DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... And so it begins

Wow .... and people laughed when I said a year or 2 .......

You might want to read the rest of the thread YTown. It wasn't a church.

From what I understand pedophiles have no adult sexual preference. Their preference is for children of either sex.

I believe the law still requires age of assent, so children will not be legally able to participate in pedophilia.

Molesters on the other hand purposely defy laws and mores and are not necessarily pedophiles.

Either way a man/child organization would probably face legal and physical threats and to me would seem less likely to rent out the Coliseum.

And it won't. Churches are not businesses and aren't under the same rules.

Sen. Lee Bright opens S.C. flag debate with gay marriage rant
This is how most people hear the anti-gay marriage argument.

I didn't say it would never happen. I said there's no legal precedent to back such a move. I'm not saying you're wrong or I'm right, but a judge can't just say "well, let's do this now". There would be a legal precedent behind making some place like The Chapel O Love in Vegas or whatever cater to any wedding, but to say "this is going to happen because it always does" without any inkling of where the legal precedent is coming from is a bit of a stretch.

Oh.

But the SCOTUS just did exactly what you said a judge couldn't do.

So, ?

The S.C. just created, and mandated, a law.

The SCOTUS was using a legal precedent. All men are created equal. When you deny benefits and rights to group that other law abiding citizens are afforded, that's discrimination against those people.

he won't. he probably already posted this to his FB timeline.

The problem is, people take your comment and throw groups of people that hurt children and people that want to marry their family member in the mix. They see no difference for some reason.

I guess they missed the "law abiding citizen" part.

There was a great deal of legal precedent behind the SCOTUS decision.

Sometimes I wish I could stop posting this...

people keep forgetting that the government has no religious affiliation. period.

thus, the government can NOT discriminate against citizens based off christianity, or any religion, which means civil liberties must be afforded to ALL, not just who they pick and choose which sexual orientation or race they choose.

Which is why those counties/states/whatever that are trying to refuse issuing marriage licenses better either quit their jobs, or get with the program.

Because last i checked, what they are doing is considered Treason.

I think we have to still wait for that year or two because this Wedding Chapel case is pure fabrication:

http://www.cdapress.com/news/political/article_d1a7f821-351f-5b1b-943e-1515bb43a3ef.html

The city is not pursuing charges, and has not received any complaints.

so a christian news site lied?

i thought that was a sin?

does that mean I don't have a bake a cake for them?

Don't forget to include the self proclaimed Christians that perpetuate the lie and deceit.

What will end up happening is that States will say if you want a licence to perform marriages then you must marry anyone with a license to marry. A pastor will say no. He will lose his ability to legally marry people. Then no one gets to get married at the church OR the pastor is weak and gives in and then defiles a house of God by performing an abomination.

I LIKE what some states are proposing. Just get rid of the marriage licences altogether and form a written contract that is accountable in a court of law. Then have whoever you want to perform the ceremony.

I myself was married twice. The first time was at the courthouse due to a need for speed because my fiance's student visa was going to expire. The second time we got married with all the family and with the ministers. It took a lot of pressure off that way because at the big wedding we were already legally married. Still we got married by the and by the church.

Maybe, but wouldn't we have seen this happen already in other cases?

The Catholic church won't marry previously married persons unless their divorce was annulled by the church. Many pastors won't marry a couple who lived together before marriage, don't attend that church, etc. Also, while not as common, some church pastors have refused to marry interracial couples:

http://www.kentucky.com/2011/11/30/1977453_small-pike-county-church-votes.html?rh=1

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2000-07...national-church

These pastors may have received backlash publicly, but the state never pressed charges, because a minister is free to pick who they marry. Additionally, a minister is not required for a couple to be married.

