Pastor Protection Act - Florida Regulators Gone Wild.

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

I fully support gay marriage and glad it is the law of the land. But Churches should never be forced to perform a marriage against their wishes. There are so many other establishments to hold a gay marriage don't force it upon Churches. Same for bakers or other marriage vendors.

The 14th Amendment jurisprudence compelling the courts to invalidate the un-Constitutional state measures prohibiting same-sex couples from accessing marriage law applies solely to state and local governments, not private persons or organizations, such as clergy and churches.

This is why the Florida 'proposal' is inane, unwarranted, and completely devoid of merit – members of the clergy never had anything to 'fear' when states such as Florida hostile to gay Americans were required to afford same-sex couples their right to equal protection of the law.

Public accommodations laws with regard to discrimination based on sexual orientation is a completely different matter, however, having nothing to do with the 14th Amendment.

State and local laws prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation are necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policy authorized by the Commerce Clause, ensuring the integrity of local markets and all other interrelated markets, where discriminating against patrons based on sexual orientation is disruptive to local market.

 

[mikegriffith1]

There are liberals out there, quite a few, who absolutely think that conservative Baptist ministers or Catholic priests should be forced to perform gay weddings against their will. They have no regard for the First Amendment nor for basic common courtesy and tolerance. Anyone who will not bow to their perversion is guilty of "discrimination." So this legislation is not a waste of time at all.

 

[AVG-JOE]

No one can force a clergyman to perform a gay wedding ceremony. The Republican lawmakers know this, but they are depending on the retard voters not to know this.

Judging by some of the responses in this topic, they guessed correctly.

Does the Constitution address JUST clergymen?

No, of course not. The 1st is a guarantee to all citizens, not just some.

Here is a list of all the churches that have been forced to marry a couple in this nation:

1.

Thank heavens this legislation came around to solve a nonexistent problem.

Trusting the federal government?? You can keep it

I take it you'd prefer to have your Military, IRS and Social Security records under the control and responsibility of some corporation that can be purchased by some rich asshole from Saudi Arabia?

Are you SURE you've thought this through?

As long as you're sure

 

[AVG-JOE]

No one can force a clergyman to perform a gay wedding ceremony. The Republican lawmakers know this, but they are depending on the retard voters not to know this.

Judging by some of the responses in this topic, they guessed correctly.

Does the Constitution address JUST clergymen?

No, of course not. The 1st is a guarantee to all citizens, not just some.

Here is a list of all the churches that have been forced to marry a couple in this nation:

1.

Thank heavens this legislation came around to solve a nonexistent problem.

It's more preemptive

Preemptive social regulations? Yeah, that sounds like a people who're living free - not!

 

[AVG-JOE]

A Pastor following his faith hurts no one. Homosexuals have plenty of places they can marry.

Exactly!

That's why this type of regulations coming from the government is such a waste of time.

I'd rather see my legislators discussing fair and simple tax codes, an end to deficit spending and transparency, thank you very much.

It's fear-mongering in politics brought to an art form.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

No one can force a clergyman to perform a gay wedding ceremony. The Republican lawmakers know this, but they are depending on the retard voters not to know this.

Judging by some of the responses in this topic, they guessed correctly.

Does the Constitution address JUST clergymen?

No, of course not. The 1st is a guarantee to all citizens, not just some.

Here is a list of all the churches that have been forced to marry a couple in this nation:

1.

Thank heavens this legislation came around to solve a nonexistent problem.

It's more preemptive

Preemptive social regulations? Yeah, that sounds like a people who're living free - not!

Consider it more preemption of freedom of religion. Again, the gays started this nonsense and yes it is nonsense, if someone doesn't want to bake a cake or marry someone that should be their choice. That's called "living free"

 

[AVG-JOE]

Like I said, the act of marriage has become meaningless...

Not when filing your tax returns or a Social Security retirement claim.

