Liberal group plans to go after religious groups in Ohio

  • Thread starter Thread starter JTD_Eagle1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JTD_Eagle1

Guest
In the recent email I received from the regional pro-life committee, it mentioned that a liberal gay rights advocacy group plans to target religious institutions that might refuse to rent facilities to activities that violate their beliefs. here is the article:

"**Our religious freedom in Ohio is being threatened by a wildfire of cultural censorship. Liberal group Equality Ohio just testified in the statehouse during a hearing on the Ohio Pastors Protection Act (HB-36) and made it clear they plan to go after churches, forcing them to rent church facilities to groups that oppose that church’s beliefs. They’re referring to homosexual ceremonies & events, but it would also mean pro-abortion groups, Planned Parenthood, etc.

Equality Ohio indicated they plan to leave your sanctuary alone (for now) but they openly announced to our legislators that they’re going after church meeting rooms, banquet halls, multi-purpose rooms, gyms, etc. Your church could be sued if you say “No.” Even if you win the case, the legal bill would be expensive.

This common sense piece of legislation is necessary to protect our pastors from being forced to allow their sacred spaces to be used for actions that violate their religious beliefs which are protected under the 1st Amendment. Remember, pastors would not be asking homosexuals to change their lifestyles. What the act does is says that pastors have the right to decide what activities may take place in their church buildings and on their church property.

“Many Ohio faith leaders and parishioners see rapid cultural and legal changes that point to looming threats to the free exercise of religion, despite First Amendment protections,” state Rep. Nino Vitale (R-Urbana) said in submitted testimony last week. “I think the turnout of almost 40 pastors who came to testify on this bill in the last general assembly show they see a real threat. This new bill just makes it clear, in this time of uncertainty, that Ohio clergy and Ohio church property remain protected from these types of legal challenges.”**

This is worrisome especially after the unfortunate court ruling against Barronelle Stutzman. Hopefully with the Trump administration this could be stopped and Neil Gorsuch will be confirmed.
 
The left insisted such things wouldn’t happen. Either they were wrong or lied, the latter being the most probable with the leaders and prominent voices on the left.
The odd thing is this stuff is happening in America whereas it’s not heard of in Western Europe, Canada, Australia or New Zealand where left-wing pressure groups have a tighter grip. That might be because of the litigious nature of modern America.
 
Interesting… the religious censorship I saw most recently was from a rabbi! He complained that the local recreation center shouldn’t have Easter egg hunts or Christmas tree lighting. Instead of a Christmas tree lighting, the recreation center had a “holiday tree lighting” last year thanks to his complaints… just a different perspective.:rolleyes:
 
Interesting… the censorship I saw most recently was from a rabbi! He complained that the local recreation center shouldn’t have Easter egg hunts or Christmas tree lighting. Instead of a Christmas tree lighting, the recreation center had a “holiday tree lighting” last year thanks to his complaints… just a different perspective.:rolleyes:
 
Doesn’t in a lawsuit seeking damages, the loser ends ip paying the vicyors legal bills? The tactic of trying to rent then suing could quite easily blow up in their face. Especially if communications come to light showing they intended to do this.
 
What they talked about in their testimony is about the public places that are for rent, as a business.
Just an fyi that it has nothing to do with places of worship, like a temple, synagogue, or mosque. They are talking about business spaces that they rent out to make money, that are indeed subject to the public accommodations laws.

.
Yes, but some liberal groups, such as planned parenthood will try to host meetings and other activities in church meeting rooms, etc. just to do it and get back at us.

Barronelle Stutzman has served gay and lesbian customers for many years just as she would anybody, as a good Christian should. It was the event that she found morally wrong that she couldn’t participate in. I have known a few gays over the years and treated them with just as much love and compassion as anybody else, but if I heard they were getting married to someone of the same gender, I wouldn’t go to the ceremony or reception.

Tolerence goes both ways, Gays and lesbians can get married by law to someone of the same gender (though I disagree with it) and I also have a freedom to my religion which states marriage is only between one man and one woman. In a recent article from the Catholic News Agency, it says she received support from gay customers to act according to her beliefs.

catholicnewsagency.com/news/florist-who-lost-religious-liberty-case-says-all-freedoms-are-at-stake-96605/

conservativereview.com/commentary/2017/02/catholic-bishops-call-on-trump-to-defend-religious-liberty-as-promised
 
I brought up the danger of renting parish property out to non-parish, secular groups years ago, where I worked as a youth minister. I seemed to be ignored. Recently I was on that parish’ website and see they’ve now changed their policy.
The only way to defend against this kind of targeting and bullying is to adopt a strict policy, and in writing, that only church groups are permitted to use church facilities.
 
