Total Posts:28|Showing Posts:1-28
Jump to topic:

Georgia's Religious Liberty Bill

Selcouth_Debater
Posts: 70
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 6:36:00 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
Georgia's House and Senate have recently signed the Religious Liberty Bill, or House Bill 757, which states that "religious officials shall not be required to perform marriage ceremonies in violation of their legal right." All that is needed for the bill to become a law is for Governor Nathan Deal to sign off on it.
Several companies such as Walt Disney and Marvel have threatened to stop business in Georgia if this controversial bill is passed.
Many state that, without this bill, the government infringes upon individuals' rights stated in the free exercise clause of the 1st amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
But despite this clause being absolute, the Supreme Court has already set some limits on it, stating that one has the right to freedom of religious belief, but not necessarily to religious action, in cases where religious exercise infringes on the rights of others.
So, if this law were to be passed, and then went to the Supreme Court through a lawsuit, they may deem it to be unconstitutional, or they may not. Governor Deal hasn't even signed the bill yet, so it may never even get to that point.

You can read the bill here: http://legislativenavigator.myajc.com...

Thoughts?
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence." ~ Charles Bukowski

Formerly known as kawaii_crazy. I'm back.
autocorrect
Posts: 432
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 6:56:33 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/25/2016 6:42:31 AM, Torton wrote:
There's no reason it shouldn't be passed.

Okay great. I'm getting a job as a registrar - and soon as I land the job, starting a religion that prohibits marriage altogether. Ker-ching!
Torton
Posts: 988
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 6:56:39 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/25/2016 6:42:31 AM, Torton wrote:
There's no reason it shouldn't be passed.
Fvck, this is a result of being tired as hell. Specifically, there's nothing wrong with religious institutions rejecting gay couples, but the business part shouldn't be in there.
Selcouth_Debater
Posts: 70
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 7:14:27 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/25/2016 6:56:33 AM, autocorrect wrote:
At 3/25/2016 6:42:31 AM, Torton wrote:
There's no reason it shouldn't be passed.

Okay great. I'm getting a job as a registrar - and soon as I land the job, starting a religion that prohibits marriage altogether. Ker-ching!

And this is a perfect example of the absurdities that could be caused by this law being passed...
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence." ~ Charles Bukowski

Formerly known as kawaii_crazy. I'm back.
autocorrect
Posts: 432
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 7:50:04 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/25/2016 7:14:27 AM, Selcouth_Debater wrote:
At 3/25/2016 6:56:33 AM, autocorrect wrote:
At 3/25/2016 6:42:31 AM, Torton wrote:
There's no reason it shouldn't be passed.

Okay great. I'm getting a job as a registrar - and soon as I land the job, starting a religion that prohibits marriage altogether. Ker-ching!

And this is a perfect example of the absurdities that could be caused by this law being passed...

Nah, It's just a joke. Seriously though - I assume this legislation is aimed at securing an exemption for Christians from performing marriage ceremonies for gay couples. Is that so absurd? I mean personally, I think, if gay people want to get married they should be able to do so. But by the same token, if Christians have genuine conscientious reasons for disapproving of gay marriage - should they be forced to perform wedding ceremonies in contradiction of their heartfelt beliefs? I'm not so sure they should.
Selcouth_Debater
Posts: 70
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 9:10:51 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/25/2016 7:50:04 AM, autocorrect wrote:
At 3/25/2016 7:14:27 AM, Selcouth_Debater wrote:
At 3/25/2016 6:56:33 AM, autocorrect wrote:
At 3/25/2016 6:42:31 AM, Torton wrote:
There's no reason it shouldn't be passed.

Okay great. I'm getting a job as a registrar - and soon as I land the job, starting a religion that prohibits marriage altogether. Ker-ching!

And this is a perfect example of the absurdities that could be caused by this law being passed...

