‘Pastor Protection Act’ Unanimously Passes Georgia House

Angel4Truth

New member
Hall of Fame
‘Pastor Protection Act’ Unanimously Passes Georgia House

ATLANTA, Ga. — The Georgia House of Representatives unanimously approved a bill this week that protects clergy from punishment if they decline to perform same-sex “weddings.”

H.B. 757 was introduced last summer by Rep. Kevin Tanner, R-Dawsonville, and found support from Democrats and Republicans alike.

“No minister of the gospel or cleric or religious practitioner ordained or authorized to solemnize marriages, perform rites, or administer sacraments according to the usages of the denomination, when acting in his or her official religious capacity, shall be required to solemnize any marriage, perform any rite or administer any sacrament in violation of his or her right to free exercise of religion under the Constitution of this state or the United States,” the bill reads in part.

In addition to churches, the bill also applies to religious schools, missionary societies and denominational conventions.
The Pastor Protection Act is a simple reaffirmation of our bedrock principle of separation of church and state,” Tanner told reporters. “It makes clear that Georgia respects and honors the sacred oaths taken by our pastors, priests, rabbis and other clergy and that government has no intention of asking them to violate those oaths.”

Homosexual advocacy groups decried the move, opining that it grants a “license to discriminate.”

“It allows faith-based organizations to withhold services if they choose to do so,” Jeff Graham, the executive director of Georgia Equality, said in testimony before the Senate Rules Committee, which is considering a similar combined bill. “I am especially concerned that this bill will have a chilling effect on the state’s LGBT families.”

As previously reported, a homosexual activist has been calling for clergy nationwide to stop calling homosexuality sinful. According to the New York Times, Mitchell Gold of Faith in America told the publication last May that “church leaders must be made ‘to take homosexuality off the sin list.’”

During an appearance at a Alexander County, North Carolina Commissioner’s meeting last month, he stated that his New Year’s resolution for 2016 is to put an end to such teaching.

“It’s outdated. It’s misguided. It’s ill-informed. But worse, it is unbelievably harmful,” Gold stated.

Gold recently also penned a letter to the editor of the Taylorsville Times, stating that “The overriding reason … LGBT people suffer deep depression and are driven to suicide is because they feel they are broken—that they are sinners. I’ve come to the conclusion this religious teaching is one of the most harmful in our society today.”

The Pastor Protection Act passed 161-0 on Thursday.

“There’s a global threat to religious liberty occurring,” said Dr. Daniel Ausbun, pastor of First Baptist Church in Moreland in a column published in the Newnan Times-Herald on Saturday. “Religious liberty is the freedom to believe and practice your faith apart from government interference.”

“We don’t want a government that imposes penalties for religious opinions of any kind,” he said. “The sad fact is, throughout Georgia, people of faith have had their right of free exercise of religion trampled, ignored and restricted.”
http://christiannews.net/2016/02/19/pastor-protection-act-unanimously-passes-georgia-house/

Good for them, but a sad thing that it has to be done to begin with, since the LGBT crowd is indulging in fascism.
 

Crucible

BANNED
Banned
I think it's a shame that we even need these protections put in place. Atheists love to go about 'Separation of Church and State' as if it isn't also a protection for the religious as well.

I guess the Constitution is next in line :rolleyes:
 

Angel4Truth

New member
Hall of Fame
I think it's a shame that we even need these protections put in place. Atheists love to talk about 'Separation of Church and State' as if it isn't also a protection for the religious as well.

I guess the Constitution is next in line :rolleyes:

It was actually put in place to protect the churches, not the state. Its backwards now and not followed.
 

Jose Fly

New member
Here's an interesting spin on the same thing in Florida...

Florida Advances Unnecessary Pastor Protection Act

The U.S. Constitution assures that clergy members won’t be forced to perform any marriage they don’t endorse, but that’s not good enough for some Florida lawmakers, who today advanced a piece of state legislation that does the same thing...

...The vote came after the subcommittee heard impassioned testimony both for and against the bill. Plakon acknowledged that the Constitution’s First Amendment, guaranteeing freedom of religion, already assures that clergy members have discretion over who they’ll marry.

So even the bill's sponsor recognizes the protections he seeks already exist. And here's the interesting part...
Carlos Guillermo Smith of the LGBT group Equality Florida said his organization would defend any clergy member or house of worship that was sued. “But we know that is not going to be necessary,” he said, according to the Post. “We know that the existing and clearly defined constitutional protections mean such an imaginary lawsuit would not have any legal basis.”

So even the gay activists agree that pastors are free to marry only those they wish.

Like I said....a solution in search of a problem.
 

Crucible

BANNED
Banned
Here's an interesting spin on the same thing in Florida...

