake analogy). That's a different topic all together.

[RLLD 3,455]

Seems just mean spirited....

[KSB2424 3,085]

Seems just mean spirited....

 

It seems to me more of an over-reaction. It's an over-reaction to a legitimate concern that religious liberty may be infringed upon. I just don't think this law is needed, as it's already covered.

[MDC 5,915]

 

It seems to me more of an over-reaction. It's an over-reaction to a legitimate concern that religious liberty may be infringed upon. I just don't think this law is needed, as it's already covered.

My guess is they're trying to protect a religious person's right to outright tell a gay person they're rejecting his or her business on religious moral grounds, rather than just saying "Sorry, in booked" like a normally functioning grown up would do.

[KSB2424 3,085]

My guess is they're trying to protect a religious person's right to outright tell a gay person they're rejecting his or her business on religious moral grounds, rather than just saying "Sorry, in booked" like a normally functioning grown up would do.

 

I guess maybe. My opinion?

 

There has to be a separation between selling something (commerce) and forcing a person to participate in something that is against their religion.

 

For example:

 

A cake baker should just bake the damn ghey marriage wedding cake, and sell it to them. You are a business in commerce of a good. Sell the focking cake and then walk in the back and say a prayer for them or somethingif you must. That is not infringing on your religious liberty.

 

A wedding photographer. That person must actually attend, be a part of and document a ceremony that is against their religious principles. I think the 1st Amendment comes into play there and they should not be forced, against their will, to do that.

 

That's where I draw the line. I think you'll see the courts draw it in a similar fashion.

[kilroy69 1,010]

It is not going to matter. Deal is going to veto the bill.

[Sho Nuff 720]

 

I guess maybe. My opinion?

 

There has to be a separation between selling something (commerce) and forcing a person to participate in something that is against their religion.

 

For example:

 

A cake baker should just bake the damn ghey marriage wedding cake, and sell it to them. You are a business in commerce of a good. Sell the focking cake and then walk in the back and say a prayer for them or somethingif you must. That is not infringing on your religious liberty.

 

A wedding photographer. That person must actually attend, be a part of and document a ceremony that is against their religious principles. I think the 1st Amendment comes into play there and they should not be forced, against their will, to do that.

 

That's where I draw the line. I think you'll see the courts draw it in a similar fashion.

 

There is zero difference between the cake and the photographer.

There is nothing out there prohibiting Christians from taking pictures of things and ceremonies that they consider sinful. Its a copout for people saying they don't want to do something because they find it icky. Again, and adult would just say, sorry, Im booked that day.

 

Now I do agree that many go overboard in trying to get someone forced to do things...Id guess in this day and age its not hard to find plenty of cake people or photographers who are fine with gay marriage and all that. There is a bit of drama queen from both sides in where they want to put their foot down and make a spectacle of it all.

[KSB2424 3,085]

 

There is zero difference between the cake and the photographer.

There is nothing out there prohibiting Christians from taking pictures of things and ceremonies that they consider sinful. Its a copout for people saying they don't want to do something because they find it icky. Again, and adult would just say, sorry, Im booked that day.

 

Now I do agree that many go overboard in trying to get someone forced to do things...Id guess in this day and age its not hard to find plenty of cake people or photographers who are fine with gay marriage and all that. There is a bit of drama queen from both sides in where they want to put their foot down and make a spectacle of it all.

 

Sure there is a difference, one sells a product the other is a service where they are a part of the ceremony.

 

This would only come into play if a photographer was sued in court or was brought up on some sort of charges. This is how it would go down:

 

1. Ghey couple walks into wedding photographer

2. Photographer says they can't do it that day and are booked

3. Ghey couple doesn't believe them and instead of going down the road to find a new photographer sues or brings up some sort of charge of discrimination and it goes before a court.

 

I agree, people should just work it out naturally and be accepting of differences. The photographer should say they are booked and the ghey couple just get a new photographer. And we all move on happy. Which is what would prolly happen most of the time, but there is going to be that one time it doesn't. That's when the courts will have to step in and rule. And that's what I'm speaking about, when it gets to that point and where the courts will draw lines.

[Sho Nuff 720]

 

Sure there is a difference, one sells a product the other is a service where they are a part of the ceremony.

 

This would only come into play if a photographer was sued in court or was brought up on some sort of charges. This is how it would go down:

 

1. Ghey couple walks into wedding photographer

2. Photographer says they can't do it that day and are booked

3. Ghey couple doesn't believe them and instead of going down the road to find a new photographer sues or brings up some sort of charge of discrimination and it goes before a court.

 

I agree, people should just work it out naturally and be accepting of differences. The photographer should say they are booked and the ghey couple just get a new photographer. And we all move on happy. Which is what would prolly happen most of the time, but there is going to be that one time it doesn't. That's when the courts will have to step in and rule. And that's what I'm speaking about, when it gets to that point and where the courts will draw lines.