Nah, It's just a joke. Seriously though - I assume this legislation is aimed at securing an exemption for Christians from performing marriage ceremonies for gay couples. Is that so absurd? I mean personally, I think, if gay people want to get married they should be able to do so. But by the same token, if Christians have genuine conscientious reasons for disapproving of gay marriage - should they be forced to perform wedding ceremonies in contradiction of their heartfelt beliefs? I'm not so sure they should.

This argument is futile, because it's as if you can justify refusing services to a black person because your religion says that they are inferior to you. You can believe that all you like, but you are not allowed to actually take action upon that belief because it would infringe on the rights of the person you are offering the service to.
Plus, I think that something like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 could be made for gays and lesbians (or that the Civil Rights Act should be extended to them), where they said you can't deny accommodations to people based on race, only in this case, it would be based on sexual orientation.
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence." ~ Charles Bukowski

Formerly known as kawaii_crazy. I'm back.
autocorrect
Posts: 432
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 10:48:09 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/25/2016 9:10:51 AM, Selcouth_Debater wrote:
At 3/25/2016 7:50:04 AM, autocorrect wrote:
At 3/25/2016 7:14:27 AM, Selcouth_Debater wrote:
At 3/25/2016 6:56:33 AM, autocorrect wrote:
At 3/25/2016 6:42:31 AM, Torton wrote:
There's no reason it shouldn't be passed.

Okay great. I'm getting a job as a registrar - and soon as I land the job, starting a religion that prohibits marriage altogether. Ker-ching!

And this is a perfect example of the absurdities that could be caused by this law being passed...

Nah, It's just a joke. Seriously though - I assume this legislation is aimed at securing an exemption for Christians from performing marriage ceremonies for gay couples. Is that so absurd? I mean personally, I think, if gay people want to get married they should be able to do so. But by the same token, if Christians have genuine conscientious reasons for disapproving of gay marriage - should they be forced to perform wedding ceremonies in contradiction of their heartfelt beliefs? I'm not so sure they should.

This argument is futile, because it's as if you can justify refusing services to a black person because your religion says that they are inferior to you. You can believe that all you like, but you are not allowed to actually take action upon that belief because it would infringe on the rights of the person you are offering the service to.

That's a strong argument - but maybe the Bible is a recognized basis for a belief that homosexuality is wrong. Not saying I hold that view; but if you recognize freedom of religion then surely you have to make some allowances. A personal belief that black people are inferior wouldn't have religious authority behind it. Whereas, I think kosher and halal foods are provided in prisons, for example - which is in effect an exemption from eating meat not slaughtered in a religiously proscribed way.

Plus, I think that something like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 could be made for gays and lesbians (or that the Civil Rights Act should be extended to them), where they said you can't deny accommodations to people based on race, only in this case, it would be based on sexual orientation.

I'm in the UK - London, and we've had that issue arise here. Christian couple running a bed and breakfast, refused to accommodate a gay couple. They lost the subsequent court case, and were forced to pay damages - but I forget how much. I think the principle was, as you described, that if you're providing a service you have to do so with equality in mind. What bothers me about it is that the right for gay couples to get married is recognized, whereas the right to act in accord with religious conscience isn't. And that's a value judgement. Why can't they get married elsewhere, or stay in a different hotel. Instead, by dint of the same sort of logic, we have wheelchair users demanding access to places most able bodied people wouldn't try without hiking boots and a safety rope. Do you not get the sense there's something pitiless about this equality of rights movement?
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,225
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 2:37:52 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/25/2016 6:56:33 AM, autocorrect wrote:
At 3/25/2016 6:42:31 AM, Torton wrote:
There's no reason it shouldn't be passed.

Okay great. I'm getting a job as a registrar - and soon as I land the job, starting a religion that prohibits marriage altogether. Ker-ching!

So, by acting as a government official...

