Pastor Protection Act - Florida Regulators Gone Wild.

[Coyote]

A solution in search of a problem. Not a single church in Florida was ever been forced to marry any couple against their wishes. Not one.

Yet.

All kinds of things haven't happened yet. Why are we wasting time on a non-problem when there are more important things to deal with? If it happens - THEN address it. And if churches/synogues/mosques are forced by the government to act against their religion - I'll be with you 100 %.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

An ounce of prevention.....comes to mind. Gays should have no problem with this bill if they never planned to force the issue. Right?

But why do we need it?

It looks to me like a "solution" in search of a problem.

We don't need it...yet. It's one law but if anyone hasn't noticed there are "freedom of religion" laws presently being considered in many states. Why do you think that is? Hint: Think cakes

Actually, I think the reason is not "cakes", but an open door to allow legal discrimmination. It's not just gays that could be affected. We should have moved far beyond that by now. This isn't murder. It isn't rape. There are so many worse things than gay marriage...greed, gluttony, cruelty....

I don't think someone standing up for their religious and beliefs is legal discrimination, I think anyone forced to go against their religious beliefs is unconstitutional

That depends. No church or pastor can be forced to go against their religion. But a person who provides a public service has to treat customers equally. Otherwise, we're right back to the equivalent of segregation where customers have to guess what business' might serve them and which might boot them. Not good imo. I may not agree with something, but if I have a business - I will be a professional about it.

It's a thin line and the courts are going to have to make a decision to settle it. But again, a 300K fine over a cake is over kill and it outraged people, as it should have.

 

[Coyote]

Well it is an illogical response considering gays are not covered under Florida's public accommodation laws in the first place. Hells bells, the author of the bill admitted that churches are already protected from marrying couples to which they object. I expect to see more of this pandering and grandstanding from politicians with the campaign season in full swing.

An ounce of prevention.....comes to mind. Gays should have no problem with this bill if they never planned to force the issue. Right?

But why do we need it?

It looks to me like a "solution" in search of a problem.

We don't need it...yet. It's one law but if anyone hasn't noticed there are "freedom of religion" laws presently being considered in many states. Why do you think that is? Hint: Think cakes

Actually, I think the reason is not "cakes", but an open door to allow legal discrimmination. It's not just gays that could be affected. We should have moved far beyond that by now. This isn't murder. It isn't rape. There are so many worse things than gay marriage...greed, gluttony, cruelty....

I don't think someone standing up for their religious and beliefs is legal discrimination, I think anyone forced to go against their religious beliefs is unconstitutional

At one time religious belief was part of what upheld racial segregation laws and interracial marriage bans. Are we to go back to those days based on a flimly religious belief rationale? At one time divorce was against religious beliefs - should we stop serving divorced people?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

An ounce of prevention.....comes to mind. Gays should have no problem with this bill if they never planned to force the issue. Right?

But why do we need it?

It looks to me like a "solution" in search of a problem.

We don't need it...yet. It's one law but if anyone hasn't noticed there are "freedom of religion" laws presently being considered in many states. Why do you think that is? Hint: Think cakes

Actually, I think the reason is not "cakes", but an open door to allow legal discrimmination. It's not just gays that could be affected. We should have moved far beyond that by now. This isn't murder. It isn't rape. There are so many worse things than gay marriage...greed, gluttony, cruelty....

I don't think someone standing up for their religious and beliefs is legal discrimination, I think anyone forced to go against their religious beliefs is unconstitutional

At one time religious belief was part of what upheld racial segregation laws and interracial marriage bans. Are we to go back to those days based on a flimly religious belief rationale? At one time divorce was against religious beliefs - should we stop serving divorced people?

You think it's flimsy, to deeply religious people it's not. The Constitution is very clear in that a person's religious rights are protected. So which comes first, a person's religious convictions or an accommodation? My money is on the Constitution

 

[Coyote]

But why do we need it?

It looks to me like a "solution" in search of a problem.