 

A photographer is no more part of the ceremony than the florist or person who made the cake.

They are all hired to perform a service or provide a product (cake, pictures, flowers).

Nor is taking pictures of a ceremony or even being at the ceremony a sin. At least not in any passage I have seen.

[hoytdwow 202]

I have little use for the fundies, but It boggles the mind as to why someone would want to force someone to be their wedding photographer/baker/florist. I mean, just move on to another vendor for chrissakes.

[KSB2424 3,085]

 

A photographer is no more part of the ceremony than the florist or person who made the cake.

 

 

I just wanted to quote this before you changed it.

 

Because it's retarded. Surely one can differentiate between selling a good in a store and providing a service (i.e. attending and being a part of) a ceremony. You may disagree that the latter is against the 1st Amendment but to say there is no difference between the two is mind boggling stupid.

[Sho Nuff 720]

I have little use for the fundies, but It boggles the mind as to why someone would want to force someone to be their wedding photographer/baker/florist. I mean, just move on to another vendor for chrissakes.

 

That I agree with. Though, I think the issue is less about that, and more about where the line will be drawn on when people are allowed to say no to providing products or services.

[drobeski 3,061]

Should a gay couple have a right to sue a pastor who refuses to marry them ?

 

Maybe this law is aimed at preventing such a lawsuit ?

[KSB2424 3,085]

Should a gay couple have a right to sue a pastor who refuses to marry them ?

 

Maybe this law is aimed at preventing such a lawsuit ?

 

No they should not and any court 'should' strike that down based on the 1st Amendment. Which is why this particular law seems redundant.

[MDC 5,915]

 

I guess maybe. My opinion?

 

There has to be a separation between selling something (commerce) and forcing a person to participate in something that is against their religion.

 

For example:

 

A cake baker should just bake the damn ghey marriage wedding cake, and sell it to them. You are a business in commerce of a good. Sell the focking cake and then walk in the back and say a prayer for them or somethingif you must. That is not infringing on your religious liberty.

 

A wedding photographer. That person must actually attend, be a part of and document a ceremony that is against their religious principles. I think the 1st Amendment comes into play there and they should not be forced, against their will, to do that.

 

That's where I draw the line. I think you'll see the courts draw it in a similar fashion.

 

I don't really see the distinction between selling a product and offering a service to the public. In either case the vendor should not be allowed to refuse service on the basis of gender, race, sexual orientation etc.

 

And like I said, if the photographer doesn't like it he or she can just claim to be booked. It would be nearly impossible for the customer to prove otherwise. The only valid reason I see for this law is for the photographer / baker to openly tell a potential customer they're refusing service on the basis of sexual orientation. Do we really need a law to allow people to be openly bigoted?

 

I wish folks would just grow up and deal with things like adults.

[Sho Nuff 720]

 

I just wanted to quote this before you changed it.

 

Because it's retarded. Surely one can differentiate between selling a good in a store and providing a service (i.e. attending and being a part of) a ceremony. You may disagree that the latter is against the 1st Amendment but to say there is no difference between the two is mind boggling stupid.

 

The photographer is not "part" of the ceremony.

They are at the ceremony and take pictures. They do not take part in the freaking ceremony...so before you whine about what is retarded...stop saying such stupid things.

[Sho Nuff 720]

Should a gay couple have a right to sue a pastor who refuses to marry them ?

 

Maybe this law is aimed at preventing such a lawsuit ?

 

So we need another law to clarify the 1st amendment?

Has any pastor been forced to marry someone?

[KSB2424 3,085]

 

 

And like I said, if the photographer doesn't like it he or she can just claim to be booked. It would be nearly impossible for the customer to prove otherwise. The only valid reason I see for this law is for the photographer / baker to openly tell a potential customer they're refusing service on the basis of sexual orientation. Do we really need a law to allow people to be openly bigoted?

 

I wish folks would just grow up and deal with things like adults.

 

I spoke about this already. I agree! And in 90+ percent of the times both parties would.

 

But what we're talking about is what happens when they don't and the ghey couple sues the photographer or tries to bring them up on charges of discrimination. And the courts are forced to step in and apply the law - constitution.

[hoytdwow 202]

Should a gay couple have a right to sue a pastor who refuses to marry them ?

 

Maybe this law is aimed at preventing such a lawsuit ?

Wouldn't one have to sue the church, not the pastor, as the church would set the policy? Conversely, if a church approved of such marriages and a pastor refused to do it, he/she would be disciplined by the church, no need for lawsuit?

[crackattack 513]

If you are not a religious organization, and provide a service to the general public, then you can not discriminate based on race, age, etc etc. A mom and pop photography shop or cake shop are not religious institutes. This isn't difficult. Joe Schmo's bakery open to the public can't discriminate based on religion. A photographer at a gay wedding can take pictures and then say a prayer for the "sinners" after their work is done, just the same as a cake maker.

