Religious liberties

[RoyalShock]

I find the incidents in this column very concerning for the future of Christians in America.

https://stream.org/pastors-theyre-coming-for-you/

[rrshock]

This is very scary. Freedom of religion, as guaranteed by the Constitution, is going away quickly. Lord help us all if the libtards take complete control.

[Aargh]

If your firmly held religious views include the desire to discriminate against people who do not adhere to your religious views, then you should expect to have difficulty working in the public sector.

It is not your right to discriminate against those different than you as a part of your religious freedom. The current law of the land doesn't allow discrimination against individuals because of their sexual orientation. If the views of a religious group take precedence over the laws of the nation, then we are dangerously close to something like Sharia law becoming part of our pracitces. Having the religious beliefs of one group override the law of the land, but not those of another freligious group would seriouslty violate our Constitution.

If someone wants to preach about the evils of homosexuality in their church,m that's certainly their right. It's also a demonstration of that person's inability to serve aws a public employee where that attitude is not allowed.

[RoyalShock]

Who said anything about the desire to discriminate? Scripture teaches the behavior is sinful. Would he have been fired for teaching that gambling is being a poor steward of resources and thereby sinful? Or idolatry? Why should homosexuality be protected as a behavior that cannot be preached against from the pulpit?

[Aargh]

Go ahead, preach against anything you want in your chuirch. If what your preaching against violates public policy, don't expect to work in the public sector.

[atlwsu]

If your firmly held religious views include the desire to discriminate against people who do not adhere to your religious views, then you should expect to have difficulty working in the public sector.

It is not your right to discriminate against those different than you as a part of your religious freedom. The current law of the land doesn't allow discrimination against individuals because of their sexual orientation. If the views of a religious group take precedence over the laws of the nation, then we are dangerously close to something like Sharia law becoming part of our pracitces. Having the religious beliefs of one group override the law of the land, but not those of another freligious group would seriouslty violate our Constitution.

If someone wants to preach about the evils of homosexuality in their church,m that's certainly their right. It's also a demonstration of that person's inability to serve aws a public employee where that attitude is not allowed.

I normal dont comment on post like this, but all I can say is WOW, what a shallow, philsophically indefencable argument. Holding a position that some conduct is immoral; abortion, homosexuality, adultry, speeding, lying..., and conducting oneself within the law does not disqualify one from public service. Sound like thought police. Expression is legal action is illegal.

One of my favorite managers was gay, had a live in partner. I lived him and would work for him again, or have him work for me. My least favorite managers had a live in hederosexual partner and I would never hire her.

[RoyalShock]

Go ahead, preach against anything you want in your chuirch. If what your preaching against violates public policy, don't expect to work in the public sector.

This sounds a lot like discrimination in hiring is fine, as long as it's discrimination you agree with.

Does believing and preaching that life begins at conception disqualify someone from working in the public sector?

[SHOCKvalue]

If someone wants to preach about the evils of homosexuality in their church,m that's certainly their right. It's also a demonstration of that person's inability to serve aws a public employee where that attitude is not allowed.

Go ahead, preach against anything you want in your chuirch. If what your preaching against violates public policy, don't expect to work in the public sector.

Did you borrow these quotes from Adolf Hitler in an analogous manner, or are they actually original to you?

Lordy...

[jdshock]

It's tough to be certain of the facts in these cases. All of the quotes come from the attorneys representing the individual who is suing the government. They obviously have an interest in presenting the facts one way. If they are telling the truth, I would think it's likely they'll win that lawsuit. A couple of the other ones are still ongoing, too. If the courts side with the folks that were fired, it's not really fair to say "our legal system has abandoned religious protections!" since that's how the law is supposed to function. It's still too early to tell.

The Houston example that was cited was slightly different. Houston had an anti discrimination statute and religious entities were excluded from the law. An organization sued to say they were a religious entity. In the lawsuit, the city asked for them to turn everything over. (this is all based on memory, but I believe it's what happened). That's just how lawsuits work, though.

There are going to be a lot of interesting developments in this area of law over the next decade, but I feel pretty confident churches have nothing to worry about. More and more states are going to adopt sexual orientation anti discrimination laws, but basically none of them are going to apply to churches.

[wufan]

It's tough to be certain of the facts in these cases. All of the quotes come from the attorneys representing the individual who is suing the government. They obviously have an interest in presenting the facts one way. If they are telling the truth, I would think it's likely they'll win that lawsuit. A couple of the other ones are still ongoing, too. If the courts side with the folks that were fired, it's not really fair to say "our legal system has abandoned religious protections!" since that's how the law is supposed to function. It's still too early to tell.