We, The People have two and only two choices:

Extend to ALL two-person partnerships with proper documentation the favoritism afforded to straight married couples.
or
End the marriage advantages built in to the system for ALL.
​

Anything less is discrimination defined and is therefore unconstitutional.

 

[AVG-JOE]

No one can force a clergyman to perform a gay wedding ceremony. The Republican lawmakers know this, but they are depending on the retard voters not to know this.

Judging by some of the responses in this topic, they guessed correctly.

Does the Constitution address JUST clergymen?

No, of course not. The 1st is a guarantee to all citizens, not just some.

Here is a list of all the churches that have been forced to marry a couple in this nation:

1.

Thank heavens this legislation came around to solve a nonexistent problem.

It's more preemptive

Preemptive social regulations? Yeah, that sounds like a people who're living free - not!

Consider it more preemption of freedom of religion. Again, the gays started this nonsense and yes it is nonsense, if someone doesn't want to bake a cake or marry someone that should be their choice. That's called "living free"

I see no reason to "make" a pastor officiate a gay wedding and I see no reason to "make" a bakery sell a cake to a gay couple.

Now, if that bakery wants to take a request for product from a potential customer and turn the denial of it in to a media circus in order to show how righteous the owners of the bakery are, fuck 'em

`​

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Does the Constitution address JUST clergymen?

No, of course not. The 1st is a guarantee to all citizens, not just some.

Here is a list of all the churches that have been forced to marry a couple in this nation:

1.

Thank heavens this legislation came around to solve a nonexistent problem.

It's more preemptive

Preemptive social regulations? Yeah, that sounds like a people who're living free - not!

Consider it more preemption of freedom of religion. Again, the gays started this nonsense and yes it is nonsense, if someone doesn't want to bake a cake or marry someone that should be their choice. That's called "living free"

I see no reason to "make" a pastor officiate a gay wedding and I see no reason to "make" a bakery sell a cake to a gay couple.

Now, if that bakery wants to take a request for product from a potential customer and turn the denial of it in to a media circus in order to show how righteous the owners of the bakery are, fuck 'em

`​

Or the flip side, a lesbian couple intentionally target a baker and then create a media circus? Most people might get upset but that was over the top and then the lesbians were screaming foul when it blew up. They should have walked

 

[AVG-JOE]

Here is a list of all the churches that have been forced to marry a couple in this nation:

1.

Thank heavens this legislation came around to solve a nonexistent problem.

It's more preemptive

It's more pandering.

Perhaps...gee that entire cake thing comes to mind though

Churches are not, never have been, and, nor should be subject to public accommodation laws. If they did, a Catholic could demand a wedding service in a Synagogue and they would have to comply. I support a church's right to refuse to marry any couple as they see fit it.

You realize if the gays would cease with their quest to be viewed as "normal" this wouldn't be happening. It's sad laws like this are even considered but it's in response to gay's pushing it

There are dollars and cents advantages to being married in this country with regards to taxes, the military and retirement. Prior to last years Supreme Court decisions, the government was not treating ALL two-person domestic partnerships with proper documentation the same.

That is the textbook definition of discrimination and it was unfair.

Plain and simple - if you want the government to stop recognizing gay marriages, you need to start advocating for ALL marriage benefits from the government to be abolished.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Here is a list of all the churches that have been forced to marry a couple in this nation:

1.

Thank heavens this legislation came around to solve a nonexistent problem.

It's more preemptive

Preemptive social regulations? Yeah, that sounds like a people who're living free - not!

Consider it more preemption of freedom of religion. Again, the gays started this nonsense and yes it is nonsense, if someone doesn't want to bake a cake or marry someone that should be their choice. That's called "living free"

I see no reason to "make" a pastor officiate a gay wedding and I see no reason to "make" a bakery sell a cake to a gay couple.