We don't need it...yet. It's one law but if anyone hasn't noticed there are "freedom of religion" laws presently being considered in many states. Why do you think that is? Hint: Think cakes

Actually, I think the reason is not "cakes", but an open door to allow legal discrimmination. It's not just gays that could be affected. We should have moved far beyond that by now. This isn't murder. It isn't rape. There are so many worse things than gay marriage...greed, gluttony, cruelty....

I don't think someone standing up for their religious and beliefs is legal discrimination, I think anyone forced to go against their religious beliefs is unconstitutional

At one time religious belief was part of what upheld racial segregation laws and interracial marriage bans. Are we to go back to those days based on a flimly religious belief rationale? At one time divorce was against religious beliefs - should we stop serving divorced people?

You think it's flimsy, to deeply religious people it's not. The Constitution is very clear in that a person's religious rights are protected. So which comes first, a person's religious convictions or an accommodation? My money is on the Constitution

To what extent? My religion requires me to torture small animals. You think that would fly? (disclaimer - this is sarcasm, I do not believe in torturing small animals).

And, there is that pesky term - not an accommodation - "reasonable accommodation".

 

[Coyote]

I think, in the end, I would want no part of any religion that requires me to hurt someone's feelings when they've done no harm to me.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

We don't need it...yet. It's one law but if anyone hasn't noticed there are "freedom of religion" laws presently being considered in many states. Why do you think that is? Hint: Think cakes

Actually, I think the reason is not "cakes", but an open door to allow legal discrimmination. It's not just gays that could be affected. We should have moved far beyond that by now. This isn't murder. It isn't rape. There are so many worse things than gay marriage...greed, gluttony, cruelty....

I don't think someone standing up for their religious and beliefs is legal discrimination, I think anyone forced to go against their religious beliefs is unconstitutional

At one time religious belief was part of what upheld racial segregation laws and interracial marriage bans. Are we to go back to those days based on a flimly religious belief rationale? At one time divorce was against religious beliefs - should we stop serving divorced people?

You think it's flimsy, to deeply religious people it's not. The Constitution is very clear in that a person's religious rights are protected. So which comes first, a person's religious convictions or an accommodation? My money is on the Constitution

To what extent? My religion requires me to torture small animals. You think that would fly? (disclaimer - this is sarcasm, I do not believe in torturing small animals).

And, there is that pesky term - not an accommodation - "reasonable accommodation".

There was recently a case where a "church" claimed part of their belief was daily use of marijuana even though it's against the law in that state, they took it to court and actually won their argument but the police then informed them if they smoked it as part of their "services" they would be arrested. So who won?

Here is my thing, if you know someone is against say SSM and they owned a business why would you want to force them to accommodate you? It's part of an agenda and the quest to be viewed as normal

 

[AVG-JOE]

An ounce of prevention.....comes to mind. Gays should have no problem with this bill if they never planned to force the issue. Right?

But why do we need it?

It looks to me like a "solution" in search of a problem.

We don't need it...yet. It's one law but if anyone hasn't noticed there are "freedom of religion" laws presently being considered in many states. Why do you think that is? Hint: Think cakes

Actually, I think the reason is not "cakes", but an open door to allow legal discrimmination. It's not just gays that could be affected. We should have moved far beyond that by now. This isn't murder. It isn't rape. There are so many worse things than gay marriage...greed, gluttony, cruelty....

I don't think someone standing up for their religious and beliefs is legal discrimination, I think anyone forced to go against their religious beliefs is unconstitutional

That depends. No church or pastor can be forced to go against their religion. But a person who provides a public service has to treat customers equally. Otherwise, we're right back to the equivalent of segregation where customers have to guess what business' might serve them and which might boot them. Not good imo. I may not agree with something, but if I have a business - I will be a professional about it.

Not to mention the simple fact of how much it costs to get any given prospect in to your store so you can take your best shot at turning them in to a cu$tomer.

Why any business owner would reject ANY legal proceeds being pushed toward them is beyond my capitalist comprehension. Customers aren't cheap, and the more a business discriminates, the more each customer costs.