For those who are still confused or unsure about how religious rights come into business ownership and service, this article has some good information in it:

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/04...hristian-right/

JUSTICE
Why The Christian Right May Never Recover From Indiana
BY IAN MILLHISER POSTED ON APRIL 6, 2015 AT 8:00 AM
CREDIT: AP PHOTO/DOUG MCSCHOOLER, FILE
Share 9,767
Tweet 891
Maurice Bessinger built his fortune serving barbecue. At the half-dozen locations of his Piggie Park restaurants, customers could enjoy meats slathered in the yellow, mustard-based sauce unique to South Carolina. That is, of course, unless they were black, for Bessinger was also a proud racist. As late as the twenty-first century, Piggie Park distributed tracts to its customers claiming that the Bible is a pro-slavery document — one of them claimed that African slaves “blessed the Lord for allowing them to be enslaved and sent to America.” After Congress banned whites-only restaurants in 1964, Bessinger reportedly put up an uncensored version of a sign warning that “[t]he law makes us serve n***ers, but any money we get from them goes to the Ku Klux Klan.”
And Bessinger wasn’t just an unapologetic racist, he also believed that his right to discriminate flowed from the Lord Almighty himself. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, which banned whites-only lunch counters, “contravenes the will of God,” according to a lawsuit Bessinger brought claiming he should be exempt from the law. The Supreme Court disagreed, ruling 8-0 in Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises that Bessinger’s claim that a religious objection could authorize discrimination was “patently frivolous.”
Piggie Park was resolved in 1968, but Bessinger’s legal claim that religion should provide a license to discriminate rears its head over and over again in modern American history. It reared its head just over a week ago in Indiana, when religious conservatives briefly pushed through legislation that could have enabled them to ignore local ordinances protecting against anti-LGBT discrimination.
Yet, while the argument that religious objections can authorize discrimination is not new and has not typically fared well in court, the tactic anti-gay groups deployed in Indiana — enacting a law expanding the scope of “religious freedom” for the very purpose of protecting discrimination — is of much more recent vintage. As marriage equality appears more and more inevitable, and as the nation as a whole grows increasingly sympathetic toward LGBT rights, opponents of these rights hope to build a firewall against America’s broader culture. And this firewall rests on a foundation very similar to the arguments Maurice Bessinger once presented to the Supreme Court.
Indiana, however, was one of their earliest attempts to implement this strategy, and the fact that it was ultimately rejected by one of the most conservative governors in the nation does not bode well for the religious right’s firewall.
The Reset
The scope of American religious liberty law has ebbed and flowed somewhat in the years since Piggie Park. In 1990, for example, the Supreme Court shrunk it almost to the point of nonexistence. In 1993, President Bill Clinton signed a law, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which reset the scope of Americans’ religious freedoms back to where they were before this 1990 decision. Then, in 1997, the justices held that RFRA could not constitutionally be applied to the states. Thus, while the law Clinton signed succeeded in resetting religious liberty at the federal level, states remained bound only by the Supreme Court’s 1990 decision unless they enacted a similar law at the state level.
Throughout these ups and downs, however, one rule remained constant. As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg explained last January, religious liberties may be quite broad when a religious objector’s attempt to exempt themselves from obeying a particular law does not “detrimentally affect others who do not share” the objector’s beliefs. Nevertheless, when religion is used as a sword to cut down the rights of others, that was not allowed.
Or, at least, it wasn’t allowed up until June 30, 2014. That’s the day the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, holding that an employer’s objections to several forms of birth control could be wielded to diminish their employees’ access to contraception. The open question after Hobby Lobby is just how far this new regime will go — and, more specifically, whether the new rule permitting religious objectors to disparage the rights of others will allow them to evade certain civil rights laws.
The Firewall
Religious conservatives began laying the groundwork for this fight long before Hobby Lobby was decided. When two important marriage equality cases were pending before the Supreme Court in 2013, for example, the conservative legal group that litigated Hobby Lobby filed a brief claiming that equality must be coupled with legal protections for people with anti-gay religious beliefs. “Recognizing a constitutional right to same-sex marriage without simultaneously protecting conscience rights threatens the religious liberty of people and organizations who cannot, as a matter of conscience, treat same-sex unions as the moral equivalent of opposite-sex marriage,” the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty told the justices. They added that the need for these protections were so great that “it would be prudent for this Court to stay its hand” and refuse to recognize same-sex couples’ equal marriage rights until lawmakers also enacted so-called “conscience rights” for people with anti-gay beliefs.