The Houston example that was cited was slightly different. Houston had an anti discrimination statute and religious entities were excluded from the law. An organization sued to say they were a religious entity. In the lawsuit, the city asked for them to turn everything over. (this is all based on memory, but I believe it's what happened). That's just how lawsuits work, though.

There are going to be a lot of interesting developments in this area of law over the next decade, but I feel pretty confident churches have nothing to worry about. More and more states are going to adopt sexual orientation anti discrimination laws, but basically none of them are going to apply to churches.

These are strange times. My layman interpretation of freedom of speech, and freedom of religion is that you can say or practice any damn fool idea you see fit without worry of persecution provided that you do not inhibit any other fool from saying or practicing their foolish belief. Believing homosexuality (or whatever) is immoral, does not preclude you from being able to treat "sinners" fairly. There's a fine line there, and if you chose to be vocal about your dislike for such practices, you do open yourself up to criticism and potential lawsuit; however, if you do not persecute those damn fools that believe in some damn fool idea, then your beliefs/rhetoric are protected by the law. I hope it stays that way.

[Aargh]

The dude got fired for what he said. I doubt he got fired for saying "God says homosexuality is a sin. Sinners go to hell. Let's pray for the homosexuals so that they might see God's way is the right way."

I would be willing to wager there was some hate speech, something that could be interpreted as hate speech, or something encouraging the congregation to shun homosexuals.

This happened in Georgia. Georgia is a red state. It's not a liberal activist state. The attorney general ordered the sermons be turned over. Someone who heard the sermon had to have complained to someone. From there it went all the way to where the Attorney General (a second-term Republican) ordered the sermon or notes turned over to the State.

Do you think there was maybe something in the sermon that indicated the guy who gave the sermon might be a poor choice to be the Director of Public Health, where he would obviously be in a hiring/firing decision-making position?

You can find radically biased articles all over the Internet that present just one side of a story and present it in a way designed to inflame people who already share the beliefs the article is supporting. Then those articles get linked and spread. All that does is make an attempt to spread hate and present a select group of facts in a way that may have no bearing on what actually happened to trigger the article.

In my earlier posts I should have added a "but if you cross a certain line" statement. That would have made my meaning and thoughts better understood.

[SB Shock]

The dude got fired for what he said. I doubt he got fired for saying "God says homosexuality is a sin. Sinners go to hell. Let's pray for the homosexuals so that they might see God's way is the right way."

They ordered him to turn over his sermons, he refused. The government then had employees listen to his sermons (which evidently on youtube) and then fired him because they didn't like his beliefs. It looks like he was target by the LGBT crowd.

However, when officials at the DPH learned that Walsh's conservative views on marriage had been met with protests from LGBT activists when he was selected as a commencement speaker at Pasadena City College, the agency decided to launch an investigation into Walsh's preaching and a week later, DPH asked Walsh to submit copies of his sermons.

There is no indication he was fired because of something he said at work. It doesn't look like he was fired because he was unqualfied (since he had been appointed President Obama advisory board on HIV/AIDS) - so it sure is looking like religious discrimination. But there is always two side of the story.

[jdshock]

These are strange times. My layman interpretation of freedom of speech, and freedom of religion is that you can say or practice any damn fool idea you see fit without worry of persecution provided that you do not inhibit any other fool from saying or practicing their foolish belief. Believing homosexuality (or whatever) is immoral, does not preclude you from being able to treat "sinners" fairly. There's a fine line there, and if you chose to be vocal about your dislike for such practices, you do open yourself up to criticism and potential lawsuit; however, if you do not persecute those damn fools that believe in some damn fool idea, then your beliefs/rhetoric are protected by the law. I hope it stays that way.

I think that's probably all most people want, but it's tough.

The trick is finding how much room must be given to practice your foolish ideas. If I belonged to a religion that believed minorities were evil, what options must I be given to practice that? I can obviously choose to not interact with minorities. I can choose to not marry a minority. I can join the local KKK. My business, however, cannot deny service to someone for being a minority.

I truly believe Christians need to be at the forefront of ensuring religion doesn't become too entangled with the government. Christianity is a shrinking majority. If we set a precedent that we can set laws based on the majority religious beliefs, without regard for how that affects minority religious beliefs, Christians might be in for some REALLY rough laws down the road.

[WuDrWu]

Let me know when the next gay person that screams hate speech towards Christians is questioned or threatened, with, well anything.

[wufan]

Agree with above. There's room for all types of crazy to spew all types of hate. So long as it isn't assault or persecution, let damn fool crazy people do damn fool crazy things!