Started By
Message
re: GA HB 757 - Should Deal sign it?
Posted on 3/29/16 at 11:08 am to DawgsLife
Posted on 3/29/16 at 11:08 am to DawgsLife
quote:
Instead in remained mum, content to allow the misconception many had about the bill to determine the outcome.
The media didn't remain mum, you just have to know where to look. Sure it didn't lead the WSB 6:00 news, but the AJC and Biz Chronicle did a good job of reporting on it, as did other local outlets.
Also, the media didn't get people stirred up. Special interest groups got upset and sent social media into a frenzy. It wan't until that happened that the main media outlets started reporting on it. This has been in the works since the original RFRA bill was being discussed.
1
Posted on 3/29/16 at 11:10 am to DawgsLife
quote:
By the way....here is an article talking about EXACTLY what we are fearing:
That's in the UK. They don't have the protections we do in our constitution and it likely won't stand there either.
Posted on 3/29/16 at 2:42 pm to RedPants
quote:
The media didn't remain mum, you just have to know where to look. Sure it didn't lead the WSB 6:00 news, but the AJC and Biz Chronicle did a good job of reporting on it, as did other local outlets.
Apparently they hid it well enough that most on here were under the impression the bill still contained clauses including businesses. So, the media did not do as good of a job dispelling this as they did reporting that it was a discriminatory bill.
Posted on 3/29/16 at 2:43 pm to RedPants
quote:
That's in the UK.
True. I'll go through and see where all it is happening.
I saw suits being brought in Australia, Germany and Denmark. is it really so far fetched that it won't happen here, too? or at least tried?
Here a couple of men have filed a complaint against a minister because eh would not marry them.
LINK /
It's not suing, but you can bet with it spreading across the world it will find it's way here. The ones in the UK, if you have time to read the article.....says that they are suing because there was no law providing pastors with protection against it, since the UK has legalized homosexual marriage.
This post was edited on 3/29/16 at 3:01 pm
Posted on 3/29/16 at 3:10 pm to DawgsLife
If the primary goal is to be married, I think they could find someone to do it with little effort. The fact that they bring suits means their primary goal is to make a statement.
Posted on 3/29/16 at 3:25 pm to Broncothor
quote:
If the primary goal is to be married, I think they could find someone to do it with little effort. The fact that they bring suits means their primary goal is to make a statement.
I totally agree. Same with the baker in Colorado. The couple could have gone to any number of other bakers to get their cake. Instead they decided to sue.
There's not an easy solution to any of this. I wish there was.
Posted on 4/2/16 at 9:19 am to fibonaccisquared
It sounds like what are saying is that those who were once in the closet are now pushing those who are religious in any way into the closet. Being religious means you are open about it and are willing to share with others about it. Our forefathers thought so much of that it was placed into the list of other great rights that we have and that should not be infringed upon.
This is by the way a far cry from racist hate as provided in your example. There are many ways people of religion could politely decline to do business with gay or transgender couples but then again they are placed in said closet and left feeling less of American than those who are running around hollaring for except acne and equality. In the eyes of equality a pastor should be able to say to any couple regardless of their sexuality because of my religious beliefs I can not be apart of your wedding but what we are seeing is the same example provided by way of race and that is forced inclusion and we see how well that is working out!
This is by the way a far cry from racist hate as provided in your example. There are many ways people of religion could politely decline to do business with gay or transgender couples but then again they are placed in said closet and left feeling less of American than those who are running around hollaring for except acne and equality. In the eyes of equality a pastor should be able to say to any couple regardless of their sexuality because of my religious beliefs I can not be apart of your wedding but what we are seeing is the same example provided by way of race and that is forced inclusion and we see how well that is working out!
Posted on 4/2/16 at 10:17 am to RocketDawg
This thread and the underlying cause has played itself out. As many have said, it's really not the right forum to even have the discussion. There's very little I can say that will change your mind and similarly, my stance is unlikely to change based on anything that you might share. I'll provide one last thought here and then you can do what you will with it.
In point of fact, that is simply what your specific religion asks of its followers. Some other religions do as well, but the idea that all religions and/or religious people are expected to openly share and try to "spread the gospel" is ignorant of many other faiths. Contrary to public opinion, there is no nationalized or state-wide religion, so expecting that all follow the same beliefs as Christians is walking around with blinders on.
Read back through this thread. I've literally copy/pasted verbatim what those protected "great rights" were specifically with regards to religion. They do *not* extend to the realms which you (and many others) seem to believe they do.
Are you allowed to politely decline to do business with African-Americans, Asians, or any other minority? Regardless of your (or my) personal opinion, the highest court in the land (granted that power by the same individuals that laid out those "great rights") ruled that 'separate but equal' is anything but.
Would need a translator for this one (acceptance autocorrected?)... again, no one is placing religious people into the closet. But your freedom to believe and/or practice the religion of your choosing doesn't extend so far as forcing your belief structure onto others either.
I've answered this at least 3 times in this thread at this point. There is a distinct difference between a pastor being forced to marry individuals (which I do not in any way agree with, given that it would literally have him violate his beliefs in 'validating' a ceremony which his faith doesn't recognize) and a non-clergy member being asked to treat all customers, employees, etc. the same unless otherwise provoked. Again, this has been discussed ad nauseum in this thread already.
