Discussion in 'Local News and Events' started by Madea, Mar 28, 2016.
No surprise. He says he doesn't take too kindly to threats. I wonder if he realizes they couldn't care less how "kindly" he takes to them, just as long as he bows to them.
The RFRA is still the law of the land in all 50 states.
Georgia was simply reaffirming a right that already exists under federal law...
I had not dug into the particulars of this. All my gay friends were vehemently opposed to it, but I wondered if the bill was made out to be worse than it really was?
Heard one dude....I'm guessing it was a dude on the radio saying if he had signed the bill it would encourage discrimination. He then added that since he vetoed the bill, discrimination would continue. That should teach our RINOs that your damned if you do and are damned if you don't. They never seem to learn that lesson. You NEVER make these people happy unless you die.
So let me get this straight......Our governor gave in to pressure from people NOT of this state and thumbed his nose at the wishes of the people FROM this state? Ok.
I read the whole bill. I still think it is good.
The answer is yes... and I say this as someone who has been
personally discriminated against by faith based organizations.
Example, one pastor was quoted as saying there are hundreds of reasons for him to deny officiating over a wedding, but only one that he will get sued over.
Yea, this is what i don't understand. The Govt will always marry you, why try to force someone to do it who doesn't want to? Makes no sense to me.
Many churches are re-writing their by-laws on advice from counsel to avoid getting sued if they refuse to marry a same-sex couple.
Yep. I know one in that very process, right now.
To my knowledge, the question hasn't come up.
But there is an answer already being prepared.
Now that gay marriage is legal, I don't see why any gay couple would want to force anyone who was opposed to perform their marriage. What would be the point? Certainly not to make a point. I haven't heard of anyone doing that since gay marriage was made legal.
For once I applaud the governor.
There are a-holes who want to push an agenda or get their 15 minutes of fame in the gay community, same as other communities.
Someone will try. Count on it.
No surprise there, I expecting him to cave. The only remaining legal target to discriminate against is Christianity (for those liberals who didn't quite understand that line, it was sarcasm). Eventually we'll stop playing nice and demand our rights too. Until then we'll continue to pray.
I think there is more of a chance, now, of someone trying it with all the crying for these protecting the clergy laws. JMO.
You, and I think it would be any of you in this thread, can not get married in my church. You are all Christians, and have significant others of the other sex, and you still can't. It has always been like that. You can't get married in a church that you refuse to go to pre marital counseling. I could go on and on, the point is there have always been requirements in a church and I do not see our court system overwhelmed with law suits. I also believe that even if someone tried it, they would not win. How many churches or pastors have you heard of being forced to marry people?
I will say I was pleasantly surprised last night when I could not sleep and was reading through hundreds of comments regarding this specific bill and the items included in it that most responses I read first responded whether they were Christian or not, and then responded that they agreed with Deal and not passing this specific bill. (Which included more than just the fact of clergy and marriage) The ones complaining were the ugly and once again those that give Christians a bad rap. Some Christian coalition claimed that most Georgians wanted it, but as most in those threads and comments said, according to whom? They were not at my door, on my phone, or sent me an email.
If they want a bill just to protect official clergy from lawsuits they should write one. While I do not think it is necessary if they do, then write it. This was not a bill just protecting official clergy.
Not a question of if, but when. The reasoning Deal used is simply stupid. He's not been made aware of anyone being forced to step outside of their religious convictions to date, so there's no reason for the law (translated: protection for people of faith). That's no different than saying that I've not been made aware of a burglary in our neighborhood, so there's no reason for a law preventing it.
These politicians really do believe the average Joe is stupid, but I've never seen one dance around and describe it to the length that I heard yesterday.