Now, if that bakery wants to take a request for product from a potential customer and turn the denial of it in to a media circus in order to show how righteous the owners of the bakery are, fuck 'em

`​

Or the flip side, a lesbian couple intentionally target a baker and then create a media circus? Most people might get upset but that was over the top and then the lesbians were screaming foul when it blew up. They should have walked

Case by case. Everybody has the same chance in any situation to do what they think is right and then we get to judge all parties in message board conversations.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Here is a list of all the churches that have been forced to marry a couple in this nation:

1.

Thank heavens this legislation came around to solve a nonexistent problem.

It's more preemptive

It's more pandering.

Perhaps...gee that entire cake thing comes to mind though

Churches are not, never have been, and, nor should be subject to public accommodation laws. If they did, a Catholic could demand a wedding service in a Synagogue and they would have to comply. I support a church's right to refuse to marry any couple as they see fit it.

You realize if the gays would cease with their quest to be viewed as "normal" this wouldn't be happening. It's sad laws like this are even considered but it's in response to gay's pushing it

There are dollars and cents advantages to being married in this country with regards to taxes, the military and retirement. Prior to last years Supreme Court decisions, the government was not treating ALL two-person domestic partnerships with proper documentation the same.

That is the textbook definition of discrimination and it was unfair.

Plain and simple - if you want the government to stop recognizing gay marriages, you need to start advocating for ALL marriage benefits from the government to be abolished.

I've said all along if they want to be pretend married go for it, but when they start this cake baking garbage and forced acceptance that's where I draw the line. Be gay, live your life, just keep it away from me and our children. You cannot force something on someone when it is against their beliefs, if you do expect blow back and that is what is happening

 

[AVG-JOE]

Does the Constitution address JUST clergymen?

No, of course not. The 1st is a guarantee to all citizens, not just some.

Here is a list of all the churches that have been forced to marry a couple in this nation:

1.

Thank heavens this legislation came around to solve a nonexistent problem.

Then why are you so angry over a law you consider meaningless?
Never mind, we know why.

We're not angry. We are laughing at your expense.

The lawmakers know you're too stupid to get the joke. They'll get the rube vote for this trick.

Next up, Florida lawmakers spend time passing a law setting up a detailed system documenting illegal aliens....the kind from outer space.

The homosexual agenda is to force Churches to comply.

If you can provide a credible link to prove that claim, I'll kiss your ass on the 50-yard line during any game you'll buy the tickets for.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Here is a list of all the churches that have been forced to marry a couple in this nation:

1.

Thank heavens this legislation came around to solve a nonexistent problem.

It's more preemptive

Preemptive social regulations? Yeah, that sounds like a people who're living free - not!

Consider it more preemption of freedom of religion. Again, the gays started this nonsense and yes it is nonsense, if someone doesn't want to bake a cake or marry someone that should be their choice. That's called "living free"

I see no reason to "make" a pastor officiate a gay wedding and I see no reason to "make" a bakery sell a cake to a gay couple.

Now, if that bakery wants to take a request for product from a potential customer and turn the denial of it in to a media circus in order to show how righteous the owners of the bakery are, fuck 'em

`​

Or the flip side, a lesbian couple intentionally target a baker and then create a media circus? Most people might get upset but that was over the top and then the lesbians were screaming foul when it blew up. They should have walked

Case by case. Everybody has the same chance in any situation to do what they think is right and then we get to judge all parties in message board conversations.

Nobody in their right mind agrees a $300K + fine for not baking a damn cake was just. It was over kill and did the "agenda" no favors

 

[AVG-JOE]

It's more preemptive

It's more pandering.

Perhaps...gee that entire cake thing comes to mind though

Churches are not, never have been, and, nor should be subject to public accommodation laws. If they did, a Catholic could demand a wedding service in a Synagogue and they would have to comply. I support a church's right to refuse to marry any couple as they see fit it.

You realize if the gays would cease with their quest to be viewed as "normal" this wouldn't be happening. It's sad laws like this are even considered but it's in response to gay's pushing it

There are dollars and cents advantages to being married in this country with regards to taxes, the military and retirement. Prior to last years Supreme Court decisions, the government was not treating ALL two-person domestic partnerships with proper documentation the same.