Marriage equality, in essence, had to be held hostage to the people who were most intolerant of gay rights.
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops made a similar argument in its own brief, claiming that affording LGBT Americans heightened protection under the Constitution “would hinder the ability of legislatures to create accommodations for those with religious or moral objections to homosexual conduct.” As an example of the allegedly horrible consequences that could follow if the Court granted full rights to gay couples, the bishops warned that an employer might be required to provide health benefits to a gay employee’s partner, despite the fact that the employer may object to that relationship. Unless LGBT rights are cut off, America may soon find itself on a slippery slope that ends with gay people having access to health care!
Though the Court has not gone as far in advancing gay rights as its precedents indicate that it should, it has largely ignored the Becket Fund’s and the bishops’ claim that religious conservatives should be given a veto over gay rights. The Court struck down the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act in United States v. Windsor, and it’s spent much of the last year permitting marriage equality to spread to more and more states. Justice Clarence Thomas, a conservative who typically votes in opposition to gay rights, complained last February that the Court appears to be signaling that it plans to strike down marriage discrimination nationwide this year.
Opponents of gay rights, in other words, need a plan B. In 2014, the New York Times’s Ross Douthat laid out what this plan B would look like. If “a Mormon caterer or a Catholic photographer objected to working at a same-sex wedding,” Douthat argued, the law should permit them to “opt out” of any legal obligation to comply with anti-discrimination laws — just as Maurice Bessinger once claimed that his religious beliefs permitted him to opt out of laws banning race discrimination.
Enter Mike Pence
Though Hobby Lobby gives conservatives implementing this plan B a beachhead where they can launch their effort — without Hobby Lobby the plan would almost certainly fail under the rule that religious objections cannot be used to diminish the rights of others — the plan still requires state lawmakers to play along if it is to succeed nationwide. Recall that, in 1990, the Supreme Court shrunk the scope of American religious liberty law until it was so small that both major parties rebelled and passed RFRA. Recall as well that, in 1997, the justices held that states are not bound by RFRA unless they pass a similar law at the state level. As a result, the conservative firewall will be pockmarked with holes unless every single state passes its own version of RFRA.
The Indiana legislation that triggered a firestorm last week was modeled on the federal RFRA law, although, as originally enacted, it was significantly broader in scope. Just days after Gov. Mike Pence (R-IN) signed this law while flanked by anti-gay lobbyists, however, he agreed to sign a “fix” which ensured that the new law would not be used to justify discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. In the time between Pence’s two signatures, he faced an extraordinary backlash from ordinary citizens, from angry newspaper writers, and from businesses ranging from Apple to NASCAR.
Pence, it should be noted, is an extraordinarily conservative governor. As a member of Congress, he chaired the Republican Study Committee, a large group of conservative lawmakers whose leader often functions as a spokesperson for the House of Representatives’ right-wing. Pence hasn’t simply opposed marriage equality and anti-discrimination protections for LGBT Americans in the past; he even called for federal funds to “be directed toward those institutions which provide assistance to those seeking to change their sexual behavior.”
So if Mike Pence isn’t willing to offer his full-throated support to the conservative firewall, it is unlikely that many other governors will be willing to do so. Anti-gay groups may need to go hunting for a plan C.
All Eyes on Kennedy
Yet, while Pence’s unwillingness to stick his neck out in defense of the firewall strategy is an extraordinary political defeat for social conservatives, there is still a possibility that some parts of their firewall will remain effective. Indiana RFRA may contain explicit protections for LGBT rights, but federal RFRA does not. It is still possible that the same Supreme Court that decided Hobby Lobby could hold that religious objections trump pro-LGBT civil rights laws. Indeed, four justices strongly hinted that they would reach this conclusion in the Hobby Lobby majority opinion itself.
That leaves Justice Anthony Kennedy, who penned a cryptic concurring opinion in Hobby Lobby explaining that religious liberty may not “unduly restrict other persons, such as employees, in protecting their own interests, interests the law deems compelling.” Though Kennedy was willing to let Hobby Lobby opt out of federal birth control rules, he also noted that there would be other cases “in which it is more difficult and expensive to accommodate a governmental program to countless religious claims based on an alleged statutory right of free exercise.” In light of the fact that several groups filed briefs in Hobby Lobby warning of the case’s potential impact on anti-discrimination law, and in light of the fact that Kennedy has typically sided with gay rights, it is very much possible — if far from certain — that Kennedy had preventing anti-gay discrimination in mind when he penned this concurrence.
Whatever Kennedy had in mind, however, it is unlikely that recent events in Indiana diminished the likelihood that he will ultimately reject the conservative plan B.