-gently knocks over the house of cards-

Better luck next time.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Torton
Posts: 988
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 3:15:48 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/25/2016 9:10:51 AM, Selcouth_Debater wrote:
At 3/25/2016 7:50:04 AM, autocorrect wrote:
At 3/25/2016 7:14:27 AM, Selcouth_Debater wrote:
At 3/25/2016 6:56:33 AM, autocorrect wrote:
At 3/25/2016 6:42:31 AM, Torton wrote:
There's no reason it shouldn't be passed.

Okay great. I'm getting a job as a registrar - and soon as I land the job, starting a religion that prohibits marriage altogether. Ker-ching!

And this is a perfect example of the absurdities that could be caused by this law being passed...

Nah, It's just a joke. Seriously though - I assume this legislation is aimed at securing an exemption for Christians from performing marriage ceremonies for gay couples. Is that so absurd? I mean personally, I think, if gay people want to get married they should be able to do so. But by the same token, if Christians have genuine conscientious reasons for disapproving of gay marriage - should they be forced to perform wedding ceremonies in contradiction of their heartfelt beliefs? I'm not so sure they should.

This argument is futile, because it's as if you can justify refusing services to a black person because your religion says that they are inferior to you. You can believe that all you like, but you are not allowed to actually take action upon that belief because it would infringe on the rights of the person you are offering the service to.
Plus, I think that something like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 could be made for gays and lesbians (or that the Civil Rights Act should be extended to them), where they said you can't deny accommodations to people based on race, only in this case, it would be based on sexual orientation.
There's no reason to force churches to marry anyone, as long as there's an alternative. And there is.
slo1
Posts: 4,351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 4:10:48 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/25/2016 6:36:00 AM, Selcouth_Debater wrote:
Georgia's House and Senate have recently signed the Religious Liberty Bill, or House Bill 757, which states that "religious officials shall not be required to perform marriage ceremonies in violation of their legal right." All that is needed for the bill to become a law is for Governor Nathan Deal to sign off on it.
Several companies such as Walt Disney and Marvel have threatened to stop business in Georgia if this controversial bill is passed.
Many state that, without this bill, the government infringes upon individuals' rights stated in the free exercise clause of the 1st amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
But despite this clause being absolute, the Supreme Court has already set some limits on it, stating that one has the right to freedom of religious belief, but not necessarily to religious action, in cases where religious exercise infringes on the rights of others.
So, if this law were to be passed, and then went to the Supreme Court through a lawsuit, they may deem it to be unconstitutional, or they may not. Governor Deal hasn't even signed the bill yet, so it may never even get to that point.

You can read the bill here: http://legislativenavigator.myajc.com...

Thoughts?

The sad thing is that there is a very easy solution here in terms of marriage. Marriage is a state function of which ministers have the privilege to issue state licences. Seperate church and state. Churches can do their religious ceremony for anyone the wish but no state license is issued. The couple can get a state license or they can choose to fall under common law.

I'm not certain why most feel religions and the state have to be joined at the hip when it comes to marriage and diverse for that matter.
slo1
Posts: 4,351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 4:20:11 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/25/2016 4:10:48 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 3/25/2016 6:36:00 AM, Selcouth_Debater wrote:
Georgia's House and Senate have recently signed the Religious Liberty Bill, or House Bill 757, which states that "religious officials shall not be required to perform marriage ceremonies in violation of their legal right." All that is needed for the bill to become a law is for Governor Nathan Deal to sign off on it.
Several companies such as Walt Disney and Marvel have threatened to stop business in Georgia if this controversial bill is passed.
Many state that, without this bill, the government infringes upon individuals' rights stated in the free exercise clause of the 1st amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
But despite this clause being absolute, the Supreme Court has already set some limits on it, stating that one has the right to freedom of religious belief, but not necessarily to religious action, in cases where religious exercise infringes on the rights of others.
So, if this law were to be passed, and then went to the Supreme Court through a lawsuit, they may deem it to be unconstitutional, or they may not. Governor Deal hasn't even signed the bill yet, so it may never even get to that point.