[KSB2424 3,085]

If you are not a religious organization, and provide a service to the general public, then you can not discriminate based on race, age, etc etc. A mom and pop photography shop or cake shop are not religious institutes. This isn't difficult. Joe Schmo's bakery open to the public can't discriminate based on religion. A photographer at a gay wedding can take pictures and then say a prayer for the "sinners" after their work is done, just the same as a cake maker.

 

I appreciate your opinion, but I don't think it's as cut and dry and you want it to be. The courts would have to balance the rights of two parties. Of which both have legal rights. Again I appreciate your opinion but I am going guess you'd be wrong if it ever came to the courts. I think they would differentiate between...... as another example:

 

A restaurant serving anyone (black, white, ghey, straight, old, young) who comes and dines in their establishment versus a restaurant asked to cater an event (attend and be a part of) that of which the event can be argued is against their religion. Those are two different things.

 

That's what courts do, they apply the law-constitution to draw these lines. My opinion is they would draw that difference.

[MDC 5,915]

 

I spoke about this already. I agree! And in 90+ percent of the times both parties would.

 

But what we're talking about is what happens when they don't and the ghey couple sues the photographer or tries to bring them up on charges of discrimination. And the courts are forced to step in and apply the law - constitution.

 

I would be interested to know 1) if this has ever happened, 2) if the baker / photographer outright told the potential client they were declining his / her business because of sexual orientation and 3) if not #2, what the outcome of the court case was.

 

Since it would be nearly impossible to prove bias or discrimination if the baker / photographer didn't explicitly make it clear that's why he/she refused business, maybe those people should learn to STFU instead of crying for laws to defend their right to be openly bigoted? Either that or, I don't know, just do their freaking job like everybody else on earth?

 

I don't like or approve of plenty of people I've had to work with. I guess my dislike isn't valid though because it's not based on my selective interpretation of a magic book written about the sky fairy.

[Sho Nuff 720]

 

I appreciate your opinion, but I don't think it's as cut and dry and you want it to be. The courts would have to balance the rights of two parties. Of which both have legal rights. Again I appreciate your opinion but I am going guess you'd be wrong if it ever came to the courts. I think they would differentiate between...... as another example:

 

A restaurant serving anyone (black, white, ghey, straight, old, young) who comes and dines in their establishment versus a restaurant asked to cater an event (attend and be a part of) that of which the event can be argued is against their religion. Those are two different things.

 

That's what courts do, they apply the law-constitution to draw these lines. My opinion is they would draw that difference.

 

Caterers too are now part of the event?

BTW...where in the bible is providing food to sinners now against Christianity?

[Hardcore troubadour 12,767]

imagine nobody got a lawyer if they sued each other? You just show up and state your case? The judge does all the questioning? Like Judge Judy, but a jury decides?

[hoytdwow 202]

 

BTW...where in the bible is providing food to sinners now against Christianity?

There is nowhere in the New Testament that says anything concrete about homosexuality; only things that require subjective, interpretive work to get to gheyness.

 

Now, the Old Testament has some stuff, but it's full of the crazy anyway (rape, incest, slavery, etc), so not sure it's a good source to go by.

[crackattack 513]

 

I appreciate your opinion, but I don't think it's as cut and dry and you want it to be. The courts would have to balance the rights of two parties. Of which both have legal rights. Again I appreciate your opinion but I am going guess you'd be wrong if it ever came to the courts. I think they would differentiate between...... as another example:

 

A restaurant serving anyone (black, white, ghey, straight, old, young) who comes and dines in their establishment versus a restaurant asked to cater an event (attend and be a part of) that of which the event can be argued is against their religion. Those are two different things.

 

That's what courts do, they apply the law-constitution to draw these lines. My opinion is they would draw that difference.

And it's entirely possible I could be wrong if the courts decide otherwise. I just don't see a difference. Just my opinion, but a service provided to the public is just that. To me, and again my opinion, where that service is provided shouldn't be relevant.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,767]

 

Caterers too are now part of the event?

BTW...where in the bible is providing food to sinners now against Christianity?

Why are you singling out christianity?

[KSB2424 3,085]

 

Caterers too are now part of the event?

BTW...where in the bible is providing food to sinners now against Christianity?

 

Yes anyone hired to actually stand there and take pictures or serve food or preside over a wedding are physically present and part of the event. Why are we even arguing this? It's retarded.

 

Now if you want to argue doing so is not a violation of the 1st Amendment fine, that can be argued. But you're going down some dumb rabbit hole trying to say a person who is in attendance of a ceremony is the EXACT SAME THING as a person who sells a product in their own store. It's not the same thing, there is an obvious difference. The most glaring is the fact they are actually physically in attendance.

 

Sheesh.

[Sho Nuff 720]

Why are you singling out christianity?

 

Because, to this point, Christians are the people bringing up such things and laws...or getting arrested for not issuing marriage licenses.