 

[Coyote]

Actually, I think the reason is not "cakes", but an open door to allow legal discrimmination. It's not just gays that could be affected. We should have moved far beyond that by now. This isn't murder. It isn't rape. There are so many worse things than gay marriage...greed, gluttony, cruelty....

I don't think someone standing up for their religious and beliefs is legal discrimination, I think anyone forced to go against their religious beliefs is unconstitutional

At one time religious belief was part of what upheld racial segregation laws and interracial marriage bans. Are we to go back to those days based on a flimly religious belief rationale? At one time divorce was against religious beliefs - should we stop serving divorced people?

You think it's flimsy, to deeply religious people it's not. The Constitution is very clear in that a person's religious rights are protected. So which comes first, a person's religious convictions or an accommodation? My money is on the Constitution

To what extent? My religion requires me to torture small animals. You think that would fly? (disclaimer - this is sarcasm, I do not believe in torturing small animals).

And, there is that pesky term - not an accommodation - "reasonable accommodation".

There was recently a case where a "church" claimed part of their belief was daily use of marijuana even though it's against the law in that state, they took it to court and actually won their argument but the police then informed them if they smoked it as part of their "services" they would be arrested. So who won?

Here is my thing, if you know someone is against say SSM and they owned a business why would you want to force them to accommodate you? It's part of an agenda and the quest to be viewed as normal

Well, in the case of the cake business - they had every reason to believe they would be accommodated based on past business. Personally - I wouldn't choose a business that would not accommodate me but how would I know until I stepped in and was rebuffed and humiliated?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

A solution in search of a problem. Not a single church in Florida was ever been forced to marry any couple against their wishes. Not one.

Yet.

All kinds of things haven't happened yet. Why are we wasting time on a non-problem when there are more important things to deal with? If it happens - THEN address it. And if churches/synogues/mosques are forced by the government to act against their religion - I'll be with you 100 %.

The same thing was probably once thought about gay marriage.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

I don't think someone standing up for their religious and beliefs is legal discrimination, I think anyone forced to go against their religious beliefs is unconstitutional

At one time religious belief was part of what upheld racial segregation laws and interracial marriage bans. Are we to go back to those days based on a flimly religious belief rationale? At one time divorce was against religious beliefs - should we stop serving divorced people?

You think it's flimsy, to deeply religious people it's not. The Constitution is very clear in that a person's religious rights are protected. So which comes first, a person's religious convictions or an accommodation? My money is on the Constitution

To what extent? My religion requires me to torture small animals. You think that would fly? (disclaimer - this is sarcasm, I do not believe in torturing small animals).

And, there is that pesky term - not an accommodation - "reasonable accommodation".

There was recently a case where a "church" claimed part of their belief was daily use of marijuana even though it's against the law in that state, they took it to court and actually won their argument but the police then informed them if they smoked it as part of their "services" they would be arrested. So who won?

Here is my thing, if you know someone is against say SSM and they owned a business why would you want to force them to accommodate you? It's part of an agenda and the quest to be viewed as normal

Well, in the case of the cake business - they had every reason to believe they would be accommodated based on past business. Personally - I wouldn't choose a business that would not accommodate me but how would I know until I stepped in and was rebuffed and humiliated?

IDK, the entire thing got too big and now it's a colossal mess. I can see some parts of both sides of it but in the end as a Christian I have to side with religious freedom. I myself would have baked the cake but I'm not the Kleins so I can't say where they are coming from other than their belief is it would violate their beliefs and I have to respect that.

 

[Coyote]

A solution in search of a problem. Not a single church in Florida was ever been forced to marry any couple against their wishes. Not one.

Yet.

All kinds of things haven't happened yet. Why are we wasting time on a non-problem when there are more important things to deal with? If it happens - THEN address it. And if churches/synogues/mosques are forced by the government to act against their religion - I'll be with you 100 %.

The same thing was probably once thought about gay marriage.

And interracial marriage.

Imagine that!

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Interesting thread and thanks for being civil. I have little ones to get to bed.

 

[Silhouette]

I guess there's going to be a big broiling controversy in Florida about the gay marriage issue in the coming weeks....