If the bill had remained the PPA, I, nor likely any other sane and unbiased individual, would have had a problem with the bill. I would have been fine with it, even though I don't believe it would have been necessary, given that there hasn't been a case in Georgia that would have been answered by this bill and every single example that is pointed to exists in states where additional laws were put in place that tried to enumerate specific liberties and failed to do so effectively. The issue that most had with the bill was some of the vague language added to the bill in the final stages used as a vote grab by conservative republican congressional representatives. I've also specifically listed the troubling lines and it's been discussed in this thread as well.
It was a pretty long road to go from where we were in 1964 to where we are now. There's a long way further still left to go. It's difficult to eliminate bigotry, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be attempted.
Ultimately, we will likely have to agree to disagree here.
quote:
Being religious means you are open about it and are willing to share with others about it
In point of fact, that is simply what your specific religion asks of its followers. Some other religions do as well, but the idea that all religions and/or religious people are expected to openly share and try to "spread the gospel" is ignorant of many other faiths. Contrary to public opinion, there is no nationalized or state-wide religion, so expecting that all follow the same beliefs as Christians is walking around with blinders on.
quote:
It sounds like what are saying is that those who were once in the closet are now pushing those who are religious in any way into the closet
quote:
Our forefathers thought so much of that it was placed into the list of other great rights that we have and that should not be infringed upon.
Read back through this thread. I've literally copy/pasted verbatim what those protected "great rights" were specifically with regards to religion. They do *not* extend to the realms which you (and many others) seem to believe they do.
quote:
This is by the way a far cry from racist hate as provided in your example. There are many ways people of religion could politely decline to do business with gay or transgender couples
Are you allowed to politely decline to do business with African-Americans, Asians, or any other minority? Regardless of your (or my) personal opinion, the highest court in the land (granted that power by the same individuals that laid out those "great rights") ruled that 'separate but equal' is anything but.
quote:
they are placed in said closet and left feeling less of American than those who are running around hollaring for except acne and equality
Would need a translator for this one (acceptance autocorrected?)... again, no one is placing religious people into the closet. But your freedom to believe and/or practice the religion of your choosing doesn't extend so far as forcing your belief structure onto others either.
quote:
In the eyes of equality a pastor should be able to say to any couple regardless of their sexuality because of my religious beliefs I can not be apart of your wedding
I've answered this at least 3 times in this thread at this point. There is a distinct difference between a pastor being forced to marry individuals (which I do not in any way agree with, given that it would literally have him violate his beliefs in 'validating' a ceremony which his faith doesn't recognize) and a non-clergy member being asked to treat all customers, employees, etc. the same unless otherwise provoked. Again, this has been discussed ad nauseum in this thread already.
If the bill had remained the PPA, I, nor likely any other sane and unbiased individual, would have had a problem with the bill. I would have been fine with it, even though I don't believe it would have been necessary, given that there hasn't been a case in Georgia that would have been answered by this bill and every single example that is pointed to exists in states where additional laws were put in place that tried to enumerate specific liberties and failed to do so effectively. The issue that most had with the bill was some of the vague language added to the bill in the final stages used as a vote grab by conservative republican congressional representatives. I've also specifically listed the troubling lines and it's been discussed in this thread as well.
quote:
that is forced inclusion and we see how well that is working out
It was a pretty long road to go from where we were in 1964 to where we are now. There's a long way further still left to go. It's difficult to eliminate bigotry, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be attempted.
Ultimately, we will likely have to agree to disagree here.
Posted on 4/2/16 at 11:19 am to fibonaccisquared
quote:I'm not sure what you mean here as the constitution is said to be a living document and thus subject to change as we are currently experiencing first hand. Thirty years ago this thread would be non-existent due to beliefs on religion alone. Ultimately, throughout history society has had shifts from the leftist liberal side to the more righteous right, as it is, some or another in power seem to take more than they should which breeds hate and discontent.
Read back through this thread. I've literally copy/pasted verbatim what those protected "great rights" were specifically with regards to religion. They do *not* extend to the realms which you (and many others) seem to believe they do.
A fair and balanced approach should be common ground but neither side seems to be willing to accept it for what it is. On forced inclusion I am submitting to you that we are all biased in more ways than one. Example, your kids attend a "bad school" whatever that is to you so you move to a more favorable school all the while considering yourself to be a middle of the road kind of guy. This occurs daily in the good ole USA and if you can peel that onion, at its very core, you will find a racist overtone and now what we are seeing first hand are reverse discrimination claims. Those claims are being heard a ruled upon favorably in the courts.
Traditional black colleges are now having to offer scholarships to white students to diversify the student base. As I think you stated it is strong-willed opinions of many that will not change for anyone or anything. You profiled or assumed I was on the right because of the tone of my argument but fact it is I see wrong with both arguments.
On religion my point was whether directly/indirectly the consequences of making room for gay/transgender or any other non traditional marriage and requiring someone whom through their professed religion to hold and conduct such a ceremony will lead to many simply declining to conduct those ceremonies based on false conflicts. "Oh I'm sorry my schedule is full, I'm booked solid for the next year or some other excuse because they can not say I'm sorry I don't believe in the premise of your proposed marriage. We both know this will occur and does occur right now. This is being placed into the closet because said ministers will fear the legal consequences which is what the law was intended to do. That is not change the mindsets but change the response to such issues as this.
Page 10 of 10
Latest Georgia News
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News