Warning: Link shows a republican governor being somewhat rational (http://www.rawstory.com/2016/03/georgias-gop-governor-uses-new-testament-to-reject-anti-lgbt-religious-freedom-bill/?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link)
QuoteGeorgia Gov. Nathan Deal (R) broke ranks with his state’s conservative lawmakers on Thursday in speaking out against a proposed “religious freedom†bill, Towleroad reported.
“I think what the New Testament teaches us is that Jesus reached out to those who were considered the outcasts, the ones that did not conform to the religious societies’ view of the world and said to those of belief, ‘This is what I want you to do,'†Deal said after a ribbon-cutting ceremony in Atlanta. “We do not have a belief â€" in my way of looking at religion â€" that says we have to discriminate against anybody. If you were to apply those standards to the teaching of Jesus, I don’t think they fit.â€
The measure, which was passed with bipartisan support in the state Senate, would allow clergy to opt out of performing same-sex marriages, and protect “a person or faith-based organization who believes, speaks, or acts in accordance with certain sincerely held religious beliefs†from incurring any penalties from the state government.
The bill has already drawn comparisons to heavily-criticized measures in Arkansas and Indiana which were ultimately walked back. But despite stating his belief that marriage is between a man and a woman, Deal has said that this type of legislation is “not one of those issues that I have been pushing.â€
We are not jeopardized, in my opinion, by those who believe differently from us,†Deal said. “We are not, in my opinion, put in jeopardy by virtue of those who might hold different beliefs or who may not even agree with what our Supreme Court said the law of the land is on the issue of same-sex marriage. I do not feel threatened by the fact that people who might choose same-sex marriages pursue that route.â€
As much as I disagree with the guy at times, he is one of the more sensible red state governors. He also accepted the SCOTUS decision on marriage equality with grace, even though he personally disagrees.
Sounds like hes expressing his opinion only after it no longer matters.
Quote from: Nonsensei on March 03, 2016, 10:39:12 PM
Sounds like hes expressing his opinion only after it no longer matters.
The bill hasn't yet been sent to his desk or approved by the house, so it still matters.
Oh, I thought it had already passed.
Quote from: Nonsensei on March 03, 2016, 10:42:33 PM
Oh, I thought it had already passed.
Nah. He also said he'd reject any bill that allows discrimination. I don't know if this is due to the money Georgia would lose, or due to what his heart says, but either way it's good for me.
Also during research I learned that he quietly changed the names of two holidays commemorating the Confederacy to "State Holiday".
http://www.11alive.com/story/news/politics/2015/08/08/confederate-holidays-removed-georgia-calendar/31344079/
I still find it absurd that a politician would feel the urge to evoke "What would Jesus do" when figuring out how to enact legislation.
Quote from: TomFoolery on March 03, 2016, 11:07:21 PM
I still find it absurd that a politician would feel the urge to evoke "What would Jesus do" when figuring out how to enact legislation.
How else are you suppose to talk to your conservative base?
Well maybe he got a sign after asking WWJD..
(http://i1160.photobucket.com/albums/q490/atheola/IMG_20141014_151223_1.jpg)
Quote from: TomFoolery on March 03, 2016, 11:07:21 PM
I still find it absurd that a politician would feel the urge to evoke "What would Jesus do" when figuring out how to enact legislation.
Every male in Georgia gets circumcised and has a Bar Mitzvah if they are 13 or older. Bat Mitzvah and no circumcision if they are women.
Quote from: Baruch on March 04, 2016, 06:42:00 AM
Every male in Georgia gets circumcised and has a Bar Mitzvah if they are 13 or older. Bat Mitzvah and no circumcision if they are women.
Fuck, I must have missed out on my Bar Mitzvah.
Quote from: The Skeletal Atheist on March 04, 2016, 06:44:43 AM
Fuck, I must have missed out on my Bar Mitzvah.
You can have one anytime after 13 too. There are examples of senior citizens getting a Bar or Bat Mitzvah. But you have to convert ... after being told you can't three times over some indeterminate period of time. Only the most determined convert, and the most liberal rabbi, will allow any conversions.
