Started By
Message
re: GA HB 757 - Should Deal sign it?
Posted on 3/27/16 at 6:01 am to djsdawg
Posted on 3/27/16 at 6:01 am to djsdawg
quote:
Old Testament context as in very different societal norms of the time. You make it seem like almost everything in it can be rationalized by "context" but the gay stuff.
Not at all. The Bible speaks very openly and candidly about adultery, stealing, lying, covetousness and whole multitude of sins, just like it does homosexual acts. In those verses it is addressing a specific, willful act.
However, when Timothy was speaking about the women, the story revolves around a specific church and situation.
quote:
The Corinthian one seems to put gay acts on the same level as drinking and cheating among other things, so that's not a very meaningful one for anyone to use today unless they want to judge the drinkers and cheaters the same way, and we know that they don't generally speaking.
You are correct. And that is what we have been saying. Christians fail, too, when addressing homosexual acts. They give it a stronger condemnation than other sins, when ALL sin is wrong in God's eyes. And it should be equally wrong in a Christians eyes. Sin is an ugly, ugly thing whether it is lying, cheating, drunkenness, drugs, murder or homosexual acts.
quote:
The Romans one seems to be talking about folks being turned gay as some sort of punishment from God, which again doesn't seem all that meaningful in application to today's world.
Actually....when it says, "God gave them over to...."
it means He gave up on them. The people were practicing homosexuality, adultery, they were doing sex acts in the pagan temples,etc.
Understand, Go doesn't cause anyone to sin. he gave us free will to make our own decisions. We can live for Him, or we can go through life doing our own thing. but there are rewards and punishments for all decisions we make in life.
When you say they are not appplicable in today's world you are assuming that these things are not sins anymore, when in fact, that is the whole point. Drunkeness, homosexual acts, cheating, lying are all sins in God's eyes yesterday.. Today. And they will be tomorrow. Just because you have some Christians that want to elevate one sin over another does not make it so.
You have to separate what man (Many Christians) says from what God says. being a Christian isn't about doing what other Christians, or preachers say to do. It is about a personal relationship with Christ and following Him. Doing what HE says.
I realize we will probably never see eye to eye on this subject, but I hope I helped you to see where I stand, and hopefully how I believe God sees it. It's not that homosexuals are any more or less sinful than the rest of us. But they are living in sin, just like we are, and we can't condone that behavior any more than we can condone a man that beats his wife, or lies, or cheats.
This post was edited on 3/27/16 at 6:04 am
1
Posted on 3/27/16 at 8:13 pm to DawgsLife
this thread tl;dr
do we really need another fricking social issue law on the books?
Has there been a case yet anywhere in which a church was successfully prosecuted/sued for not marrying a gay couple?
do we really need another fricking social issue law on the books?
Has there been a case yet anywhere in which a church was successfully prosecuted/sued for not marrying a gay couple?
Posted on 3/28/16 at 6:13 am to JacketFan77
quote:
do we really need another fricking social issue law on the books?
If it were gay rights you wouldn't have a problem with it, though, would you?
quote:
Has there been a case yet anywhere in which a church was successfully prosecuted/sued for not marrying a gay couple?
Not yet. Should we wait until it happens? If you can't see where it is heading in that direction it is because you are not looking. Not long ago there had never been a case of a bakery being sued because they refused to make a cake for a gay wedding based upon religious beliefs. Now there has been. I am sure this law stems at least partially from that.
Posted on 3/28/16 at 9:14 am to DawgsLife
Deal just announced he will veto it. I just watched it via live stream so I dont have a link yet. Will update post when I find one.
ETA: LINK
ETA: LINK
quote:
"Their efforts to purge this bill of any possibility that it would allow or encourage discrimination illustrates how difficult it is to legislate something that is best left to the broad protections of the First Amendment," he said.
This post was edited on 3/28/16 at 9:21 am
Posted on 3/28/16 at 9:17 am to 3rddownonthe8
Posted on 3/28/16 at 9:31 am to GhostofCrowell
Amen
This post was edited on 3/28/16 at 9:35 am
Posted on 3/28/16 at 9:36 am to LewDawg
way to go Deal 
Posted on 3/28/16 at 10:50 am to GhostofCrowell
Deal did something good
That comment section though
That comment section though
Posted on 3/28/16 at 11:07 am to dawgfan24348
About time we had a governor worth a damn...
Posted on 3/28/16 at 11:08 am to dawgfan24348
quote:
BIO 101
The internal anal sphincter (an involuntary muscle) does not look favorably upon foreign objects attempting to enter the rectum. This muscle relaxes during defecation, but remains in a contracted state otherwise, which seals the anal opening.
Homosexuality is not natural!!!!!
Posted on 3/28/16 at 11:17 am to IT_Dawg
Best one I've seen was this
quote:
This is just sad, Jesus is rolling in his grave
Posted on 3/28/16 at 11:31 am to fibonaccisquared
quote:
The thing that keeps getting lost in all this is: None of these verses indicate that people should treat them any differently. Simply that they will be judged *by God* accordingly. "Judge not lest ye be judged"... Isn't that a thing? There's likely not one person who can look at the "sin of homosexuality" and cast a stone without raining down stones upon their own glass houses. Isn't that the entire point of the bible? That we're all sinners and that Jesus supposedly died for those sins so that we may be forgiven?
