Religious freedom bill filed in Georgia!

[dblack]

Satanists?

The Church of Satan is a recognized religion in the United States

Oh, so does it have to be a 'recognized religion' to get the special perks?

Yes.

But doesn't the First Amendment prohibit government from writing laws respecting an establishment of religion?

Yes, but they are not establishing a religion, just recognizing it. As long as they use the same criteria for all, then there is no problem.

When government writes laws that offer special favors to recognized religions, that's "law respecting an establishment of religion". And it is a problem because it basically turns the First Amendment inside out. The point of the first was to prevent government from playing favorites with religion. But as soon as we designate some religions as 'recognized', and others as not, we're playing favorites. We're doing exactly what it was supposed to prevent.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

When government writes laws that offer special favors to recognized religions, that's "law respecting an establishment of religion". And it is a problem because it basically turns the First Amendment inside out. The point of the first was to prevent government from playing favorites with religion. But as soon as we designate some religions as 'recognized', and others as not, we're playing favorites. We're doing exactly what it was supposed to prevent.

Not at all. There can be no "favorite" when there are more than 300 recognized religions. Since the government has decided that religions should be tax exempt, there has to be come criteria for what is a religion.

The 1st was supposed to prevent a single religion becoming the official religion of the country, as was the case in many of the countries the founders left.

 

[dblack]

When government writes laws that offer special favors to recognized religions, that's "law respecting an establishment of religion". And it is a problem because it basically turns the First Amendment inside out. The point of the first was to prevent government from playing favorites with religion. But as soon as we designate some religions as 'recognized', and others as not, we're playing favorites. We're doing exactly what it was supposed to prevent.

Not at all. There can be no "favorite" when there are more than 300 recognized religions. Since the government has decided that religions should be tax exempt, there has to be come criteria for what is a religion.

Yep. And it's wrong for the same reason. The First Amendment doesn't authorize government to compile a list of recognized religions. It prohibits it.

The 1st was supposed to prevent a single religion becoming the official religion of the country, as was the case in many of the countries the founders left.

It was also supposed to prevent religious persecution. Which was happening in those countries. That's why the First doesn't just say government can't establish a religion. It goes further and says government can pass "no law respecting" religion.

But bickering over semantics is boring. My point is that laws granting special perks to anyone are wrong, regardless of which religion they follow, or whether they follow one at all.

The practical intent of this law is allow religious people to ignore anti-discrimination laws. That means someone can discriminate against gays because "God told me to", but not for their own personal reasons. Does that seem right to you?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

When government writes laws that offer special favors to recognized religions, that's "law respecting an establishment of religion". And it is a problem because it basically turns the First Amendment inside out. The point of the first was to prevent government from playing favorites with religion. But as soon as we designate some religions as 'recognized', and others as not, we're playing favorites. We're doing exactly what it was supposed to prevent.

Not at all. There can be no "favorite" when there are more than 300 recognized religions. Since the government has decided that religions should be tax exempt, there has to be come criteria for what is a religion.

Yep. And it's wrong for the same reason. The First Amendment doesn't authorize government to compile a list of recognized religions. It prohibits it.

The 1st was supposed to prevent a single religion becoming the official religion of the country, as was the case in many of the countries the founders left.

It was also supposed to prevent religious persecution. Which was happening in those countries. That's why the First doesn't just say government can't establish a religion. It goes further and says government can pass "no law respecting" religion.

But bickering over semantics is boring. My point is that laws granting special perks to anyone are wrong, regardless of which religion they follow, or whether they follow one at all.

The practical intent of this law is allow religious people to ignore anti-discrimination laws. That means someone can discriminate against gays because "God told me to", but not for their own personal reasons. Does that seem right to you?

I think people should be able to discriminate against anyone for any reason, so no it does not seem wrong.

