Texas Pastor Protection Bill

[Cow Poke]

Sam's whole argument against the bill is that it is unnecessary because the threat is "non existent" CP showed it did exist Sam needs to show why CPs evidence does not show the threat is real or admit he's wrong.

I'm done with Sam.

[Sam]

Sam's whole argument against the bill is that it is unnecessary because the threat is "non existent" CP showed it did exist Sam needs to show why CPs evidence does not show the threat is real or admit he's wrong.

The only credible threat Cow Poke has articulated here is that members of the "militant gay community" might "infiltrate" churches and attain high enough positions such that they steer those churches toward LGBT-friendly policies. The government can't do anything about that and shouldn't do anything about that, since we don't want the government regulating the internal affairs of churches, right?

Apart from that, there's no indication that a threat to pastors exists such that the bill in question would be any more effectual than current law.

[Cow Poke]

The only credible threat Cow Poke has articulated here is that members of the "militant gay community" might "infiltrate" churches and attain high enough positions such that they steer those churches toward LGBT-friendly policies.

I never said that, Sam. TOTALLY false representation. Downright ignorant.

[Sam]

I never said that, Sam. TOTALLY false representation. Downright ignorant.

What you had written was that this individual had testified that members of his community were planning to "infiltrate" churches; you were very specific on that point. What were they infiltrating churches for, other than to change the policies? You don't have to be a member of a church to be married by the pastor, nor does membership to a church confer the right (certainly not the legal right) to be married by the church's pastor.

[Cow Poke]

What you had written was that this individual had testified that members of his community were planning to "infiltrate" churches; you were very specific on that point.

Yes, indeed I was.

What were they infiltrating churches for, other than to change the policies?

I never said nor implied that - you ASSumed it.

You don't have to be a member of a church to be married by the pastor

In many Churches, yes, you do.

nor does membership to a church confer the right (certainly not the legal right) to be married by the church's pastor.

I'm done with you.

[RumTumTugger]

The only credible threat Cow Poke has articulated here is that members of the "militant gay community" might "infiltrate" churches and attain high enough positions such that they steer those churches toward LGBT-friendly policies. The government can't do anything about that and shouldn't do anything about that, since we don't want the government regulating the internal affairs of churches, right?

This is an out and out misrepresentation of what CP is saying and shows that I was right about you purposely choosing to IGNOREntly continue to play the useful idiot for the Bullies

Apart from that, there's no indication that a threat to pastors exists such that the bill in question would be any more effectual than current law.

As I said before Sam none so blind as those who willfully refuse to see. as with CP I'M done with you who choose to remain an IGNOREnt fool about what is going on right in front of you.

[RumTumTugger]

What you had written was that this individual had testified that members of his community were planning to "infiltrate" churches; you were very specific on that point. What were they infiltrating churches for, other than to change the policies? You don't have to be a member of a church to be married by the pastor, nor does membership to a church confer the right (certainly not the legal right) to be married by the church's pastor.

No that is how you twisted CPs words in your mind so as to purposely keep yourself IGNOREnt of what is going on and remain one of the bullies useful idiots.

and done with you know since i refuse to talk to anyone who likes being a useful idiot of bullies.

[pancreasman]

Yeah! I'm done with you too! Whoever you are! You don't even! CAPS, so there! Just wait until heaven!

[Jedidiah]

I'm done with Sam.

You are letting him drag you back down. Be strong, man.

[Starlight]

Just for grins - to anybody who cares, I think there's a dynamic here that is not appreciated in the rest of the country.

Austin, Texas is sometimes referred to as "the blueberry in a sea of tomato soup", indicating that Austin - the State's Capitol, is quite liberal, while the rest of the State is pretty "red".

...
...
...

So PLEASE forgive me if I don't trust the legal system here to "play fair", or the Constitution to defend me as a Pastor, or to keep me from being falsely arrested.

Been there. Done that. Got the bail ticket.

I can see why this would give you legitimate reason to want to see laws passed reforming the judicial system in your area and/or reducing litigiousness in general and/or stopping people from blackmailing others with the threat of lawsuits. I for one, think the US justice system's tendency towards large penalties, frivolous lawsuits, and the use of the threat-of-lawsuit as blackmail is ridiculous.

Except, you're not doing that... You're instead advocating a totally different law, which doesn't reform the judicial system, doesn't prevent frivolous lawsuits, doesn't prevent blackmail or any of the types of things that previously happened to you. In your example of past experience you were in the right as a matter of legal fact. But the case never actually made it to court, so what the law said didn't really matter. So having learned from that experience you're now... supporting a law that largely duplicates existing laws and will only be effective if the case actually makes it to court...? Seems a weird approach to me.

[Leonhard]

I for one, think the US justice system's tendency towards large penalties, frivolous lawsuits, and the use of the threat-of-lawsuit as blackmail is ridiculous.

I agree 100%.

From an outside perspective I'm seeing lawsuits take place in a way in the US I don't experience in my own country. In Denmark, where we do have discrimination laws, the bakers wouldn't have been charged the ridiculous (and I hope you agree that it is ridiculous) fine of 150000$ based on personal injuries. In Denmark, I know people who have been fined for public racist statements, and that's in the neighborhood of 1000$, and that was not handed to them via lawsuit.