What?

Hey, check out my facebook page.

Then, clean the egg off your face.

This is how it begins .... and only a few short days after the ruling.

Edit to add: Since it appears that this was a bogus story, I take back anything about this particular case. I do not doubt that this kind of thing will happen within 2 years ... where churches will be sued for exactly this kind of thing.

Whoever made up this stuff definitely did wrong, and has no excuse. This is, unfortunately, the consequence of people being able to put anything on the internet. However, I have no doubt that this, or worse, is ont he way for Christians.

And so it continues...

Atlanta’s former fire chief sues the city, says he was fired because of religious beliefs

By Abby Ohlheiser February 18


The standoff between former Atlanta fire chief Kelvin Cochran and the city that used to employ him escalated on Thursday, when Cochran’s attorneys announced that they have filed a federal lawsuit.

The suit accuses the city of firing Cochran because of his religious beliefs, violating his constitutional rights.

Cochran’s case has become a focal point in a larger national debate over public religious expression protections and the civil rights of LGBT Americans.

Cochran, who is an evangelical Christian, was terminated in January after a city investigation pertaining to his self-published book, “Who Told You That You Were Naked,” a Bible study-style text that covers a range of his personal religious beliefs. In one section of the book, Cochran called “homosexuality” and “lesbianism” a “sexual perversion” morally equivalent to “pederasty” and “bestiality.”

Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed said in January that Cochran’s firing was over his “judgment and management skills,” and that “Cochran’s personal religious beliefs are not the issue.” The city had suspended Cochran in November, after questioning whether the book’s passages on homosexuality violated the city’s non-discrimination policy.

But that is not at all how Cochran and his growing number of supporters see things.

“To actually lose my childhood-dream-come-true profession – where all of my expectations have been greatly exceeded – because of my faith is staggering,” Cochran said in a statement released with news of the lawsuit. “The very faith that led me to pursue my career has been used to take it from me.”

The complaint, provided by Cochran’s lawyers, claims: “Defendants fired Cochran solely because he holds religious beliefs concerning same-sex marriage and homosexual conduct that are contrary to the Mayor’s and the City’s views on these subjects.”

It adds: “Cochran, and other City employees who agree with Cochran’s religious views regarding same-sex marriage and homosexual conduct, are under a constant state of threat of the City taking adverse action against them — up to and including termination — if they express those views inside and outside of work.”

In an administrative federal discrimination complaint filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission last month, Cochran stated: “I have been discriminated against because of my religion — Christian.”

Last week, six members of Georgia’s congressional delegation wrote a letter to Mayor Reed in support of Cochran’s reinstatement. “Your action against Chief Cochran appears to violate fundamental principles of free speech and religious freedom,” it reads. “The only way Chief Cochran could avoid his views would be to disown his religion.”

The letter, written by Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R) and co-signed by five other Republican members of Congress, adds: “Atlanta itself engaged in an act of discrimination.”