I don't see a similar outrage about fornicators or adulterers for example, so forgive me if I call bull shite on the current subject as anything more than selective bigotry. Protecting pastors, I'm good with. Protecting sinners who find another sin worse than their own, not so much. It's failing to even acknowledge what their own religious tenet preaches.
I have no idea how the thread continued after this post. It should have been a /thread moment.
Posted on 3/28/16 at 12:12 pm to RedPants
There is a big difference in outlawing something you don't believe in, versus forcing people to perform a ceremony that is against their beliefs. Even if you think being gay is a sin, live and let live and don't judge. But don't force a religious authority figure to perform a marriage ceremony that is in direct conflict with his/her beliefs. Just fine another person to perform the ceremony who doesn't mind.
Posted on 3/28/16 at 12:16 pm to Broncothor
quote:
Even if you think being gay is a sin, live and let live and don't judge. But don't force a religious authority figure to perform a marriage ceremony that is in direct conflict with his/her beliefs. Just fine another person to perform the ceremony who doesn't mind.
Nobody has forced a pastor to do this, and nobody will, at least in Georgia.
I'll say it again, this bill started as just the Pastor Protection Act that would have protected any minister or clergy that refused to perform a gay marriage ceremony. You can blame the senators who tacked on all the RFRA and FADA language that extended the bill to businesses and allowed for discrimination. It is 100% their fault that the PPA didn't become law in its original form. That version of the bill had zero opposition.
Posted on 3/28/16 at 6:51 pm to RedPants
quote:
I'll say it again, this bill started as just the Pastor Protection Act that would have protected any minister or clergy that refused to perform a gay marriage ceremony. You can blame the senators who tacked on all the RFRA and FADA language that extended the bill to businesses and allowed for discrimination. It is 100% their fault that the PPA didn't become law in its original form.
I have a legit question about this bill now. I just read through the original version (pretty simply drafted for protection of pastoral rights regarding marriage ceremonies) and then the final version. In the final version, I was unable to locate any language that allowed private businesses to refuse services to homosexuals. All sections seemed to specifically state that they applied to "faith-based organizaions" and gave a list of what that entailed (none of which was a private entity). I even found an article against the bill that stated that the private business portion had been removed. So what am I missing?
LINK
quote:
While the bill has changed significantly from when it was first introduced (it no longer allows private, for-profit businesses like restaurants and hotels to deny service to LGBTQ people)
Honest question since I keep seeing that "no one opposed" the bill as a pastor protection act. I'm fine with the veto, I'm just curious about this line of reasoning since it doesn't appear to be accurate.
This post was edited on 3/28/16 at 6:52 pm
Posted on 3/28/16 at 8:35 pm to dawgfan24348
quote:
This is just sad, Jesus is rolling in his grave
This legit just made me spit take. Right after easter... I feel like it had to be someone trolling.
Posted on 3/28/16 at 9:06 pm to S1C EM
LINK
In general, I believe it's the vague wording of lines 8-19 that seems to be causing the most trouble. Vaguely worded laws are incredibly dangerous. It leaves them up to the interpretation of the first few legal cases that cite them, and correspondingly the judge who handles the case.
Deal's comments should really be sufficient to satisfy most everyone though. LINK
Essentially, he says that there are no laws in place that *would* force a baker, or an adoption agency, or anyone else to provide service, so this bill would not accomplish anything that isn't already protected based on 1st amendment rights so there is no need for a law that was put together haphazardly to open the door and provide an enumerated legal foothold for outright discrimination. Today wasn't even about taking a step forward... rather not taking a giant leap back. You can still be fired in GA for religious views, sexual orientation, etc.
In general, I believe it's the vague wording of lines 8-19 that seems to be causing the most trouble. Vaguely worded laws are incredibly dangerous. It leaves them up to the interpretation of the first few legal cases that cite them, and correspondingly the judge who handles the case.
Deal's comments should really be sufficient to satisfy most everyone though. LINK
Essentially, he says that there are no laws in place that *would* force a baker, or an adoption agency, or anyone else to provide service, so this bill would not accomplish anything that isn't already protected based on 1st amendment rights so there is no need for a law that was put together haphazardly to open the door and provide an enumerated legal foothold for outright discrimination. Today wasn't even about taking a step forward... rather not taking a giant leap back. You can still be fired in GA for religious views, sexual orientation, etc.
Posted on 3/28/16 at 11:51 pm to fibonaccisquared
If a religion told you that the way you are living is wrong and not in accordance with a lifestyle it would condone...why would you want to engage with it anyway?
Posted on 3/29/16 at 12:07 am to DawgNation4
Not really sure how to respond to this. HB757 doesn't impact me at a personal level as I'm not the individual that's being targeted. It doesn't mean that at some point it couldn't be used as such since everyone is a sinner and who knows what the next sin de rigueur will be. It also hasn't been my experience that it's even that common. But that doesn't mean making a law expressly allowing bigoted behavior is the right direction for the state. If you actually care, read back through the thread and you'll find plenty of actual discussion here from people who opposed 757. And many who support it who can actually concede that there are some fundamental flaws with the concept... even if that doesn't change their opinion that they support the core aim. It's a divisive issue, one that an internet forum with no tone or context is likely to sway someone's opinion.
Posted on 3/29/16 at 1:49 am to PNW
quote:
About time we had a governor worth a damn...
Really? Who is it? Because Deal certainly ain't.
Page 8 of 10
Latest Georgia News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News