You can read the bill here: http://legislativenavigator.myajc.com...

Thoughts?

The sad thing is that there is a very easy solution here in terms of marriage. Marriage is a state function of which ministers have the privilege to issue state licences. Seperate church and state. Churches can do their religious ceremony for anyone the wish but no state license is issued. The couple can get a state license or they can choose to fall under common law.

I'm not certain why most feel religions and the state have to be joined at the hip when it comes to marriage and diverse for that matter.

Divorce
NewLifeChristian
Posts: 1,236
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 5:19:32 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/25/2016 6:36:00 AM, Selcouth_Debater wrote:
Georgia's House and Senate have recently signed the Religious Liberty Bill, or House Bill 757, which states that "religious officials shall not be required to perform marriage ceremonies in violation of their legal right." All that is needed for the bill to become a law is for Governor Nathan Deal to sign off on it.
Several companies such as Walt Disney and Marvel have threatened to stop business in Georgia if this controversial bill is passed.
Many state that, without this bill, the government infringes upon individuals' rights stated in the free exercise clause of the 1st amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
But despite this clause being absolute, the Supreme Court has already set some limits on it, stating that one has the right to freedom of religious belief, but not necessarily to religious action, in cases where religious exercise infringes on the rights of others.
So, if this law were to be passed, and then went to the Supreme Court through a lawsuit, they may deem it to be unconstitutional, or they may not. Governor Deal hasn't even signed the bill yet, so it may never even get to that point.

You can read the bill here: http://legislativenavigator.myajc.com...

Thoughts?
I fully support the bill. Walt Disney and Marvel are delusional.
Pro-Life Quotes:

"I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born."
- Ronald Reagan

"The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government."
- Thomas Jefferson

"A person is a person no matter how small."
- Dr. Seuss
NothingSpecial99
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 5:23:18 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
Seems alright to me
"Check your facts, not your privilege" - Christina Hoff Summers

If you go to jail for Tax Evasion, you're living off of Taxes as a result of not paying Taxes

"Facts don't care about your feelings" - Ben Shapiro
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 6:03:22 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
Sounds like a good bill and it should be passed.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 6:07:43 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/25/2016 9:10:51 AM, Selcouth_Debater wrote:
At 3/25/2016 7:50:04 AM, autocorrect wrote:
At 3/25/2016 7:14:27 AM, Selcouth_Debater wrote:
At 3/25/2016 6:56:33 AM, autocorrect wrote:
At 3/25/2016 6:42:31 AM, Torton wrote:
There's no reason it shouldn't be passed.

Okay great. I'm getting a job as a registrar - and soon as I land the job, starting a religion that prohibits marriage altogether. Ker-ching!

And this is a perfect example of the absurdities that could be caused by this law being passed...

Nah, It's just a joke. Seriously though - I assume this legislation is aimed at securing an exemption for Christians from performing marriage ceremonies for gay couples. Is that so absurd? I mean personally, I think, if gay people want to get married they should be able to do so. But by the same token, if Christians have genuine conscientious reasons for disapproving of gay marriage - should they be forced to perform wedding ceremonies in contradiction of their heartfelt beliefs? I'm not so sure they should.

This argument is futile, because it's as if you can justify refusing services to a black person because your religion says that they are inferior to you. You can believe that all you like, but you are not allowed to actually take action upon that belief because it would infringe on the rights of the person you are offering the service to.
Plus, I think that something like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 could be made for gays and lesbians (or that the Civil Rights Act should be extended to them), where they said you can't deny accommodations to people based on race, only in this case, it would be based on sexual orientation.

Sure, I suppose that's a possibility. Virtually no pastor would do that, though. Maybe 1 or 2.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 7:55:35 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/25/2016 6:56:39 AM, Torton wrote:
At 3/25/2016 6:42:31 AM, Torton wrote:
There's no reason it shouldn't be passed.
Fvck, this is a result of being tired as hell. Specifically, there's nothing wrong with religious institutions rejecting gay couples, but the business part shouldn't be in there.