Cochran’s case has become a rallying point for several conservative religious groups that believe some laws and policies designed to protect LGBT individuals from discrimination are a violation of religious liberty protections. Those groups include the Alliance Defending Freedom, which is legally representing Cochran; the Faith and Freedom Coalition; the Family Research Council; and the Georgia Baptist Convention.

“The idea that the government can force public servants to surrender their First Amendment rights is outrageous,” Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, said at a mid-January religious freedom rally at the Georgia State Capitol, according to the Christian Post. “If a government will fire someone for their religious beliefs, no beliefs are safe from government regardless of how sacred those beliefs may be. Mayor Reed is sending a very clear message that Christians must check their faith at the door of public service.”

On its Web site, the Alliance Defending Freedom takes the position that same-sex marriage is “the most prominent and pressing danger to fundamentally altering marriage, as it undermines the good that marriage provides society” — and that “those who believe in marriage,” by which the group means those who believe in heterosexual marriage only, “are politically, culturally, and legally persecuted for those beliefs.”

Cochran’s dismissal has also hovered in the background of a pair of controversial religious liberty bills currently being considered in the Georgia legislature.

The city has the support of LGBT rights groups such as Georgia Equality and Lambda Legal, along with the Atlanta Professional Firefighters Union, which released a statement commending Reed for Cochran’s termination. “Local 134 supports LGBT rights and equality among all employees,” it reads.

Human Rights Campaign president Chad Griffin said in January that “the fact that Mayor Reed lost confidence in Kelvin Cochran’s ability to do his job is completely unsurprising, and his decision to terminate Cochran was right, fair and in the best interest of all Atlanta’s residents.

“People of faith take their religious convictions with them to the workplace every day, but Cochran’s unprofessional and irresponsible conduct was completely unrelated to his personal convictions.”

Jenna Garland, a spokeswoman for Mayor Reed, said Wednesday that the city of Atlanta would “rigorously defend” itself against Cochran’s legal actions and is “confident that the decision to terminate Mr. Cochran was both the right thing to do and fully legal.”

The city also disagreed with Cochran’s version of the story on several major points, as it has done in the past.

In the compliant and in previous statements, Cochran has said that he sought the permission of Nina Hickson, the City of Atlanta Ethics Officer, before publishing the book. He says he was told that “so long as the subject matter of the book is not the city government or fire department he could write the book.”

Garland, the mayor’s spokeswoman, countered in a lengthy January statement that “Mr. Cochran was told that the City Code required him to get the approval of the Board of Ethics before publishing his book, something he admits he never did.”

Cochran has also said, both in the complaint and in his previous administrative discrimination filing, that “the [city] investigation revealed zero instances of discrimination by me against any other employee of the city.”

“What he was actually told was that his distribution of a book about his beliefs within his department had caused his employees to question his ability to continue to lead a diverse workforce,” Garland’s January statement reads, adding that the city believes Cochran’s overall conduct before and during the investigation “reflected poor judgment and failure to follow clearly defined work protocols.”

“The City of Atlanta remains a place where all people, including those who share Mr. Cochran’s beliefs, are equally valued and respected,” Garland added on Wednesday. “However, religious beliefs cannot shield any employee from the consequences of poor judgment and insubordination.”

Both sides of the matter do agree that Cochran distributed his book to several Atlanta fire employees during his tenure.

Cochran’s complaint says that the fire chief distributed the book to “10 AFRD employees who he knew were Christians,” and who had requested copies of the book; to “approximately 3-5 additional employees who approached him and requested a copy of the book”; and to “three command level AFRD employees” who “previously shared their Christian faith with him.”

In its report on the matter, the city says that Cochran distributed the book to at least nine employees, three unsolicited.

Based on interviews with multiple city employees, the city’s report concluded that “there was a consistent sentiment among the witnesses that firefighters throughout the organization are appalled by the sentiments expressed in the book. There also is general agreement the contents of the book have eroded trust and have compromised the ability of the chief to provide leadership in the future.”

Again, Cochran disagreed. “During this time frame, Cochran’s book caused no disruption with any city practices or procedures or in the workplace at all,” the complaint argues.

