Gov. Announces Veto

ShoeDiva said:
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.
Click to expand...



Funny, I saw numerous comments portraying those who supported
this bill as hate filled homophobic fundamentalist bigots. Should I infer
that those who were happy with Deal's decision give gay folks a bad rap ? ? ?

How about we judge people as individuals ? ? ?
 
honeybunny said:
Funny, I saw numerous comments portraying those who supported
this bill as hate filled homophobic fundamentalist bigots. Should I infer
that those who were happy with Deal's decision give gay folks a bad rap ? ? ?

How about we judge people as individuals ? ? ?
Click to expand...
??? What? I saw both, but the majority that I read last night, a few hundred, pleasantly surprised me that they identified as Christian and were not for that specific bill. I thought it was a good thing. I am pretty sure I did not infer that with my statement, but was clear.

I do not know how gay people could be given a bad rap with all that the bill stated, but if it was JUST the clergy marrying I could answer you, yes.

I would love for people to judge everything individually, but since most everything is painted with a broad brush I do not see that happening on a large scale anytime soon, or if ever.
 
honeybunny said:
Funny, I saw numerous comments portraying those who supported
this bill as hate filled homophobic fundamentalist bigots. Should I infer
that those who were happy with Deal's decision give gay folks a bad rap ? ? ?

How about we judge people as individuals ? ? ?
Click to expand...


I saw a LOT of comments directed at people supporting the bill as "hate filled homophobic fundamentalist bigots".
 
I liked how the Governor explained his decision on his FB page: "HB 757 appeared in several forms during the 2016 legislative session," said Deal. “I had no objection to the "Pastor Protection Act" that was passed by the House of Representatives. The other versions of the bill, however, contained language that could give rise to state-sanctioned discrimination. I did have problems with that and made my concerns known as did many other individuals and organizations, including some within the faith-based community."

This bill turned into something more than it was originally intended and that could give rise to discrimination.

Besides, we still have the First Amendment of the Constitution.
 
LisaC said:
I liked how the Governor explained his decision on his FB page: "HB 757 appeared in several forms during the 2016 legislative session," said Deal. “I had no objection to the "Pastor Protection Act" that was passed by the House of Representatives. The other versions of the bill, however, contained language that could give rise to state-sanctioned discrimination. I did have problems with that and made my concerns known as did many other individuals and organizations, including some within the faith-based community."

This bill turned into something more than it was originally intended and that could give rise to discrimination.

Besides, we still have the First Amendment of the Constitution.
Click to expand...



He was not tasked with signing other versions of the bill, just the one that passed.

He bowed to egregious misconceptions and a deliberate misinformation campaign.

The bill, as presented, would only give rise to an affirmative defense in a court of law.

The original bill was significantly watered down and much more broad in scope.

:nono:
 
Last edited:
honeybunny said:
He was not tasked with signing other versions of the bill, just the one that passed.

He bowed to egregious misconceptions and a deliberate misinformation campaign.

The bill, as presented, would only give rise to an affirmative defense in a court of law.

The original bill was significantly watered down and much more broad in scope.

:nono:
Click to expand...

:clap2:
 
honeybunny said:
He was not tasked with signing other versions of the bill, just the one that passed.

He bowed to egregious misconceptions and a deliberate misinformation campaign.

The bill, as presented, would only give rise to an affirmative defense in a court of law.

The original bill was significantly watered down and much more broad in scope.

:nono:
Click to expand...

More was added that just an "affirmative defense..."

ORIGINAL: To protect religious freedoms; to amend Chapter 3 of Title 19 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to marriage generally, so as to provide that religious officials shall not be required to perform marriage ceremonies in violation of their legal right to free exercise of religion; to amend Chapter 1 of Title 10 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to selling and other trade practices, so as to change certain provisions relating to days of rest for employees of business and industry; to protect property owners which are religious institutions against infringement of religious freedom; to define a term; to provide an effective date; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes.


ADOPTED: To protect religious freedoms; to provide for defenses and relief related thereto; to amend Chapter 3 of Title 19 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to marriage generally, so as to provide that religious officials shall not be required to perform marriage ceremonies, perform rites, or administer sacraments in violation of their legal right to free exercise of religion; to provide that no individual shall be required to attend the solemnization of a marriage, performance of rites, or administration of sacraments in violation of their legal right to free exercise of religion; to amend Chapter 1 of Title 10 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to selling and other trade practices, so as to change certain provisions relating to days of rest for employees of business and industry; to protect property owners which are faith based organizations against infringement of religious freedom; to protect certain providers of services against infringement of religious freedom; to amend Chapter 1 of Title 34 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to labor and industrial relations generally, so as to provide that faith based organizations shall not be required to hire or retain certain persons as employees; to amend Title 50 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to state government, so as to provide for the preservation of religious freedom; to provide for the granting of relief; to provide for waiver of sovereign immunity under certain circumstances; to provide for definitions; to provide for ante litem notices; to provide a short title; to provide for related matters; to provide for an effective date; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes.


This is merely the summary portion of the bill - there original bill, as proposed, was two pages. After revisions and amendments, the bill was eight pages.
 
honeybunny said:
Georgia is an at will employment state, so I do not see where that would really change anything ? ? ?


:dunno:
Click to expand...

Just based on your previous statement about it granting an affirmative defense in litigation, how can it NOT change? That alone could be interpreted to mean that discriminating on an employee based on his/her religion is okay based on this new law.
 
LisaC said:
Just based on your previous statement about it granting an affirmative defense in litigation, how can it NOT change? That alone could be interpreted to mean that discriminating on an employee based on his/her religion is okay based on this new law.
Click to expand...


Why should a faith based organization be forced to employ people who do not subscribe to the faith ? ? ?
 
Madea said:
Florida passed RFRA in 2002. I guess it takes a very long time to move Mickey.
Click to expand...

Are each of the RFRA passed by other states identical to the one in Georgia? Just curious - I honestly have no idea.
 
LisaC said:
Are each of the RFRA passed by other states identical to the one in Georgia? Just curious - I honestly have no idea.
Click to expand...

Rumor has it, the Florida RFRA is more stringent. Georgia actually passed a "watered down" version of the Federal RFRA.
 
honeybunny said:
RFRA Laws Explained In One Simple Chart :

http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/01/how-rfra-works-explained-in-one-chart/

I assume that they will be moving Disney World very soon.
Click to expand...
Just asking, but seeing that you keep posted the same link, are you doing it to be condescending, a smart butt, or forgot you did? I mean, I am pretty sure that while we all do not agree on many things we are all fairly intelligent here. I am just not sure why the same chart once again. :dunno:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top