That is the textbook definition of discrimination and it was unfair.

Plain and simple - if you want the government to stop recognizing gay marriages, you need to start advocating for ALL marriage benefits from the government to be abolished.

I've said all along if they want to be pretend married go for it, but when they start this cake baking garbage and forced acceptance that's where I draw the line. Be gay, live your life, just keep it away from me and our children. You cannot force something on someone when it is against their beliefs, if you do expect blow back and that is what is happening

Since when is simple recognition and fair treatment in tax, Social Security and military policies "blow-back"

If the Supreme Court had not been required to make decisions in those famous cases last year because ALL marriage were already being recognized by the government, would we be having this discussion?

The only reason gay couples began to complain was because of the unfair treatment afforded their partnerships by the government.

Discrimination by the government is WRONG. Discrimination in the private sector is expected, just please don't be stupid about it.

If the bakery in question had told the couple that they were booked, or that they just didn't want the job, we probably would have never heard of them, but no... their first call was to the media to scream 'persecution!' The bakery fucked up on this one.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

It's more pandering.

Perhaps...gee that entire cake thing comes to mind though

Churches are not, never have been, and, nor should be subject to public accommodation laws. If they did, a Catholic could demand a wedding service in a Synagogue and they would have to comply. I support a church's right to refuse to marry any couple as they see fit it.

You realize if the gays would cease with their quest to be viewed as "normal" this wouldn't be happening. It's sad laws like this are even considered but it's in response to gay's pushing it

There are dollars and cents advantages to being married in this country with regards to taxes, the military and retirement. Prior to last years Supreme Court decisions, the government was not treating ALL two-person domestic partnerships with proper documentation the same.

That is the textbook definition of discrimination and it was unfair.

Plain and simple - if you want the government to stop recognizing gay marriages, you need to start advocating for ALL marriage benefits from the government to be abolished.

I've said all along if they want to be pretend married go for it, but when they start this cake baking garbage and forced acceptance that's where I draw the line. Be gay, live your life, just keep it away from me and our children. You cannot force something on someone when it is against their beliefs, if you do expect blow back and that is what is happening

Since when is simple recognition and fair treatment in tax, Social Security and military policies "blow-back"

If the Supreme Court had not been required to make decisions in those famous cases last year because ALL marriage were already being recognized by the government, would we be having this discussion?

The only reason gay couples began to complain was because of the unfair treatment afforded their partnerships by the government.

Discrimination by the government is WRONG. Discrimination in the private sector is expected, just please don't be stupid about it.

If the bakery in question had told the couple that they were booked, or that they just didn't want the job, we probably would have never heard of them, but no... their first call was to the media to scream 'persecution!' The bakery fucked up on this one.

Like I said, be gay I couldn't care less. They can have tax breaks, pretend to be married and anything else they think of with the exception of trying to force it on anyone that wants no part of it. It's really pretty simple. They were told there would be push back, I recall seeing it on forums and the gays laughing because they thought they were covered...well here it is and they are stunned it's happening

 

[AVG-JOE]

It's more preemptive

Preemptive social regulations? Yeah, that sounds like a people who're living free - not!

Consider it more preemption of freedom of religion. Again, the gays started this nonsense and yes it is nonsense, if someone doesn't want to bake a cake or marry someone that should be their choice. That's called "living free"

I see no reason to "make" a pastor officiate a gay wedding and I see no reason to "make" a bakery sell a cake to a gay couple.

Now, if that bakery wants to take a request for product from a potential customer and turn the denial of it in to a media circus in order to show how righteous the owners of the bakery are, fuck 'em

`​

Or the flip side, a lesbian couple intentionally target a baker and then create a media circus? Most people might get upset but that was over the top and then the lesbians were screaming foul when it blew up. They should have walked

Case by case. Everybody has the same chance in any situation to do what they think is right and then we get to judge all parties in message board conversations.

