Nathan Deal makes a forceful, biblical case against Georgia’s ‘religious liberty’ bill (paid, county)

[jsvh]

I don't think this will come to pass. But Deal will probably wait until after the legislative session is done to veto it so lawmakers don't try to spend time crafting a new version.

[-thomass]

I'm surprised by deal's comments. Sounds like he may veto it.

[fieldm]

He will. He isnt as backwards as most of rural GA. We definitely need to make sure we vote in a progressive governor after Gov Del is gone

[fieldm]

Doesnt rural Georgia have more important issues to worry about like job growth, the heroin epidemic,etc?

[Pemgin]

Originally Posted by fieldm

Doesnt rural Georgia have more important issues to worry about like job growth, the heroin epidemic,etc?

Heroin is too hi-falutin'. It's mostly meth.

But yeah, you're right. Many of these legislators come from parts of the state that are dying, like Greg Kirk (Americus).

[J2rescue]

Originally Posted by arjay57

I'd still like to know if anyone has come up with a case of a Georgia preacher ever being forced to marry a gay couple (or anyone else) against his will.

This is a "solution" in search of a non-existent problem and the only repercussions are negative.

Can we not pretend that we doesn't see where this is heading? If marrying someone of the same sex is a "right", then anyone that chooses not perform such a ceremony is subject to litigation.

[fourthwarden]

Originally Posted by J2rescue

Can we not pretend that we doesn't see where this is heading? If marrying someone of the same sex is a "right", then anyone that chooses not perform such a ceremony is subject to litigation.

Except that that was already not true. A religious person has as much choice to do it as the couple does to not have that person marry them. This is already a protected right, and not the problem with this bill.

[J2rescue]

Originally Posted by jeoff

His actual words here are pretty good stuff...
“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 … We do not have a belief in my way of looking at religion 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.”
“What that says is we have a belief in forgiveness and that we do not have to discriminate unduly against anyone on the basis of our own religious beliefs. We are not jeopardized, in my opinion, by those who believe differently from us. 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.”

Obviously the governor opposed this because of the economic implications but if he's going to bring the Bible into it, he doesn't have a scrawny leg to stand on. Jesus absolutely reached out to the outcasts and he did so with a specific purpose. As he said, its not the healthy that need a doctor. His purpose was to challenge them to turn away from the life they were living in favor of a better way which he described. He wasn't whipped with a cat of nine tails because he wanted to be everyone's buddy. He had some challenging things to say for EVERYONE, not just the religious.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by J2rescue

Can we not pretend that we doesn't see where this is heading? If marrying someone of the same sex is a "right", then anyone that chooses not perform such a ceremony is subject to litigation.

On what theory? No one has ever had a right to force any preacher to marry them.

[-thomass]

I'm pretty sure that you can't force anyone to conduct a marriage ceremony. So part of the this proposed bill is useless legislation. Pastors are already protected.