Above you said "My point is that laws granting special perks to anyone are wrong, "...do not anti-discrimination laws grant special perks to certain groups? If you are part of a "protected" group you get perks that people not part of that group gets.

 

[dblack]

When government writes laws that offer special favors to recognized religions, that's "law respecting an establishment of religion". And it is a problem because it basically turns the First Amendment inside out. The point of the first was to prevent government from playing favorites with religion. But as soon as we designate some religions as 'recognized', and others as not, we're playing favorites. We're doing exactly what it was supposed to prevent.

Not at all. There can be no "favorite" when there are more than 300 recognized religions. Since the government has decided that religions should be tax exempt, there has to be come criteria for what is a religion.

Yep. And it's wrong for the same reason. The First Amendment doesn't authorize government to compile a list of recognized religions. It prohibits it.

The 1st was supposed to prevent a single religion becoming the official religion of the country, as was the case in many of the countries the founders left.

It was also supposed to prevent religious persecution. Which was happening in those countries. That's why the First doesn't just say government can't establish a religion. It goes further and says government can pass "no law respecting" religion.

But bickering over semantics is boring. My point is that laws granting special perks to anyone are wrong, regardless of which religion they follow, or whether they follow one at all.

The practical intent of this law is allow religious people to ignore anti-discrimination laws. That means someone can discriminate against gays because "God told me to", but not for their own personal reasons. Does that seem right to you?

I think people should be able to discriminate against anyone for any reason, so no it does not seem wrong.

But why should only non-religious people have to follow the law?

Above you said "My point is that laws granting special perks to anyone are wrong, "...do not anti-discrimination laws grant special perks to certain groups? If you are part of a "protected" group you get perks that people not part of that group gets.

Absolutely. I'm opposed to them across the board. They should be repealed. Assuaging opposition by doling out exemptions makes it harder to repeal them.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

But why should only non-religious people have to follow the law?

I do not think they should.

Absolutely. I'm opposed to them across the board. They should be repealed. Assuaging opposition by doling out exemptions makes it harder to repeal them.

Seems we are on the same page then

 

[dblack]

But why should only non-religious people have to follow the law?

I do not think they should.

Absolutely. I'm opposed to them across the board. They should be repealed. Assuaging opposition by doling out exemptions makes it harder to repeal them.

Seems we are on the same page then

Well, I'm opposed to these "religious freedom" laws. It sounded like you were supporting them.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

But why should only non-religious people have to follow the law?

I do not think they should.

Absolutely. I'm opposed to them across the board. They should be repealed. Assuaging opposition by doling out exemptions makes it harder to repeal them.

Seems we are on the same page then

Well, I'm opposed to these "religious freedom" laws. It sounded like you were supporting them.

Sorry if I gave that impression. I support the right of people to deny anyone service for anything.

 

[dblack]

But why should only non-religious people have to follow the law?

I do not think they should.

Absolutely. I'm opposed to them across the board. They should be repealed. Assuaging opposition by doling out exemptions makes it harder to repeal them.

Seems we are on the same page then

Well, I'm opposed to these "religious freedom" laws. It sounded like you were supporting them.

Sorry if I gave that impression. I support the right of people to deny anyone service for anything.

Do you support law proposed in the OP?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

But why should only non-religious people have to follow the law?

I do not think they should.

Absolutely. I'm opposed to them across the board. They should be repealed. Assuaging opposition by doling out exemptions makes it harder to repeal them.

Seems we are on the same page then

Well, I'm opposed to these "religious freedom" laws. It sounded like you were supporting them.

Sorry if I gave that impression. I support the right of people to deny anyone service for anything.

Do you support law proposed in the OP?

I support the right of people to deny anyone service for anything. This law is a step in the right direction in my opinion.

 

[dblack]

But why should only non-religious people have to follow the law?

I do not think they should.

Absolutely. I'm opposed to them across the board. They should be repealed. Assuaging opposition by doling out exemptions makes it harder to repeal them.