Exactly.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
someloser
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 8:12:18 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/25/2016 4:10:48 PM, slo1 wrote:
The sad thing is that there is a very easy solution here in terms of marriage. Marriage is a state function of which ministers have the privilege to issue state licences. Seperate church and state. Churches can do their religious ceremony for anyone the wish but no state license is issued. The couple can get a state license or they can choose to fall under common law.

I'm not certain why most feel religions and the state have to be joined at the hip when it comes to marriage and diverse for that matter.
+1
Ego sum qui sum. Deus lo vult.

"America is ungovernable; those who served the revolution have plowed the sea." - Simon Bolivar

"A healthy nation is as unconscious of its nationality as a healthy man of his bones. But if you break a nation's nationality it will think of nothing else but getting it set again." - George Bernard Shaw
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 8:35:59 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/25/2016 6:36:00 AM, Selcouth_Debater wrote:
Georgia's House and Senate have recently signed the Religious Liberty Bill, or House Bill 757, which states that "religious officials shall not be required to perform marriage ceremonies in violation of their legal right." All that is needed for the bill to become a law is for Governor Nathan Deal to sign off on it.
Several companies such as Walt Disney and Marvel have threatened to stop business in Georgia if this controversial bill is passed.
Many state that, without this bill, the government infringes upon individuals' rights stated in the free exercise clause of the 1st amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
But despite this clause being absolute, the Supreme Court has already set some limits on it, stating that one has the right to freedom of religious belief, but not necessarily to religious action, in cases where religious exercise infringes on the rights of others.
So, if this law were to be passed, and then went to the Supreme Court through a lawsuit, they may deem it to be unconstitutional, or they may not. Governor Deal hasn't even signed the bill yet, so it may never even get to that point.

You can read the bill here: http://legislativenavigator.myajc.com...

Thoughts?

From the link:

"religious officials shall not be required to perform marriage ceremonies in violation of their legal right to free exercise of religion"

That's the part I like, the part that creates, administers and justifies the vicious cycle of intolerance and bigotry dressed up as "their" legal right. Could anyone then have seen the future when they penned that legal right? Would they all be rolling over in their graves pulling out what's left of their hair while railing at themselves for not having foreseen the corruption and insult of folks like Tanner, et al, abusing the very privileges they fought and earned when they were persecuted for their religious beliefs, one of the very reasons such a legal right was written in the first place.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,384
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 9:06:16 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/25/2016 6:36:00 AM, Selcouth_Debater wrote:
Georgia's House and Senate have recently signed the Religious Liberty Bill, or House Bill 757, which states that "religious officials shall not be required to perform marriage ceremonies in violation of their legal right." All that is needed for the bill to become a law is for Governor Nathan Deal to sign off on it.
Several companies such as Walt Disney and Marvel have threatened to stop business in Georgia if this controversial bill is passed.
Many state that, without this bill, the government infringes upon individuals' rights stated in the free exercise clause of the 1st amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
But despite this clause being absolute, the Supreme Court has already set some limits on it, stating that one has the right to freedom of religious belief, but not necessarily to religious action, in cases where religious exercise infringes on the rights of others.
So, if this law were to be passed, and then went to the Supreme Court through a lawsuit, they may deem it to be unconstitutional, or they may not. Governor Deal hasn't even signed the bill yet, so it may never even get to that point.

You can read the bill here: http://legislativenavigator.myajc.com...

Thoughts?