 

[AVG-JOE]

At one time religious belief was part of what upheld racial segregation laws and interracial marriage bans. Are we to go back to those days based on a flimly religious belief rationale? At one time divorce was against religious beliefs - should we stop serving divorced people?

You think it's flimsy, to deeply religious people it's not. The Constitution is very clear in that a person's religious rights are protected. So which comes first, a person's religious convictions or an accommodation? My money is on the Constitution

To what extent? My religion requires me to torture small animals. You think that would fly? (disclaimer - this is sarcasm, I do not believe in torturing small animals).

And, there is that pesky term - not an accommodation - "reasonable accommodation".

There was recently a case where a "church" claimed part of their belief was daily use of marijuana even though it's against the law in that state, they took it to court and actually won their argument but the police then informed them if they smoked it as part of their "services" they would be arrested. So who won?

Here is my thing, if you know someone is against say SSM and they owned a business why would you want to force them to accommodate you? It's part of an agenda and the quest to be viewed as normal

Well, in the case of the cake business - they had every reason to believe they would be accommodated based on past business. Personally - I wouldn't choose a business that would not accommodate me but how would I know until I stepped in and was rebuffed and humiliated?

IDK, the entire thing got too big and now it's a colossal mess. I can see some parts of both sides of it but in the end as a Christian I have to side with religious freedom. I myself would have baked the cake but I'm not the Kleins so I can't say where they are coming from other than their belief is it would violate their beliefs and I have to respect that.

My humble opinion is that the Kleins decided to make a political statement about their religion using their business as a pawn and it backfired.

As I said, discrimination in the private sector is expected, you just have to be smart about it.

Never trust The Media to do what you expect.

 

[Silhouette]

My humble opinion is that the Kleins decided to make a political statement about their religion using their business as a pawn and it backfired.

As I said, discrimination in the private sector is expected, you just have to be smart about it.

Never trust The Media to do what you expect.

No, gays target known Christian outfits to make political statements that their cult now dominates Christianity. They want Christians trembling in fear at their presence. The Kleins and Kim Davis are heros for bravely standing in their faces and saying "**** off"..

 

[AVG-JOE]

Kim Davis was COMPLETELTY different!

She is a GOVERNMENT employee who has absolutely no business deciding who can and can't marry in the state of KY.

Kim Davis' clerk job is to do what she's told. If she can't perform the tasks assigned to her, she needs to quit so that someone more willing or competent can step in.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

allow churches to opt out of this and opt into being taxed...simple as that....churches want to be all political then they should be taxed

Bet money you don't feel the same way about Unions.

 

[Silhouette]

Kim Davis was COMPLETELTY different!

She is a GOVERNMENT employee who has absolutely no business deciding who can and can't marry in the state of KY.

Kim Davis' clerk job is to do what she's told. If she can't perform the tasks assigned to her, she needs to quit so that someone more willing or competent can step in.

She was hired before the illegal (soon to be overturned) decision of Obergefell.. So there was no way of knowing her job would require her to violate a mortal sin of her faith (aiding or abetting the spread of a homosexual culture : Jude 1, New Testament). And, in Kentucky there is a new law which makes gays have to get a separate license which does not have boxes to check for "man" and "wife"...because that's insulting to people of faith. So they have to get another one now.

And that's handy because adoption agencies can now easily tell who will be seeking to legally deprive a child for life of either a mother or father as a matter of contract..

 

[AVG-JOE]

She was hired before the illegal (soon to be overturned) decision of Obergefell.. So there was no way of knowing her job would require her to violate a mortal sin of her faith (aiding or abetting the spread of a homosexual culture : Jude 1, New Testament). And, in Kentucky there is a new law which makes gays have to get a separate license which does not have boxes to check for "man" and "wife"...because that's insulting to people of faith. So they have to get another one now.

And that's handy because adoption agencies can now easily tell who will be seeking to legally deprive a child for life of either a mother or father as a matter of contract..

Moot point and strawman. As the clerk of the county she is OBLIGATED to administer the current laws and policies and currently she has no business telling the people of KY who they can or can't marry. She needs to do her $80,000 per year job or step aside.