In the complaint, Cochran asks for compensatory damages, reinstatement to his old job and a pair of declarations from the city stating that it violated his constitutional rights.

Washington Post

Another article I read on this said the original complaint on this guy didn't come from a fireman, nobody within the city made a complaint about how he did his job, it was identified as "gay activists" who called him on this book and made a big fuss until he was fired. I'm telling you, for the more radical in the gay community, gay marriage was not the goal, it was a stepping stone.... for them "rights" is just the beginning, the end game is silencing any and all contrary opinions through fear and intimidation... and it's working.

So, in other words, you are free to believe and express anything you like, including about religion, as long as it agrees with what the gay rights activists believe. If you believe otherwise, you don't even act upon it, but just believe, then they are going to do their best to hurt the Christian believer, even if they have done nothing except express their religious, and protected beliefs.

Sounds fair to me.

How is terminating someone infringing on their free speech? Do people not know that actions have consequences? Being extremely hateful and offensive to a large sect of the population makes you unhirable. If a Public School fired a teacher for the amount of partying they posted on social media, should anyone say it's an infringement of her rights? For an infringement to occur the right needs to be restricted. He's still allowed to talk about his beliefs and sell his book.

Secondly, how can someone say that Churches can still be sued if they don't marry gays, after Gage posted links establishing the legal precedent in the past has always, been that Churches can be selective in their marriages. The paranoia on this forum knows no bound.

And this is where churches will find themselves pinched: either being extorted by the gov't to perform such weddings or face losing their tax status...

OR

Already there are movements to have their tax exempt status removed anyway. So if thus happens:

-Churches will have to pay TAXES..
-Taxes are paid on types of INCOME..
-Because the church is not an individual but an organization, 'income' will be called PROFITS..
-Any organization that collects profits will be considered a BUSINESS..
-All businesses have to follow laws regarding protected people, and therefor bound by law to marry anyone who wants to be.


Ask any bride, the cake is just as much a part of the wedding as the service, caterer, DJ, etc. So I don't think its a far leap or unreasonable for the bakery owners to feel as though they were being asked to be a part of the wedding.

I'm personally fine with the recent gay marriage ruling. In the wake of it though, I find it sadly funny how many people who used to complain about what religious people thought, are now somehow finding the ethical and moral grounds to dictate what it means to be a Christian. The hypocrisy is nearing the absurd.

I'm curious though: If Razor started a thread about how he owns a diner, and he says that the Westboro Baptists were picketing a funeral that day and came in for lunch. Finding them repugnant and not in line with his ideals as a Christian he refuses them service and now says he's being sued. How many of you would be as concerned with his apparent discrimination and bigotry then? Would you feel as strongly against him as you do the bakery? Or would you sympathize with him seeing as you find them equally repugnant? Doesn't that just mean your morals aren't any more grounded than the religious folks?

Morals have nothing to do with rights. Wouldn't it be great if we banned all Nazi imagery like most of Europe? Yes. Without a doubt. But where does the line get drawn? Giving people equal rights is crucial because it makes it harder for our rights to be infringed.

Do you really need to ask that 1st question?

Why was he fired? because he dared to express his religious opinions.

Being "extremely hateful and offensive"? That is not the case at all. Stating that the Bible teaches that homosexual sex is a sin, according tot he Bible, and that gay marriage goes against the teachings of the Bible is not hateful in any way, rather it is a factual description.

This man expressed his religious beliefs, in accordance with his 1st amendment rights. Certain people in power did not like what he wrote, so they fired him. It really goes no deeper than that. There is an agenda to make sure that Christians cannot publicly express their beliefs, and if a Christian dares to do so, they place their very livelihood at risk ... even if they do not do so within their employment environment. Even on this board there is a misinterpretation of the 1st amendment, where people say we have a right to our religious beliefs. That is not what thew Constitution says. It says that we have the right to the expression of our religious beliefs, and yes, this also is a protected class. (for now, I guess)

Yep, his religious beliefs are not the issue, but the expression of his religious beliefs is. Sorry, but the Constitution protects religious expression.