Just like how they have the right to discriminate under "religious freedom" Companies have the right to not do business with them.
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
Selcouth_Debater
Posts: 70
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 9:19:54 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/25/2016 4:10:48 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 3/25/2016 6:36:00 AM, Selcouth_Debater wrote:
Georgia's House and Senate have recently signed the Religious Liberty Bill, or House Bill 757, which states that "religious officials shall not be required to perform marriage ceremonies in violation of their legal right." All that is needed for the bill to become a law is for Governor Nathan Deal to sign off on it.
Several companies such as Walt Disney and Marvel have threatened to stop business in Georgia if this controversial bill is passed.
Many state that, without this bill, the government infringes upon individuals' rights stated in the free exercise clause of the 1st amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
But despite this clause being absolute, the Supreme Court has already set some limits on it, stating that one has the right to freedom of religious belief, but not necessarily to religious action, in cases where religious exercise infringes on the rights of others.
So, if this law were to be passed, and then went to the Supreme Court through a lawsuit, they may deem it to be unconstitutional, or they may not. Governor Deal hasn't even signed the bill yet, so it may never even get to that point.

You can read the bill here: http://legislativenavigator.myajc.com...

Thoughts?

The sad thing is that there is a very easy solution here in terms of marriage. Marriage is a state function of which ministers have the privilege to issue state licences. Seperate church and state. Churches can do their religious ceremony for anyone the wish but no state license is issued. The couple can get a state license or they can choose to fall under common law.

I'm not certain why most feel religions and the state have to be joined at the hip when it comes to marriage and diverse for that matter.

Exactly.
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence." ~ Charles Bukowski

Formerly known as kawaii_crazy. I'm back.
Raisor
Posts: 4,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2016 3:32:25 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/25/2016 6:36:00 AM, Selcouth_Debater wrote:
Georgia's House and Senate have recently signed the Religious Liberty Bill, or House Bill 757, which states that "religious officials shall not be required to perform marriage ceremonies in violation of their legal right." All that is needed for the bill to become a law is for Governor Nathan Deal to sign off on it.
Several companies such as Walt Disney and Marvel have threatened to stop business in Georgia if this controversial bill is passed.
Many state that, without this bill, the government infringes upon individuals' rights stated in the free exercise clause of the 1st amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
But despite this clause being absolute, the Supreme Court has already set some limits on it, stating that one has the right to freedom of religious belief, but not necessarily to religious action, in cases where religious exercise infringes on the rights of others.
So, if this law were to be passed, and then went to the Supreme Court through a lawsuit, they may deem it to be unconstitutional, or they may not. Governor Deal hasn't even signed the bill yet, so it may never even get to that point.

You can read the bill here: http://legislativenavigator.myajc.com...

Thoughts?

The governor has said he will veto the bill.
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2016 3:39:42 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
God forbid pastors be able to perform religious marriages according to the teachings of their religioj.
Selcouth_Debater
Posts: 70
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2016 3:51:41 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/28/2016 3:32:25 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 3/25/2016 6:36:00 AM, Selcouth_Debater wrote:
Georgia's House and Senate have recently signed the Religious Liberty Bill, or House Bill 757, which states that "religious officials shall not be required to perform marriage ceremonies in violation of their legal right." All that is needed for the bill to become a law is for Governor Nathan Deal to sign off on it.
Several companies such as Walt Disney and Marvel have threatened to stop business in Georgia if this controversial bill is passed.
Many state that, without this bill, the government infringes upon individuals' rights stated in the free exercise clause of the 1st amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
But despite this clause being absolute, the Supreme Court has already set some limits on it, stating that one has the right to freedom of religious belief, but not necessarily to religious action, in cases where religious exercise infringes on the rights of others.
So, if this law were to be passed, and then went to the Supreme Court through a lawsuit, they may deem it to be unconstitutional, or they may not. Governor Deal hasn't even signed the bill yet, so it may never even get to that point.

You can read the bill here: http://legislativenavigator.myajc.com...

Thoughts?

The governor has said he will veto the bill.

This is great news, but do state Congresses have the same power as the federal Congress to override a veto?
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence." ~ Charles Bukowski

Formerly known as kawaii_crazy. I'm back.
Selcouth_Debater
Posts: 70
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2016 3:58:11 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/28/2016 3:39:42 PM, TN05 wrote:
God forbid pastors be able to perform religious marriages according to the teachings of their religioj.