Seems we are on the same page then

Well, I'm opposed to these "religious freedom" laws. It sounded like you were supporting them.

Sorry if I gave that impression. I support the right of people to deny anyone service for anything.

Do you support law proposed in the OP?

I support the right of people to deny anyone service for anything. This law is a step in the right direction in my opinion.

That's what I thought. You can be pretty slippery.

We're NOT on the same page. It's not a step in the right direction because it's essentially buying off opposition to discrimination laws by granting special exemptions to their most vocal critics. It makes it harder to get the discrimination laws off the books.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I do not think they should.

Seems we are on the same page then

Well, I'm opposed to these "religious freedom" laws. It sounded like you were supporting them.

Sorry if I gave that impression. I support the right of people to deny anyone service for anything.

Do you support law proposed in the OP?

I support the right of people to deny anyone service for anything. This law is a step in the right direction in my opinion.

That's what I thought. You can be pretty slippery.

We're NOT on the same page. It's not a step in the right direction because it's essentially buying off opposition to discrimination laws by granting special exemptions to their most vocal critics. It makes it harder to get the discrimination laws off the books.

Well darn, how will I ever get to sleep at night knowing we are not on the same page!

 

[dblack]

Well darn, how will I ever get to sleep at night knowing we are not on the same page!

White noise can help. Keeping your room cool and dark will help as well. Also, staying off the computer for a couple of hours before you go to sleep is supposed to help, but I've never tried that one.

 

[bodecea]

Lawmaker introduces bill that will renew religious liberty debate in Georgia

I have been waiting for this to happen! We actually have a governor with a spine who will sign this as well,2 years ago that POS Deal wouldn't sign it.

Another example of using " religious freedom" as a weapon to trample on the civil rights of those who conservatives disapprove of..

Wrong. Leftists search these religious people out who they know won't make the product they want and then file suit. ANYONE should be allowed to deny service for ANY REASON.

For once I can agree with you.

You disappoint me Gator

Are you the wife or the husband?

Fascinating....

 

[bodecea]

Wrong. Leftists search these religious people out who they know won't make the product they want and then file suit. ANYONE should be allowed to deny service for ANY REASON.

For once I can agree with you.

You disappoint me Gator

Are you the wife or the husband?

Wtf? Very stupid question!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Of course it is, you're a coward.

What a confusing thing to say.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Well darn, how will I ever get to sleep at night knowing we are not on the same page!

White noise can help. Keeping your room cool and dark will help as well. Also, staying off the computer for a couple of hours before you go to sleep is supposed to help, but I've never tried that one.

I have found this helps the most...

 

[bodecea]

Still waiting...can you not even answer the easy question I gave you, is that one too hard for you also?

Who do you say Jesus is?

you first little man, you answer my question I will answer yours...I did ask my first after all.

WHO do you say Jesus is?

you first little man, you answer my question I will answer yours...I did ask my first after all.

(smile) If you're more worried about the Herald than you are the Savior that IS your answer. You've stumbled into my education kid.

What savior is this?

 

[RealDave]

Lawmaker introduces bill that will renew religious liberty debate in Georgia

I have been waiting for this to happen! We actually have a governor with a spine who will sign this as well,2 years ago that POS Deal wouldn't sign it.

Legalized discrimination from fake Christians.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Who do you say Jesus is?

you first little man, you answer my question I will answer yours...I did ask my first after all.

WHO do you say Jesus is?

you first little man, you answer my question I will answer yours...I did ask my first after all.

(smile) If you're more worried about the Herald than you are the Savior that IS your answer. You've stumbled into my education kid.

What savior is this?

He has no clue.

 

[bodecea]

You disappoint me Gator

Are you the wife or the husband?

Wtf? Very stupid question!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Of course it is, you're a coward.

Who is a coward?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You. You can't admit to being a Catcher OR a Pitcher.

Looks like we've got a homo-voyeur here.