Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Pastor Protection Bill -- NATIONALLY?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Pastor Protection Bill -- NATIONALLY?

    As many of you know, Texas has passed a Pastor Protection Bill relative to Religious Freedom. Following the SCOTUS rewrite of law, the House is considering a type of protection bill for Churches nationwide.

    Just days after the court’s ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges legalized gay marriage nationwide, Republicans in the House of Representatives introduced a bill that would ensure nobody could be discriminated against based on their views on gay marriage.

    Representative Raul Labrador (R-ID) introduced a bill, H.R. 2802 Labrador, to “prevent discriminatory treatment of any person on the basis of views held with respect to marriage.”

    The bill would protect the tax-exempt status of churches and organizations that believed in traditional marriage.

    It would strictly forbid any attempt to “alter in any way the Federal tax treatment of, or cause any tax, penalty, or payment to be assessed against, or deny, delay, or revoke an exemption from taxation under section 501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.”
    "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

  • #2
    Now the question is, will we get enough Congressmen willing to actually pass it. Hopefully there is a bit of courage left up on Capital Hill.
    "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." ― C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology (Making of Modern Theology)

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Jesse View Post
      Now the question is, will we get enough Congressmen willing to actually pass it. Hopefully there is a bit of courage left up on Capital Hill.
      It will be interesting to see, because when conservatives bring up the notion that there will be retribution, some of our more liberal posters say "oh, yeah, prove it!" They should gladly support this bill to shut us up.
      "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
        It will be interesting to see, because when conservatives bring up the notion that there will be retribution, some of our more liberal posters say "oh, yeah, prove it!" They should gladly support this bill to shut us up.
        I figured once same-sex marriage was passed that church's would need something like this in order to keep their free speech rights intact. It's odd something like this is even needed, but here we are...
        "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." ― C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology (Making of Modern Theology)

        Comment


        • #5
          Odd... yes. Surprising?... no.
          That's what
          - She

          Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
          - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

          I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
          Stephen R. Donaldson

          Comment


          • #6
            I wish the church here would have acted the same way.

            Problem is, the 2 "mainstream" churches here, the United Church and the Anglican, swept away their objections to ssm before it was legalized in this country.

            The other evangelical denominations apparently couldn't be bothered......or perhaps they believed the lie fed to us by the government when they legalized ssm.

            Who knows, didn't happen, and we fall deeper into the pit every day.


            Securely anchored to the Rock amid every storm of trial, testing or tribulation.

            Comment


            • #7
              The thing I like about the "clergy" law in Texas is that it also extends to JOP's who are pastors. if they disagree they don't have to provide the service. Basically its moral protection so that a person can't be sued. It makes Texas look tempting. Minus wierd critters.
              A happy family is but an earlier heaven.
              George Bernard Shaw

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Catholicity View Post
                The thing I like about the "clergy" law in Texas is that it also extends to JOP's who are pastors.
                We call them JPs, and if I remember the wording, it doesn't say that. I've slept several times since then, so maybe the final version is different than this?

                if they disagree they don't have to provide the service. Basically its moral protection so that a person can't be sued. It makes Texas look tempting. Minus wierd critters.
                I'm not sure how many JPs in texas are pastors - I know that less than 2% historically have been lawyers.
                "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by mossrose View Post
                  I wish the church here would have acted the same way.

                  Problem is, the 2 "mainstream" churches here, the United Church and the Anglican, swept away their objections to ssm before it was legalized in this country.

                  The other evangelical denominations apparently couldn't be bothered......or perhaps they believed the lie fed to us by the government when they legalized ssm.

                  Who knows, didn't happen, and we fall deeper into the pit every day.
                  And isn't this the biggest problem we have within the Body of Christ? We have become down right lazy where doing our job is concerned. We should have never allowed the State to take over marriage. Now look at the mess we find ourselves in. And of course for the activists, marriage isn't enough. I have always liked this quote from the movie Air Force One: "If you give a mouse a cookie, It's gonna want a glass of milk".
                  "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." ― C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology (Making of Modern Theology)

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    No but I would think if someone who was serving as a JP that was also an ordained minister or clergyman would be protected under the second section of the first paragraph where it reads
                    Source: Texas PPB

                    or a clergy or minister may not be required to
                    solemnize any marriage or provide services, accommodations,
                    facilities, goods, or privileges for a purpose related to the
                    solemnization, formation, or celebration of any marriage if the
                    action would cause the organization or individual to violate a
                    sincerely held religious belief.