I brought up the danger of renting parish property out to non-parish, secular groups years ago, where I worked as a youth minister. I seemed to be ignored. Recently I was on that parish’ website and see they’ve now changed their policy.
The only way to defend against this kind of targeting and bullying is to adopt a strict policy, and in writing, that only church groups are permitted to use church facilities.
This is a good idea.

Would this mean no individuals could rent out any church property (wedding reception)? my sister had her wedding reception at a hall owned by an orthodox church and on their property, and many halls around me that people rent out are owned by churches.
 
=ATraveller;14487016]The left insisted such things wouldn’t happen. Either they were wrong or lied, the latter being the most probable with the leaders and prominent voices on the left.
The problem with trusting people who say stuff like that is in the end they’ll just 🤷

Notice how the “two consenting adults” crowd has been a no show.
The odd thing is this stuff is happening in America whereas it’s not heard of in Western Europe, Canada, Australia or New Zealand where left-wing pressure groups have a tighter grip. That might be because of the litigious nature of modern America.
They have to be careful.

The goal in America for a lot of people isn’t “equality”. It’s looking and feeling good in front of the :cool: kids on the block so they can say they were on the ground for some great civil rights movement, like the folks in the 1960s when really all they are doing is arm-chair quarterbacking for :bighanky: their “friends” or a family member. :rolleyes:

It’s also become the goal to use this issue to elect liberal politicians, so they are taking careful steps not offend minority religious groups. That’s why you never see them going after renting spaces at a Church in Harlem or a mosque in Dearborn, Michigan.

See, during the REAL Civil Rights Movement, people would literally be risking their lives and reputation. Most of the people who so ardently defend gay “rights” would not risk any kind of confrontation with sharia law or even other Christians who make up liberal voting blocks.

Could imagine these folks who need safe spaces sitting down with an African-American in the deep Democratic South at a bar, and having the entire place go silent and have them walk over standing over them staring at them? Or risk getting shot and chased down by hunting parties and dogs for helping slaves escape?

The only reason why most people even ended up supporting so-called gay “marriage” wasn’t on the merits of so-called gay “marriage” but because it was easier—and really more fun and convenient to do so.

I guarantee you that if every single minority in the USA marched in the street and said “we will not vote again until same-sex marriage is removed”, that the liberal politicians would be making moves to get rid of it instantly.

The entire movement in America isn’t based on equality; it’s based on lies on top of lies.
 
=DaddyGirl;14487864]What they talked about in their testimony is about the public places that are for rent, as a business.
Just an fyi that it has nothing to do with places of worship, like a temple, synagogue, or mosque. They are talking about business spaces that they rent out to make money, that are indeed subject to the public accommodations laws.
Like these places:

youtube.com/watch?v=RgWIhYAtan4

So, where’s all these brave civil rights activists on this?
“You can’t offer something commercially and open to the public for a fee and only offer it to some people,” they point out
Even to people who can’t pay? That’s discrimination as well. :yup:
“Public accommodations were defined at the federal in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It’s what the lunch counter protests were about: if you’re open for business, you’re open for business to everyone. Period.”
While I am always amused when gay rights supporters have to use the Civil Rights Movement as a crutch, the fact is businesses should be able to refuse ANY service to ANYONE for ANY reason. Period.

Or we may see the day when GLAAD offices are required to have representatives from the Taliban to have more diverse POV.

May not even be the best example because many of the GLAAD folks would willingly go along with it.
Donald Trump supports same-sex marriage…so you probably won’t see any changes to this law, IMO.
We’ll see. But in all in, it’s why I voted for Ted Cruz. 👍
 
Like these places:

youtube.com/watch?v=RgWIhYAtan4

So, where’s all these brave civil rights activists on this?

Even to people who can’t pay? That’s discrimination as well. :yup:

While I am always amused when gay rights supporters have to use the Civil Rights Movement as a crutch, the fact is businesses should be able to refuse ANY service to ANYONE for ANY reason. Period.

Or we may see the day when GLAAD offices are required to have representatives from the Taliban to have more diverse POV.