This man did not write his book at work,. He did not demand that anyone under him read it. He did not violate any discrimination laws. He expressed his religious beliefs, and since they are Christian beliefs, and unpopular with those in power in that area, then he was punished for expressing his religious beliefs. Pure and simple. I wonder what would happen if the situation were reversed, and a gay man wrote a book saying that he believed that Christians are hateful for not accepting what the Bible says is a sin as a moral act? If the city fired him, how long do you think it would take for that case to be decided in his favor? He wouldn't necessarily even he expressing a religious belief, but rather an anti-religious belief.

There is a bias against Christian expression in many parts of this country, and the idea that Christians should be seen but not heard is somehow becoming seen as more and more acceptable. People misquote the Constitution to say that we all have the right to our religious beliefs, but that is not where the Constitution draws the line. The 1st amendment was 1st because the founders saw it as of the utmost importance. What does it say?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Since powers not assigned to the states revert to the federal government, then no one can make a law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free expression thereof. This is a vital amendment, as religious beliefs, and the expression of those beliefs defines who many people are at their very core. It certainly does for me. Tell me that I cannot freely express my religious beliefs, even if they offend some people, and you might as well tell me that you are going to lock me up in prison. My beliefs are who I am. They are a living testament to my love for God, and my desire to follow, serve, and obey Him. You cannot tell me to shut up, on my own time. If I am at work, you can tell me that I cannot discuss any number of issues. On my own time, though, No. If I can be fired for my personal, religious beliefs, expressed completely outside of my employment, then do I truly have freedom of religious expression? Do people with the counter view also run the risk of being fired if they express their opinions? If not, then why not? Are only certain thoughts allowed to be spoken? Do only certain people have the right to share their thoughts? Cam n only certain viewpoints be expressed ..... even in the privacy of our off duty time?

Be prepared to answer for every post you have ever made on this message board, and others, if your online identity ever become known. Beware every single thing you say, because it may come back to haunt you. One day simply saying that you believe in the Bible could become grounds for dismissal, or for not hiring someone ..... because we don't want any of "those" working here ....... Why is discrimination wrong if one side does it, but not when the other side does? Why is freedom of speech only protected for certain speech? Why is religious expression permitted, only if no one else can hear it?
Who gets to decide what is permitted, and what is not? Who gets to decide which outcomes for societal debates are predetermined to win, and which will get a man fired for even mentioning them?

We are heading into dangerous waters, where the sharks will chew the limbs off of anyone who dares to express their religious beliefs if they run contrary to what is allowed, and will allow the person who expresses his beliefs to drown ... but after all, that is what they deserve for expressing how they feel.... and may the 1st amendment be damned.

I suppose that we will somehow have to change the rules for amending the Constitution ... because the 1st amendment seems to be moving, in practice, towards: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion as long as they believe what we do, or prohibiting the free belief of other religious beliefs; (as long as you do so quietly, at home, or in church only. If you do not believe as we do, we will find a way to punish you, so make sure you only think right, permissible thoughts) or abridging the freedom of speech,(as long as it does not offend those who set the rules) or of the press; (ditto to all the above) or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. (we'll work on these later)

I want no part in any such world. I am certain that our founders would not either.

that comment wasn't even directed at you. do you need a pair of glasses or something?

Unless the city can prove he treated people differently in the performance of his duties, it sounds like Cochran is being discriminated against for his personal views. I hope he wins this case.

Sorry but i don't get this.

working at Rick Case, and the military, there was a clear contract i signed about voicing personal views on social media or to other people.

For example, you know how many people got UCMJ action for talking trash on FB about the military, specifically their company commanders?

also, i can't go on twitter and FB and run my mouth about Rick Case Honda, how the management team sucks and such,

There are plenty of christians-actually the majority of soldiers are christians- but they can't just express their views out in the public like that, because it's a reflection on the Army, which is the federal government, which has NO religious affiliation.