Florida Advances Unnecessary Pastor Protection Act



So even the bill's sponsor recognizes the protections he seeks already exist. And here's the interesting part...


So even the gay activists agree that pastors are free to marry only those they wish.

Like I said....a solution in search of a problem.

Separation of Church and State isn't part of the Constitution. It's rather a clause that was put forth by Thomas Jefferson and therefore is at risk if America wants to get weird.
 

brewmama

New member
If they tried but failed then it seems like there was nothing to fix?

If you don't see the threat to religious freedom that these new policies entail you are woefully naive. Churches' tax exempt status will most likely be threatened, along with any religious school's accreditation and funding. Efforts will be made to put them out of existence.
 

Jonahdog

BANNED
Banned
If you don't see the threat to religious freedom that these new policies entail you are woefully naive. Churches' tax exempt status will most likely be threatened, along with any religious school's accreditation and funding. Efforts will be made to put them out of existence.

Ah, why should a church not be taxed? There is clearly no economic or fiscal reason not to tax religious institutions.
 

Crucible

BANNED
Banned
Ah, why should a church not be taxed? There is clearly no economic or fiscal reason not to tax religious institutions.

SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

It's a two way road, Broseph.

It was actually put in place to protect the churches, not the state. Its backwards now and not followed.

Thomas Jefferson put the clause in place for the sole purpose of putting up a wall between the two. That's the way the clause is written.

It's why, for example, churches do not have to pay taxes. But because it is a clause, and not actually in the Constitution, it is something that isn't followed as closely as it should be.

Basically, it's just an assurance that America didn't become a church-state. They didn't want something like Catholicism happening all over again.
As far as the Constitution, all freedom of religion was intended for was to prevent people from forcing others to go to their church- that was literally the only consensus in that regard, but you can see what modern day America has reinterpreted and abused it as.
 

brewmama

New member
Ah, why should a church not be taxed? There is clearly no economic or fiscal reason not to tax religious institutions.

Churches never had to pay taxes in the history of the United States. They predate taxation and the tax exemption carved out for them was because the US government is constitutionally prohibited from interfering with the free exercise of religion.

"A call for ending tax exemptions for religious institutions is a call to close them down—or at least to plunder them of their property. That is what is going on here. Think of the irreparable harm that would follow if and when these many small churches are effectively forced to close their doors—harm that will come not only to these ministers and parishioners themselves, but also to the poor and vulnerable: lost foster-care services, tutoring of teens, material and spiritual relief for the poor, and character development, often in the places it is needed most.

I am wondering if the average gay-marriage supporter flying the rainbow on his or her Facebook profile knew he or she was signing-up for this when agreeing to support gay marriage? I doubt it. Surely we can come up with more sensible ways for people of good will to hold their differing views—ways that don’t involve annihilating one another. Oppenheimer’s suggestion is not an encouraging sign. Hopefully cooler heads will prevail."
http://thefederalist.com/2015/06/29/ending-tax-exemptions-means-ending-churches/

1. Government can’t pick some churches to tax & regulate but not others.
2. If we tax churches, then we will need to tax all not-for-profit organizations.
3. To tax churches, government would need to have the (currently unconstitutional) authority to audit and regulate churches.
4. Taxation would benefit large churches and ministries and harm smaller ones.
5. It wouldn’t solve the problem.- See more at: http://tobingrant.religionnews.com/...ver-is-right-commentary/#sthash.ZAMlYN9a.dpuf
 

Jose Fly

New member
Overtly racist churches (ones that refuse to marry interracial couples) maintain their tax exempt status, and clearly satirical churches do as well (like the one John Oliver started to make a point about how just about any self-titled "church"gets exempt status, no questions asked), so it's extremely unlikely that a church preaching that homosexuality is a sin will get their status revoked.

Just because some gay activists are calling for it doesn't mean it's going to happen any more than some Christians calling for the overthrow of the government (Dominionists) means that's going to happen.
 

Crucible

BANNED
Banned
Overtly racist churches (ones that refuse to marry interracial couples) maintain their tax exempt status, and clearly satirical churches do as well (like the one John Oliver started to make a point about how just about any self-titled "church"gets exempt status, no questions asked), so it's extremely unlikely that a church preaching that homosexuality is a sin will get their status revoked.

Just because some gay activists are calling for it doesn't mean it's going to happen any more than some Christians calling for the overthrow of the government (Dominionists) means that's going to happen.

SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

Do you not comprehend those words? The state cannot impose taxes on churches. They cannot impose secular regulations on their standards, either. That includes homosexual marriage.

This is what is ridiculous with many atheists today- the Separation clause is not just a protection against religious inquisition, it is also a protection for the religious as well. You can't dig your claws into churches :rolleyes:
 
Top