                    © Copyright Original Source


                    You could in theory see an increase of JP's getting there online ordination......
                    A happy family is but an earlier heaven.
                    George Bernard Shaw

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                      It will be interesting to see, because when conservatives bring up the notion that there will be retribution, some of our more liberal posters say "oh, yeah, prove it!" They should gladly support this bill to shut us up.
                      "Should" being the significant word here. Since I believe the intention is exactly the opposite of the effect this bill would have, I anticipate all sorts of twisting and turning to avoid preventing retribution against churches.
                      Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                        As many of you know, Texas has passed a Pastor Protection Bill relative to Religious Freedom. Following the SCOTUS rewrite of law, the House is considering a type of protection bill for Churches nationwide.

                        Just days after the court’s ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges legalized gay marriage nationwide, Republicans in the House of Representatives introduced a bill that would ensure nobody could be discriminated against based on their views on gay marriage.

                        Representative Raul Labrador (R-ID) introduced a bill, H.R. 2802 Labrador, to “prevent discriminatory treatment of any person on the basis of views held with respect to marriage.”

                        The bill would protect the tax-exempt status of churches and organizations that believed in traditional marriage.

                        It would strictly forbid any attempt to “alter in any way the Federal tax treatment of, or cause any tax, penalty, or payment to be assessed against, or deny, delay, or revoke an exemption from taxation under section 501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.”
                        Weren't you vociferously arguing in the Texas thread that such a law was needed to protect the clergy and that we weren't talking about some broad protection for laypeople to discriminate? Wasn't the stated concern that the Texas bill was really just a front for legalizing discrimination outside of the confines of a religious institution?

                        Because HR 2802 is pretty clearly demonstrating that concern to have been prescient. Not that it will ever pass the House, let alone through Congress.
                        "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Sam View Post
                          Weren't you vociferously arguing
                          What's with the theatrics, Sam?

                          in the Texas thread that such a law was needed to protect the clergy and that we weren't talking about some broad protection for laypeople to discriminate?
                          I was pretty focused on the PASTORS and Churches, which is why I testified at both the Texas Senate and House hearings.

                          Wasn't the stated concern that the Texas bill was really just a front for legalizing discrimination outside of the confines of a religious institution?
                          Where are you going with this?

                          Because HR 2802 is pretty clearly demonstrating that concern to have been prescient. Not that it will ever pass the House, let alone through Congress.
                          That WHAT concern was present?

                          How bout starting again, please.
                          "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                            What's with the theatrics, Sam?



                            I was pretty focused on the PASTORS and Churches, which is why I testified at both the Texas Senate and House hearings.



                            Where are you going with this?

                            Because HR 2802 is pretty clearly demonstrating that concern to have been prescient. Not that it will ever pass the House, let alone through Congress.
                            [/QUOTE]

                            We are not talking about a pastor protection bill here. We're talking about a hyperbolic never-gonna-happen bill that allows any person to discriminate against another solely on the basis of their "religious or moral conviction" against same-sex (or unmarried) couples.

                            Clear violation of the 14th Amendment. Clearly not we're-just-protecting-our-religious-institutions. Clearly showing that the whole Texas deal was a feint.

                            Let's call it for what it was and is: an effort to allow anyone to discriminate at any time but only towards certain sets of people.
                            "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Sam View Post
                              We are not talking about a pastor protection bill here.
                              At the time I started the thread, I didn't have the text of the bill, so yes, that appears to be correct.

                              We're talking about a hyperbolic never-gonna-happen bill that allows any person to discriminate against another solely on the basis of their "religious or moral conviction" against same-sex (or unmarried) couples.
                              Meh.... I'm looking at the text of the bill, and it appears to attempt to clarify that the State's interest in prosecuting those who violate the newly created "fundamental right" of gay people to marry does not override an individual's First Amendment Protections.

                              Clear violation of the 14th Amendment. Clearly not we're-just-protecting-our-religious-institutions. Clearly showing that the whole Texas deal was a feint.
                              Nope -- we had NOTHING to do with what is being attempted in Congress. ZERO.

                              Let's call it for what it was and is: an effort to allow anyone to discriminate at any time but only towards certain sets of people.
                              You can call it anything you want, Sam.
                              "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by Maranatha, Yesterday, 10:58 PM
                              5 responses
                              47 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post casaba
                              by casaba
                               
                              Started by rogue06, Yesterday, 03:56 PM
                              3 responses
                              31 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Ronson
                              by Ronson
                               
                              Started by seer, Yesterday, 11:32 AM
                              13 responses
                              79 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post seanD
                              by seanD
                               
                              Started by rogue06, Yesterday, 09:11 AM
                              1 response
                              32 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Sparko
                              by Sparko
                               
                              Started by rogue06, Yesterday, 07:28 AM
                              1 response
                              33 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post Ronson
                              by Ronson
                               
                              Working...
                              X