In Israel, where there are competing Jewish sects, some men have been circumcised more than once ;-(
Quote from: Baruch on March 04, 2016, 07:04:32 AM
You can have one anytime after 13 too. There are examples of senior citizens getting a Bar or Bat Mitzvah. But you have to convert ... after being told you can't three times over some indeterminate period of time. Only the most determined convert, and the most liberal rabbi, will allow any conversions.
In Israel, where there are competing Jewish sects, some men have been circumcised more than once ;-(
I'd rather not have more of my dick cut off.
Male circumcision is an extension of a literal castration and sacrifice ritual -which the strongest male of the tribe is sacrificied violently after ruling over as a 'king for a year' in winter solictice (hello jesus; born again as a god'; became a god breaking the tradition lol)- that existed thousands of years ago in some ancient pagan cultures and adopted by judaism on the 'road' to monotheism.
It's a monstrously violent ritual that has the record in Egyptian archives told as practiced 'thousands of years ago' which are thousands of years old themselves. (I had to translate an interpretation of that ritual and it is highly disturbing.)
Sacrifice is the most ancient belief of paying blood for 'safety of the tribe' and it 'counts more' if you sacrificise the stronger and bigger animal possible which is male among humans along with strong animals like bull. The logic is if you want to play blood for the safety of the tribe, pay it in human blood. Currency of the gods,lol.
So those Israeli men are actually 'castrating' themselves over again to prove their faith to their god, EXACTLY like the pagans did thousands and thousands of years ago.
Sacrifice for the tribe? You speak as if that is a bad thing! Too bad there aren't any volcanoes in Turkey, I so assume there are virgins available ;-)
Sacrificing the "sun king" every 12 months is something we need to get back to. Then the US government would need new politicians every 12 months ;-)) And the only volunteers would be people who really really want to be in politics.
It passed the house. Now it's all riding on Deal to veto it. Here's hoping he'll keep to his word.
After the reworking the bill got, it does not have as much teeth as it use to (most of it seems to be that pastors can't be forced to perform gay marriages, which was the law anyways), but I'm still hoping the governor does the right thing and veto the horrid bill. Passing bills like this is as much about discrimination as it is about sending messages, and I don't want the homophobes to get that message.
VETOED
Good.
Quote from: The Skeletal Atheist on March 28, 2016, 12:11:05 PM
VETOED
Good news. Thanks for the update.
I'm looking at an article about it (http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/28/us/georgia-north-carolina-lgbt-bills/index.html) right now. It's quite the entertaining read. Apparently, pissing off businesses with discriminatory policies didn't work out in evangelicals' favor. Who could have seem that coming?
Quote from: the article"Today, we saw exactly why our government needs committed conservatives who never stop fighting to protect the Constitution," he said in a statement. "The announcement by Governor Deal is another example of how the political class is bought and paid for by corporations and lobbyists. Rather than standing up and protecting the First Amendment, the political class would rather sacrifice those rights to keep the money flowing."
Deal mentioned the First Amendment in his statement, saying he found it ironic that some people acknowledge that God grants the freedoms enumerated in the First Amendment but want the government to enact laws to secure those rights.
I'd love to hear what sort of "rights" they allegedly lost.
It's not all sunshine and sparkles now though, nor will it be. Georgia still has no law actually protecting LGBT people, and the state's conservative legislators still have a frightening chance to overturn the veto. The business community has spoken, Georgia will lose billions if this goes through, but they've gone full derp and are already saying they're going to try everything to enact this legislation.
Quote from: Hydra009 on March 28, 2016, 12:38:04 PM
Good news. Thanks for the update.
I'm looking at an article about it (http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/28/us/georgia-north-carolina-lgbt-bills/index.html) right now. It's quite the entertaining read. Apparently, pissing off businesses with discriminatory policies didn't work out in evangelicals' favor. Who could have seem that coming?
I'd love to hear what sort of "rights" they allegedly lost.
The right to be placed upon a pedestal.
I'm not sure I understand the problem with the bill. If all it's saying is that clergy can't be forced to perform same-sex marriage and other functions contrary to their faith, I'm all for that. Why is that even a problem? Is there something else in the bill that's contentious?
Clergy have never been forced to perform same-sex marriages. It has never been seriously proposed that they do. So there is no issue here. What they want is segregation ... not a White water fountain/Black water fountain kind, but a Straight water fountain/Gay water fountain kind. That is the intent ... Gays are the new Black.