Nobody in their right mind agrees a $300K + fine for not baking a damn cake was just. It was over kill and did the "agenda" no favors

I agree. Do you think that the owners of the bakery could have come up with a less public way of discriminating against the customers they didn't want?

They were the ones who called the press. They could have just quietly turned those customers away - it happens every day in the private sector.

And, like someone else pointed out earlier in this thread, nobody is expecting any given Rabbi to have to perform a Catholic, Protestant or Muslim wedding just because he has a license to do so from the state.

The bullshit in the FL legislature is fear-mongering, pandering and an unnecessary waste of my tax dollars.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Preemptive social regulations? Yeah, that sounds like a people who're living free - not!

Consider it more preemption of freedom of religion. Again, the gays started this nonsense and yes it is nonsense, if someone doesn't want to bake a cake or marry someone that should be their choice. That's called "living free"

I see no reason to "make" a pastor officiate a gay wedding and I see no reason to "make" a bakery sell a cake to a gay couple.

Now, if that bakery wants to take a request for product from a potential customer and turn the denial of it in to a media circus in order to show how righteous the owners of the bakery are, fuck 'em

`​

Or the flip side, a lesbian couple intentionally target a baker and then create a media circus? Most people might get upset but that was over the top and then the lesbians were screaming foul when it blew up. They should have walked

Case by case. Everybody has the same chance in any situation to do what they think is right and then we get to judge all parties in message board conversations.

Nobody in their right mind agrees a $300K + fine for not baking a damn cake was just. It was over kill and did the "agenda" no favors

I agree. Do you think that the owners of the bakery could have come up with a less public way of discriminating against the customers they didn't want?

They were the ones who called the press. They could have just quietly turned those customers away - it happens every day in the private sector.

And, like someone else pointed out earlier in this thread, nobody is expecting any given Rabbi to have to perform a Catholic, Protestant or Muslim wedding just because he has a license to do so from the state.

The bullshit in the FL legislature is fear-mongering, pandering and an unnecessary waste of my tax dollars.

I would have baked the damn cake, but I'm not them. I don't know if it went public before or after the lesbians filed a complaint so I can't respond to that. I've heard several versions of what took place. The bottom line is this isn't over and it goes to the courts I believe in March, it will be interesting to see how it turns out

 

[AVG-JOE]

Pastor Protection Act may arise from gay-marriage ruling

TALLAHASSEE — In the wake of a landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage, a proposal by Republican lawmakers called the Pastor Protection Act could fuel a debate during next year's legislative session.
...............​

Walker's petition at change.org calls for a bill that will "be clear that religious leaders and houses of worship can't be forced by the government to violate their faith where marriage is concerned. … Religious leaders in the state of Florida must be absolutely secure in the knowledge that religious freedom is beyond the reach of government or coercion by the courts."
.................​

But Nadine Smith, executive director of the advocacy group Equality Florida, said religious leaders are already protected by the First Amendment.
​

What a waste of The Peoples resources.

If only the republicans actually believed their "smaller government" and "less regulations" mantras.


Talk about your selective politicking.

What's your real problem with them providing an additional safeguard whether necessary or not. It's not like these lawmakers are overly busy. Look at your Federal Tax Laws. Talk about overkill.

I agree. When I send my tax money to the FL state house I expect them to spend their time on stuff that matters, like increasing the fairness of the tax codes.

Debating legislation designed to pander to the blue-haired church ladies in Orlando for votes is a waste.

 

[AVG-JOE]

"But Nadine Smith, executive director of the advocacy group Equality Florida, said religious leaders are already protected by the First Amendment."

Most on the right won't let facts and the truth stand in the way political demagoguery.

I can think of a whole bunch of businesses , including a bakery, who thought the First Amendment protected their right to tell the Homos to go pound sand and found out differently.

It does.

Shame the devil and tell the truth now... we ALL know how to discriminate in our private dealings and not get caught.

The bakery fucked up when it tried to punish the gay couple in the media just for asking for a quote.