May not even be the best example because many of the GLAAD folks would willingly go along with it.
We’ll see. But in all in, it’s why I voted for Ted Cruz. 👍
I backed Cruz in the beginning also. Last year, I read an article when an anti gay activist wanted a gay baker to make a cake saying marriage is between one man and one woman, (I think it was in Colorado) the baker refused and a court said he could, but meanwhile you have people like Baronelle Stutzman saying she can’t and the courts forcing her with fines and losing her business!! Double Standard ??
 
“You can’t offer something commercially and open to the public for a fee and only offer it to some people,” they point out. “Public accommodations were defined at the federal in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It’s what the lunch counter protests were about: if you’re open for business, you’re open for business to everyone. Period.”
That’s not 100% correct–you only have to be open for business to protected classes–that’s why drug companies are able to refuse to sell lethal injection drugs to states that use them to carry out death sentences–claiming that the death penalty violates their companies morals. It’s why the gentleman in Arizona could refuse Trump voters. The 1964 Federal Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination by privately owned places of public accommodation on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin. Nonprofit organizations such as churches are generally exempt from the law.

So actually you can offer something commercially to the public for a fee and only offer it to some people–for example you can have a dress code–the no shirt, no shoes, no service sign and enforce it–even against protected classes–as long as you enforce it against everyone–you can’t be arbitrary. You can’t let some shoeless people in, but not others.

The peace of Christ,
Mark
 
I backed Cruz in the beginning also. Last year, I read an article when an anti gay activist wanted a gay baker to make a cake saying marriage is between one man and one woman, (I think it was in Colorado) the baker refused and a court said he could, but meanwhile you have people like Baronelle Stutzman saying she can’t and the courts forcing her with fines and losing her business!! Double Standard ??
I believe in the Colorado case you are referring to the court found that the baker had a consistent policy of refusing to create cakes that used derogatory language or imagery. I’m not aware of what the person involved in the suit wanted put on the cake. So it’s not quite apples to apples. Now if you could find that this baker had baked cakes with say an anti-religious messages or some other derogatory language–then the person above would have a case.

The peace of Christ,
Mark
 
I believe in the Colorado case you are referring to the court found that the baker had a consistent policy of refusing to create cakes that used derogatory language or imagery. I’m not aware of what the person involved in the suit wanted put on the cake. So it’s not quite apples to apples. Now if you could prove that this baker baked cakes with anti-religious sayings or other derogatory things and refused the person above–then you’d have a case.

The peace of Christ,
Mark
 
In the recent email I received from the regional pro-life committee, it mentioned that a liberal gay rights advocacy group plans to target religious institutions that might refuse to rent facilities to activities that violate their beliefs. here is the article:

"**Our religious freedom in Ohio is being threatened by a wildfire of cultural censorship. Liberal group Equality Ohio just testified in the statehouse during a hearing on the Ohio Pastors Protection Act (HB-36) and made it clear they plan to go after churches, forcing them to rent church facilities to groups that oppose that church’s beliefs. They’re referring to homosexual ceremonies & events, but it would also mean pro-abortion groups, Planned Parenthood, etc.

Equality Ohio indicated they plan to leave your sanctuary alone (for now) but they openly announced to our legislators that they’re going after church meeting rooms, banquet halls, multi-purpose rooms, gyms, etc. Your church could be sued if you say “No.” Even if you win the case, the legal bill would be expensive.

This common sense piece of legislation is necessary to protect our pastors from being forced to allow their sacred spaces to be used for actions that violate their religious beliefs which are protected under the 1st Amendment. Remember, pastors would not be asking homosexuals to change their lifestyles. What the act does is says that pastors have the right to decide what activities may take place in their church buildings and on their church property.

“Many Ohio faith leaders and parishioners see rapid cultural and legal changes that point to looming threats to the free exercise of religion, despite First Amendment protections,” state Rep. Nino Vitale (R-Urbana) said in submitted testimony last week. “I think the turnout of almost 40 pastors who came to testify on this bill in the last general assembly show they see a real threat. This new bill just makes it clear, in this time of uncertainty, that Ohio clergy and Ohio church property remain protected from these types of legal challenges.”**

This is worrisome especially after the unfortunate court ruling against Barronelle Stutzman. Hopefully with the Trump administration this could be stopped and Neil Gorsuch will be confirmed.
Some context please. You are showing just one side of this issue.
 
Some context please. You are showing just one side of this issue.
Seems there would be only one side…

(well there is the dark side too…but one ought to avoid that tree…one should listen to Yoda and not go in)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top