Quote from: Jack89 on March 28, 2016, 01:14:09 PM
I'm not sure I understand the problem with the bill. If all it's saying is that clergy can't be forced to perform same-sex marriage and other functions contrary to their faith, I'm all for that. Why is that even a problem? Is there something else in the bill that's contentious?
The original bill had provisions that allowed businesses to discriminate against LGBT people, or technically anyone provided they had a "sincere religious belief". Pastors are already protected by the constitution. They can even refuse to do interracial marriages, and some do.
The watered down version was meant as both a "we don't like your kind round here" type message, and as a foot in the door.
Quote from: Baruch on March 28, 2016, 01:49:03 PM
Clergy have never been forced to perform same-sex marriages. It has never been seriously proposed that they do. So there is no issue here. What they want is segregation ... not a White water fountain/Black water fountain kind, but a Straight water fountain/Gay water fountain kind. That is the intent ... Gays are the new Black.
That's kind of a vague analogy, like most reference to the bill that I've read. I did a little more reading and the concern seems to be that religious organization would have the ability to hire and fire based on beliefs and practices. Again, so what? Does it make sense to force a Mosque to hire a Hindu, or a Christian Church to hire an Asatruar? I certainly wouldn't want my local Catholic parish to hire someone who openly supports elective abortion. We're talking religious organizations here.
What I really think is going on here is Governor Deal responding to pressure from big businesses like Apple, Disney, Marvel, Time-Warner and the like, who have threatened to pull their business away from Georgia if the bill passes. Financially speaking, it's probably best for the state if they buckle under the pressure, but it's also a testament to how influential big business really is.
Quote from: The Skeletal Atheist on March 28, 2016, 02:03:56 PM
The original bill had provisions that allowed businesses to discriminate against LGBT people, or technically anyone provided they had a "sincere religious belief". Pastors are already protected by the constitution. They can even refuse to do interracial marriages, and some do.
The watered down version was meant as both a "we don't like your kind round here" type message, and as a foot in the door.
Are we talking businesses, or religious organizations? Maybe that's the point I'm missing.
Quote from: Jack89 on March 28, 2016, 02:35:21 PM
Are we talking businesses, or religious organizations? Maybe that's the point I'm missing.
Anyone who had a " sincere religious belief", so businesses as well.
This has been tried in other states. Commercial law says, that within reasonable restrictions, you have to serve any legitimate customer like any other, for any product or service you publicly offer. You don't have to offer a new product or service (unless you are Apple being strong-armed by the FBI). Reasonable restrictions for a restaurant would include "no shoes, no shirt, no service". But the sign that says "I reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" isn't legal. Don't like the law, then change the law. The Catholics can only shop at Catholic owned stores etc ... Dominionism, just like Ted Cruz wants ... segregation for everyone. So as a Jew, in my town, unless I can find a Jewish restaurant, I can't get any food etc.
Quote from: The Skeletal Atheist on March 03, 2016, 10:15:58 PM
Warning: Link shows a republican governor being somewhat rational (http://www.rawstory.com/2016/03/georgias-gop-governor-uses-new-testament-to-reject-anti-lgbt-religious-freedom-bill/?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link)
As much as I disagree with the guy at times, he is one of the more sensible red state governors. He also accepted the SCOTUS decision on marriage equality with grace, even though he personally disagrees.
This shit sounds all backwards. This law says it lets clergy opt out of marrying same sex couples. Why is this even needed? Are clergy forced to marry same sex couples? There should be no laws at all about same sex marriage. That's the whole point of my support for it. Basically everything should be allowed unless you can justify imposing it's prohibition on the rest of society. Since there's not been any sound argument to prohibit same sex marriage there should be no laws about it at all. Gays should just follow the standard procedure of marriage: you get your legal documents from the state and then you can contract private entities to bake you a cake or whatever.
Clergy cannot be forced to marry anyone they do not wish to, so this law is redundant and mostly symbolic. Its meant to send a message more than anything, and that message is something along the lines of "fuck dem queers." While I generally frown upon corporate influence in politics, at least this time it was put to good use.
Where is General Sherman when you need him?