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

  • #16
    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    At the time I started the thread, I didn't have the text of the bill, so yes, that appears to be correct.



    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.



    Nope -- we had NOTHING to do with what is being attempted in Congress. ZERO.



    You can call it anything you want, Sam.

    Do you agree with the text of the bill, now having read it?

    Source: HR 2802, 114th

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Federal Government shall not take any discriminatory action against a person, wholly or partially on the basis that such person believes or acts in accordance with a religious belief or moral conviction that marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or that sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage.

    © Copyright Original Source



    That means there can be no lawsuits filed for an equal protection violation and that no federal employee could be reprimanded, disciplined, or terminated for discrimination against same-sex (or unmarried) couples.

    Don't you find that well beyond the scope of protection for clergy and religious organizations?
    "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


    • #17
      Originally posted by Sam View Post
      Do you agree with the text of the bill, now having read it?

      Source: HR 2802, 114th

      Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Federal Government shall not take any discriminatory action against a person, wholly or partially on the basis that such person believes or acts in accordance with a religious belief or moral conviction that marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or that sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage.

      © Copyright Original Source



      That means there can be no lawsuits filed for an equal protection violation and that no federal employee could be reprimanded, disciplined, or terminated for discrimination against same-sex (or unmarried) couples.

      Don't you find that well beyond the scope of protection for clergy and religious organizations?
      Perhaps you skimmed over the first five words of the part you quoted.
      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Jesse View Post
        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...
        Why is it really needed? Civil Servants have different obligation than Ministers, Priests and other clergy in religion. It is already true that under certain circumstances Clergy will at present and in the past will not perform certain marriages in their church. For example, in the Roman Church they will not perform a ceremony sanctioned by the Roman Church if certain obligations are not met, such as, both parties MUST consent to raise their children in the church, and both parties must be Baptized in the Roman Church or other acceptable Baptism. I believe some but not all priests will perform a secular unofficial ceremony.

        I believe the serious question is whether Civil Servants can be required to perform some civil marriages (ie gay marriages) against their religious convictions.

        If there is definitely a need for this I would support it. Since gay sexual intercourse is forbidden in Baha'i Spiritual Law, Baha'is will not perform Gay Baha'i marriages, but in letters from the Universal House of Justice over the years, the Baha'i Faith does not oppose equal rights, including civil marriages, under the Civil Law in the secular world. The Baha'i Faith does endorse the separation of religion and state, and the equal rights of all under Secular Law.
        Last edited by shunyadragon; 07-03-2015, 05:08 PM.
        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

        go with the flow the river knows . . .

        Frank

        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
          Why is it really needed?
          Are you just trolling here or are you serious? I am really finding it hard to believe that it is the latter.

          I'm always still in trouble again

          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
          "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
            Are you just trolling here or are you serious? I am really finding it hard to believe that it is the latter.
            It is a serious question and I gave grounds for the question. There are already instances that clergy at present will not perform sanctioned sacred marriages. Are they obligated under the present to perform marriages regardless of the circumstances under the present laws?

            Please respond to my post completely in a civil manner without name calling. Most of the time your are a reasonable guy. This must be hot button issue for you.
            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

            go with the flow the river knows . . .

            Frank

            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
              It is a serious question and I gave grounds for the question. There are already instances that clergy at present will not perform sanctioned sacred marriages. Are they obligated under the present to perform marriages regardless of the circumstances under the present laws?
              Not under present laws. Things are subject to change without notice. The Mayor of Houston, however, was not allowed to subpoena the sermons and materials of five Texas pastors, either, but that didn't stop her.
              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                Why is it really needed? Civil Servants have different obligation than Ministers, Priests and other clergy in religion. It is already true that under certain circumstances Clergy will at present and in the past will not perform certain marriages in their church. For example, in the Roman Church they will not perform a ceremony sanctioned by the Roman Church if certain obligations are not met, such as, both parties MUST consent to raise their children in the church, and both parties must be Baptized in the Roman Church or other acceptable Baptism. I believe some but not all priests will perform a secular unofficial ceremony.

                I believe the serious question is whether Civil Servants can be required to perform some civil marriages (ie gay marriages) against their religious convictions.

                If there is definitely a need for this I would support it. Since gay sexual intercourse is forbidden in Baha'i Spiritual Law, Baha'is will not perform Gay Baha'i marriages, but in letters from the Universal House of Justice over the years, the Baha'i Faith does not oppose equal rights, including civil marriages, under the Civil Law in the secular world. The Baha'i Faith does endorse the separation of religion and state, and the equal rights of all under Secular Law.
                I am not sure how to respond to this. Are you telling me you really don't see the need for this protection? I am with Rogue in finding this difficult to believe.
                "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


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                  Perhaps you skimmed over the first five words of the part you quoted.
                  Wot?

                  "Notwithstanding any other ..." means "Regardless of whatever other parts of the law say ..."
                  "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


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Sam View Post
                    Wot?

                    "Notwithstanding any other ..." means "Regardless of whatever other parts of the law say ..."
                    Yes, perhaps I skimmed over the first five words!
                    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                      Yes, perhaps I skimmed over the first five words!
                      a

                      Sam, I shouldn't have been trying to handle this here, because my mind is here. I apologize.
                      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Sam View Post
                        Do you agree with the text of the bill, now having read it?

                        Source: HR 2802, 114th

                        Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Federal Government shall not take any discriminatory action against a person, wholly or partially on the basis that such person believes or acts in accordance with a religious belief or moral conviction that marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or that sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage.

                        © Copyright Original Source



                        That means there can be no lawsuits filed for an equal protection violation and that no federal employee could be reprimanded, disciplined, or terminated for discrimination against same-sex (or unmarried) couples.

                        Don't you find that well beyond the scope of protection for clergy and religious organizations?
                        I do.
                        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


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
                          "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.
                          Started right here in our own living room. I did not have to wait long.
                          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


                          • #28
                            The Republicans in the Virginia Legislature are trying to craft something similar, and the expected whining from the left has already made the paper...

                            Source: http://www.richmond.com/news/virginia/government-politics/article_66e4efdd-cfaa-539a-90d3-a21cb8db7bcc.html




                            Democratic lawmakers and gay rights advocates on Monday fired back at Republican leaders in the House of Delegates for wanting to make religious freedom legislation - which they see as discriminatory against same-sex couples - a top priority in the 2016 General Assembly session.

                            "While Virginia Democrats are focused on creating jobs, Republicans have admitted that their top legislative priority is discriminating against people," said Democratic Party of Virginia chairwoman Susan Swecker.

                            "Focusing on Indiana-style discrimination laws instead of growing our economy is irresponsible, dangerous and hopelessly out of touch."

                            © Copyright Original Source



                            I don't even know where to begin on this ridiculous statement...
                            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

                            Related Threads

                            Collapse

                            Topics Statistics Last Post
                            Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                            16 responses
                            180 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post One Bad Pig  
                            Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                            53 responses
                            416 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post Mountain Man  
                            Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                            25 responses
                            114 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post rogue06
                            by rogue06
                             
                            Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                            33 responses
                            198 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post Roy
                            by Roy
                             
                            Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                            85 responses
                            393 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                            Working...
                            X