Yes, God forbid pastors be able to discriminate against a group of people due to something they cannot change about themselves and simply want to live with the person they love under a legal marriage.
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence." ~ Charles Bukowski

Formerly known as kawaii_crazy. I'm back.
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2016 4:16:19 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/28/2016 3:58:11 PM, Selcouth_Debater wrote:
At 3/28/2016 3:39:42 PM, TN05 wrote:
God forbid pastors be able to perform religious marriages according to the teachings of their religioj.

Yes, God forbid pastors be able to discriminate against a group of people due to something they cannot change about themselves and simply want to live with the person they love under a legal marriage.

It's not discrimination to withhold a religious ceremony to those who are not eligible to undergo it. This does not allow legal, government marriages to be denied. All it does is allow pastors to perform marriage ceremonies according to the mandates of their religion. It is generally accepted that religions can withhold religious ceremonies to people who aren't eligible. To give a few examples:
*An Orthodox Jewish rabbi could deny a request for conversion to Judaism on the grounds that the requesting person has not been circumsized, hasn't undergone the ritual bath, and has refused to agree to follow Jewish law.
*A Catholic priest could deny someone the priesthood on the grounds that they have not met the requirements for education - specifically, not having a four-year degree in philosophy and/or the required seminary education.
*A Mormon bishop could deny someone a temple recommend (necessary to enter Mormon temples and engage in the religious activities there) on the grounds they do not have the proper understanding of the faith and do not tithe.
*A Baptist pastor could deny someone communion, on the grounds that only registered church members can partake of the bread and wine.

A religious marriage is no different than these. In Catholicism, for instance, marriage is a sacrament, like baptism and communion. Denying a marriage to two men is no different than denying a marriage to someone who is already married, or who has been divorced in violation of church law.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,285
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2016 11:05:07 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/28/2016 4:16:19 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 3/28/2016 3:58:11 PM, Selcouth_Debater wrote:
At 3/28/2016 3:39:42 PM, TN05 wrote:
God forbid pastors be able to perform religious marriages according to the teachings of their religioj.

Yes, God forbid pastors be able to discriminate against a group of people due to something they cannot change about themselves and simply want to live with the person they love under a legal marriage.

It's not discrimination to withhold a religious ceremony to those who are not eligible to undergo it. This does not allow legal, government marriages to be denied. All it does is allow pastors to perform marriage ceremonies according to the mandates of their religion. It is generally accepted that religions can withhold religious ceremonies to people who aren't eligible. To give a few examples:
*An Orthodox Jewish rabbi could deny a request for conversion to Judaism on the grounds that the requesting person has not been circumsized, hasn't undergone the ritual bath, and has refused to agree to follow Jewish law.
*A Catholic priest could deny someone the priesthood on the grounds that they have not met the requirements for education - specifically, not having a four-year degree in philosophy and/or the required seminary education.
*A Mormon bishop could deny someone a temple recommend (necessary to enter Mormon temples and engage in the religious activities there) on the grounds they do not have the proper understanding of the faith and do not tithe.
*A Baptist pastor could deny someone communion, on the grounds that only registered church members can partake of the bread and wine.

A religious marriage is no different than these. In Catholicism, for instance, marriage is a sacrament, like baptism and communion. Denying a marriage to two men is no different than denying a marriage to someone who is already married, or who has been divorced in violation of church law.

I don't understand why they can't just pass a bill that says that. This bill was amended to apply to things like hiring and firing practices, so that, for example, if a doctor or nurse working in a religious, tax-exempt hospital came out as gay, they could fire him without cause. If that amendment hadn't been added, this bill would have sailed through with little trouble. But the religious right always bites off way more than they can chew with laws like this; Section 5 is what is drawing the boycotts.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -