Started By
Message
re: GA HB 757 - Should Deal sign it?
Posted on 3/29/16 at 1:50 am to DawgNation4
Posted on 3/29/16 at 1:50 am to DawgNation4
quote:
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?
As a ploy to sue for money when they do not placate you or your lifestyle.
0
Posted on 3/29/16 at 6:56 am to RedPants
quote:
Nobody has forced a pastor to do this, and nobody will, at least in Georgia.
And you based this on what?
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. That version of the bill had zero opposition.
You are not reading any posts other than yours, are you? And you, apparently haven't read the bill. S1C 'EM has already posted that he went through the bill, and all language pertaining to private businesses was removed.
Posted on 3/29/16 at 7:08 am to fibonaccisquared
quote:
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.
Understood and I agree with your assessment. but do you really believe a judge would find for any case that would allow discrimination?
quote:
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,
And yet that very thing has already happened, hasn't it? I mean this bill was supposed to protect another case like the one in Colorado that forced the baker to provide service? Mind you.....I don't necessarily agree with the baker in that instance, but in light of what happened, what Deal said is silly.
Posted on 3/29/16 at 7:14 am to fibonaccisquared
quote:
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.
Do you believe our country and laws are moving toward a theocratical bent or away?
I mean, most legislation being brought forth today are aimed at expanding gay rights and protecting against any kind of discrimination, not the opposite. To say it doesn't impact you but it might is not really honest. And keep in mind...the bill was to protect the rights of pastors and clergy, NOT to impinge on the rights of gays. I would like to see them remake the bill to specifically and clearly spell out the protections of churches and clergy, but we all know politics will not allow that. The politicians just can't do anything simply. They have to add stuff on to all bills so they can look like they are doing something.
Posted on 3/29/16 at 7:36 am to fibonaccisquared
quote:
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.
Okay, I see what you mean. Though looking at that, only line 11 would appear to be an issue.
quote:
to protect certain providers of services against infringement of religious freedom
That single line is problematic because it doesn't define "certain providers". Had that simply remained "faith-based organizations" as it was defined elsewhere in the bill, would you have been okay with it?
quote:
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
I agree there's nothing on the books to force anyone to offer a good or service they don't want to, but the suit of the bakers in Washington pretty much set the nasty precedent that led to this whole thing. This bill would never have been an issue if that couple had simply moved on to a baker who had no qualms with their request. Instead, they sued and put those people out of business. That never should have happened.
Posted on 3/29/16 at 7:45 am to DawgsLife
quote:
And keep in mind...the bill was to protect the rights of pastors and clergy, NOT to impinge on the rights of gays. I would like to see them remake the bill to specifically and clearly spell out the protections of churches and clergy, but we all know politics will not allow that.
By the way, it isn't just presiding over marriage ceremonies that's an issue for pastors. It's also the utilization of church property for events that are not in accordance with the faith. For example, a church that rents out its sanctuary or fellowship hall for wedding ceremonies where that church's pastor is not involved. The church as a whole is still not going to be okay with giving their facilities over to use for purposes that are in conflict with their beliefs. My guess is, that's where this will start. A church somewhere is going to be compelled to rent their facilities for a gay wedding and it's going to roll downhill from there.
Just because something hasn't happened before doesn't mean that we can't look at all the signs and see what's coming next.
For the record, I asked about the language in the bill because I was considering how to defend the veto to some of the more over-the-top Christians I know, but now I'm not sure there is a good defense for it. One vague line in the bill, I get it. But based on the article I linked earlier, it doesn't seem like that was even the issue from the viewpoint of the gay community.
Posted on 3/29/16 at 7:53 am to S1C EM
quote:
if that couple had simply moved on to a baker who had no qualms with their request. Instead, they sued and put those people out of business. That never should have happened
And that is precisely why the bill should have passed. This thing has been out there for months...and no one said shite about it until a week ago. This is to "protect" businesses from silly arse lawsuits.
This post was edited on 3/29/16 at 8:37 am
Posted on 3/29/16 at 9:30 am to fibonaccisquared
quote:
In general, I believe it's the vague wording of lines 8-19 that seems to be causing the most trouble.
Exactly right.
Posted on 3/29/16 at 9:37 am to RedPants
quote:
Exactly right.
Line 11 is the only issue, which could have been an easy fix. What else do you think you're seeing?
The bottom line is this went into a big uproar over the bill allowing private businesses to discriminate when, in fact, no such language exists. Line 11 is the only questionable line in the entire thing and even it does not specifically state what several of you have claimed it did. Otherwise, it still represents most of what it was when it was the PPA that everyone says they had no issue with.
What I think I see here is a lot of people who ASSUMED that, based on things they heard, there was something in this bill that actually wasn't.
This post was edited on 3/29/16 at 9:44 am
Posted on 3/29/16 at 9:38 am to S1C EM
quote:
By the way, it isn't just presiding over marriage ceremonies that's an issue for pastors. It's also the utilization of church property for events that are not in accordance with the faith. For example, a church that rents out its sanctuary or fellowship hall for wedding ceremonies where that church's pastor is not involved. The church as a whole is still not going to be okay with giving their facilities over to use for purposes that are in conflict with their beliefs. My guess is, that's where this will start. A church somewhere is going to be compelled to rent their facilities for a gay wedding and it's going to roll downhill from there.
I am aware. the church I go to allows school groups, football teams and others come in an use our facilities. That being the case, we were very concerned that a LGBT group could come in and demand they use our facilities for a rally or meetings to promote the lifestyle. Many on here will say that would never happen, but we have seen time and time again where some groups have gone to an organization just to push a point, or set up a law suit.
quote:
Just because something hasn't happened before doesn't mean that we can't look at all the signs and see what's coming next.
Exactly. At one time nobody had sued a bakery for refusing to bake a cake. And, as you pointed out, they could simply have gone on to another, more sympathetic bakery....instead they sued with the intent to punish them for not bowing to their demands.
We, as Christians, to a certain degree, have ourselves to blame for elevating one sin over another. We find some sins palatable while demonizing other sins, while God finds ALL sins equally repulsive.
Posted on 3/29/16 at 9:41 am to S1C EM
quote:
The bottom line is this went from a big uproar over the bill allowing private businesses to discriminate when, in fact, no such language exists.
Both sides....liberals and conservatives tend to twist and change meanings to make their veiw point more acceptable or someone else's viewpoint look bad or worse than it is. It is one reason I dislike politics so much, but it is not limited to politics, unfortunately.
Posted on 3/29/16 at 9:42 am to S1C EM
quote:+
What I think I see here is a lot of people who ASSUMED that, based on things they heard, there was something in this bill that actually wasn't.
We, as a nation have become lazy. We accept what we hear or are told as fact, instead of checking into what is truth.
Posted on 3/29/16 at 9:48 am to DawgsLife
You're right. I think opponents thought the bill said something it did not and I think the supporters thought the same thing. That's a problem in itself.
Like I said, based on what everyone here was saying it would allow, I was okay with it being vetoed. However, the basis for my thought on it (as I see now) was not rooted in fact.
People need to start reading stuff before they presume to know what it says, myself included.
Like I said, based on what everyone here was saying it would allow, I was okay with it being vetoed. However, the basis for my thought on it (as I see now) was not rooted in fact.
People need to start reading stuff before they presume to know what it says, myself included.
Posted on 3/29/16 at 10:10 am to S1C EM
The "vague language" some seem to be concerned about is in the "preamble" to the bill, and not an actual part of the "law" contained in the bill. I have no idea where everyone got the notion that this bill had anything to do with private business. The only thing this bill did was to protect religious organizations, which are clearly defined, from suits brought by persons who might be denied services because of practices not in concert with a church's beliefs. I would be willing to bet a cup of coffee that there will be such a suit filed before the end of the week.
Posted on 3/29/16 at 10:11 am to S1C EM
quote:
Line 11 is the only issue, which could have been an easy fix. What else do you think you're seeing?
Line 11 was vague enough to get a lot of groups riled up in to a frenzy. By the time the majority of the discriminatory language had been taken out, the damage had been done. the reputation of the bill had been set in stone and the optics of passing something that even hinted at allowing discrimination would have done serious damage to Georgia's reputation.
Gov. Deal's speech yesterday gave a very good outline of why this bill was pointless according to Georgia's current laws. Signing a bill in to law that basically accomplished noting other than appeasing certain representatives constituents wasn't worth losing billions of dollars.
Posted on 3/29/16 at 10:12 am to S1C EM
quote:
People need to start reading stuff before they presume to know what it says, myself included.
Don't misunderstand. I am guilty of doing the same. We all complain about the media, then we trust them to be giving us the true facts. A Long, long time ago, it was the news organizations job to report the facts. Today, the news is brought to us with a slant to what the reporter wants us to believe. It's no longer about reporting facts, it is about forming policy by swaying public opinion to a certain point of view.
Posted on 3/29/16 at 10:46 am to RedPants
quote:
Line 11 was vague enough to get a lot of groups riled up in to a frenzy.
I understand. I just think that one line out of the entire thing is really splitting hairs. I don't get why that couldn't have been altered before it ever went to a vote. I did not go through all of the other versions (you can find them here), but I'm curious about exactly how much language in any version leaned on the side of being discriminatory.
quote:
By the time the majority of the discriminatory language had been taken out, the damage had been done. the reputation of the bill had been set in stone and the optics of passing something that even hinted at allowing discrimination would have done serious damage to Georgia's reputation.
I get it. And if what was said above about the preamble is true, that makes even more sense. I'm curious, though....if this bill were to be re-presented minus line 11, would it get passed?
I do feel that we're at a point in time where pastors have a right to be concerned about the implication of lawsuits being filed against people like the bakery because churches/pastors offer more than just wedding ceremonies. They offer facilities as well and it's only a matter of time before a gay couple approaches a church with their own "minister" and wants to rent the church grounds for their wedding. As unlikely as you may think it is, I believe this is coming and most pastors are legitimately concerned about it.
Posted on 3/29/16 at 10:54 am to Kundawg
quote:
The "vague language" some seem to be concerned about is in the "preamble" to the bill, and not an actual part of the "law" contained in the bill. I have no idea where everyone got the notion that this bill had anything to do with private business. The only thing this bill did was to protect religious organizations, which are clearly defined, from suits brought by persons who might be denied services because of practices not in concert with a church's beliefs. I would be willing to bet a cup of coffee that there will be such a suit filed before the end of the week.
Because we are being spoon fed by a media with an agenda and believe what they are telling us.
Consider this...we had people that was voting on the Affordable care Act that admitted later they had not even read the bill. What does that tell you?
Posted on 3/29/16 at 10:56 am to RedPants
quote:
Line 11 was vague enough to get a lot of groups riled up in to a frenzy. By the time the majority of the discriminatory language had been taken out, the damage had been done.
I understand and I agree with your assessment. But what should be troubling is this...the media, which got everybody stirred up about this should have come out and said that the vague language had been taken out. Instead in remained mum, content to allow the misconception many had about the bill to determine the outcome.
Posted on 3/29/16 at 11:07 am to DawgsLife
By the way....here is an article talking about EXACTLY what we are fearing:
LINK
A gay couple suing to force a minister to wed them.
Millionaire gay couple the Drewitt-Barlows have confirmed they have launched a legal challenge to the right of churches to opt out of gay weddings.
In fresh comments published by the Chelmsford Weekly News in the U.K. today, Barrie Drewitt-Barlow said legal action had started.
“We’ve launched a challenge to the government’s decision to allow some religious groups to opt out of marrying same-sex couples," he said.
LINK
A gay couple suing to force a minister to wed them.
Millionaire gay couple the Drewitt-Barlows have confirmed they have launched a legal challenge to the right of churches to opt out of gay weddings.
In fresh comments published by the Chelmsford Weekly News in the U.K. today, Barrie Drewitt-Barlow said legal action had started.
“We’ve launched a challenge to the government’s decision to allow some religious groups to opt out of marrying same-sex couples," he said.
Page 9 of 10
Latest Georgia News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News