Except, you're not doing that... You're instead advocating a totally different law, which doesn't reform the judicial system, doesn't prevent frivolous lawsuits, doesn't prevent blackmail or any of the types of things that previously happened to you. In your example of past experience you were in the right as a matter of legal fact. But the case never actually made it to court, so what the law said didn't really matter. So having learned from that experience you're now... supporting a law that largely duplicates existing laws and will only be effective if the case actually makes it to court...? Seems a weird approach to me.

The idea, I guess, is to bind courts to a particular reading of the law. At least make the law clear, before an incident happens where a precedent would then need to be set.

Can you ensure us that courts will forever understand this law in the same way, and won't suddenly reinterpret it in the future? We've had previous laws with intentions that kinda slid over the decades. Even when the law, in principle, should be interpreted in our favor, making it known that it should, is good. I've heard enough ridiculous stories from the US, about honor students who wanted to share their Christian faith at a graduation speech, only to be ordered to write a secular speech (you can try to explain away how this is not against freedom of worship and freedom of speech).

Stuff like that happens. And it shouldn't. Can you explain to me why it happens? And why we Christians shouldn't start to worry about our rights and freedoms in a society that's progressively going to be dominated by forces completely unsympathetic and unfriendly towards us?

[Cow Poke]

Yeah! I'm done with you too! Whoever you are! You don't even! CAPS, so there! Just wait until heaven!

You'll miss out on the cookies.

[Cow Poke]

I can see why this would give you legitimate reason to want to see laws passed reforming the judicial system in your area and/or reducing litigiousness in general and/or stopping people from blackmailing others with the threat of lawsuits. I for one, think the US justice system's tendency towards large penalties, frivolous lawsuits, and the use of the threat-of-lawsuit as blackmail is ridiculous.

So good, so far.......

Except, you're not doing that... You're instead advocating a totally different law, which doesn't reform the judicial system,

That would take MUCH longer, and would depend on the very people who run the system. It's like asking Washington DC to clean up the campaign funding mess.

doesn't prevent frivolous lawsuits, doesn't prevent blackmail or any of the types of things that previously happened to you.

True, but I wasn't a "protected class". 3567 is designed to make it clear that the rights of the protected class do not trump the rights of the Pastors to religious freedom. It's that simple. It is dealing with the STATE of TEXAS, preventing them from claiming a compelling interest that overrides religious liberty.

In your example of past experience you were in the right as a matter of legal fact

That didn't change the fact that I lost my job and $17,000, though, did it?

But the case never actually made it to court,

They never intended to go to court - which became quite obvious as I begged to go to trial. It was strictly about INTIMIDATION.

so what the law said didn't really matter. So having learned from that experience you're now... supporting a law that largely duplicates existing laws and will only be effective if the case actually makes it to court...?

The law is designed to make it clear that the compelling interests of the state do not trump the religious liberties of the Pastors.

Seems a weird approach to me.

This does not surprise me in the least.

[Cow Poke]

I agree 100%.

From an outside perspective I'm seeing lawsuits take place in a way in the US I don't experience in my own country. In Denmark, where we do have discrimination laws, the bakers wouldn't have been charged the ridiculous (and I hope you agree that it is ridiculous) fine of 150000$ based on personal injuries. In Denmark, I know people who have been fined for public racist statements, and that's in the neighborhood of 1000$, and that was not handed to them via lawsuit.



The idea, I guess, is to bind courts to a particular reading of the law. At least make the law clear, before an incident happens where a precedent would then need to be set.

Can you ensure us that courts will forever understand this law in the same way, and won't suddenly reinterpret it in the future? We've had previous laws with intentions that kinda slid over the decades. Even when the law, in principle, should be interpreted in our favor, making it known that it should, is good. I've heard enough ridiculous stories from the US, about honor students who wanted to share their Christian faith at a graduation speech, only to be ordered to write a secular speech (you can try to explain away how this is not against freedom of worship and freedom of speech).

Stuff like that happens. And it shouldn't. Can you explain to me why it happens? And why we Christians shouldn't start to worry about our rights and freedoms in a society that's progressively going to be dominated by forces completely unsympathetic and unfriendly towards us?

Yeah!

[Cow Poke]

Looking at my notes from last week, I regret that I failed to write down WHICH attorney it was - ACLU or one from the GLBT group - who offered to help finesse the bill.

I'm pretty sure it was the ACLU guy, but he never seemed to indicate that the bill was redundant or unnecessary, but that it "went too far". Now, the fact that he thinks it went too far shows quite obviously that he didn't think it was "exactly the same" as federal protections. And his concern that it "went too far" dealt with the notion that others have brought up dealing with hospitals and "religiously affiliated institutions"*.

He was offering to confer with the author of the bill to finesse (his word) the bill to make it do what the author intended it to do.

(In fact, several of the attorneys who spoke against the bill were concerned that it "went too far", so the notion that this bill duplicates law that already exists is just silly)


ETA:
*I can see the concern over the "affiliated institutions", and wouldn't mind that being clarified, especially if that was the main objection of the ACLU. I know what is intended by that section, but I can also see why people would be concerned.