We had this issue in Afghan where this hardcore christian was trying to preach christianity to this local mayor while on patrol, in his own village. Thanks to him, we LOST protection to drive our convoys through the area.

At some point, keep your damn opinions to yourself in the workforce.

I believe they're actually supposed to recognize ALL guaranteed rights as THE LAW requires and an employer forcing his religion "down the throats" of those he has monetary control over is tyranny and oppression.

The religious freedom movement is all about forcing religion down the throats of our society.

How about these particular denominations just give up their tax exempt status and call themselves The Cult of Bigots.

I imagine the number of zealots would decrease rapidly due to their new found interpretation of the bible.

The only people hurting the Christians are those who are trying to claim their faith is the reason they choose to be bigots.

j/c….

This will all work itself out eventually. I would expect to have this period of time when hateful people go through a transition where they have to learn how to behave around others they dislike.

As a gay person, I have had 30+ years of having to shut my pie hole, so I get it. It sucks…but I did it. I've been fired from a job, too, for just being me. Yep, sucks. I've been stuck in a closet, not free to express my views. Majorly sucks.

But to act as though these people are being fired for their religious beliefs is nuts. They aren't. They are being fired for outing themselves as bigots. Learn to play the game, people. What's fair is fair.

Was this guy fired simply for writing the book? If so, that's wrong. If he was handing it out to employees and coworkers on the job, then it's understandable.

j/c

It appears that calling someone a bigot (who has a religious belief) has moved right up there with calling someone a racist (who disagrees with a black person's stance)...often times all with equal irony dripping from the words of the accuser.

Full Definition of BIGOT

: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

The first part of that definition could be applied to anyone who is adamant about their opinion...which could be anyone who actually HAS an opinion.

The second part of that definition implies that there is hate and intolerance by those opposed to gay marriage or in favor of religious freedom.

IMO...Indiscriminate use of the word 'Bigot' regarding another person's religious beliefs is a sign of the very intolerance that many are railing against in the first place.

Both sides use words and pick on words used by the other side. That practice is used every bit as much as a way to shut the opposing view down.

There are people using religion to try and control other people, and to disguise their hate and disdain for certain groups of people. They have been shamed out of doing it to certain groups. But, some groups are still fair game for them. Their true nature is being exposed as they can't control their reaction because they are losing their grip. It is very much about control and very much about hate. Assign whatever word you choose, the word does not matter.

On the subject of the fire chief, I honestly don't know the whole story. I do imagine that the perception that he might not be able to work with or serve people who he says this about publicly: "Cochran called “homosexuality” and “lesbianism” a “sexual perversion” morally equivalent to “pederasty” and “bestiality.” was probably quite concerning to his superiors. If he had said something like this regarding just about any other group nobody would be in the least bit surprised or upset that he got fired.

I am not for people losing their jobs based on their beliefs, and I have always believed that small businesses are controlled far too much by the government. It is difficult though, because nobody wants to see signs saying certain people won't be served at an establishment. Which is why these laws started cropping up. There are businesses right now in this country that have signs up saying gays are not allowed. It's easy to say not to shop there, I don't want to give business to anyone like that whether it's a bakery, restaurant, hardware store, etc. But, the slippery slope works both ways. How far do we allow refusing service and excluding certain groups from public places go?

If you are okay with letting businesses decide, on whatever religious grounds they claim, to not serve one group of people then you have to be okay with them not serving any group they decide to exclude. It's really that simple.

Why? If he wrote a companion piece to Mien Kampf there would be calls for his resignation and no one would think that it violates his first amendment right. I just fail to see how this is a first amendment right issue.

Either way, he was handing it out to people at work (almost two dozen):

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015...o-wri/?page=all

That to me would be the breaking point. If someone wants to moonlight, companies can try to prevent that but often fail. But if you bring that stuff into your day job, there can be consequences. If I was being handed this book by my boss I would be very worried about his views as it applies to the department.

Yep, that's a game changer.