Pastor in Georgia forced to turn over sermons

he wants a government job where the position requires to help people with HIV\AIDS, he needs to agree to do the job, I do not see the point in see the sermons, just ask him under oath, then arrest him for perjury if later it turns out he lied.

all he needs to do is say publicly I can serve the LGBT community, my religion come second to my government responsibilities, then were all good

.

 

That's not really the point of the thread though, the point is that the pastor is forced to do. You don't have to act on something to still be fired for a job. If it could lead to serious problems, then it is grounds for dismissal.

 

Come on America cannot claim all the glory for the most bat(*)(*)(*)(*) crazy twonks we have managed to come up with "breatharianism" or how to live on light. And the ever questionable "lotus birth" where the cord is not cut in case it causes separation anxiety :rofl:

 

It is not the belief in relation to homosexuals but the belief in relation to condom use

 

Who are these imaginary "you guys" and where is your credible source for that allegation?

That you don't comprehend the appalling hatred in what he preached is not my problem.

- - - Updated - - -

When you hold a government position of authority what you say matters.

 

Homosexual and bisexual men make up around 82% of new and existing cases of hiv/aids so putting someone in this position that believes homosexuals are evil is absurd. It would be no different that putting a black or white supremacist in charge of the office that enforces civil liberties.

Futhermore anyone that believes what this person does about condom usage (the easiest way to prevent sexually transmitted diseases) has no place to be in this position.

No one believes homosexual and bisexual men have nothing to do with hiv/aids; instead people don't believe the should be discriminated against, refused the ability to serve their country and sign civil contracts. The bigots confuse this as ammo for their dying rhetoric.

His sermons have nothing to do with his "religious freedom to hate" but rather his capability to preform a government service. Maybe you would understand if we changed the rolls - would you be ok if the DOJ office dedicated to Protecting Religious Freedom was a militant atheist who had said all religion should be banned? Do you have the integrity to see the similarities?

His "religious freedoms" are intact - he just doesn't get to oversee an agency tasked with serving ALL Americans.

 

That's not a big deal. One of the things people have to do when they want to get welfare checks as government employees is to divulge all of their publications. The preacher's publications are his sermons, which relate directly to desired employment as a government worker. He has no case. His lawyer should be disbarred for filing a frivolous lawsuit.

 

I agree, the problem is that this is a religious text, which complicates it up a little bit. So he has to turn it over, but it's not just a simple "because it's civil litigation", there has to be something more to it to override any first amendment issues.

 

No one is censoring his religious speech, he is free to believe and say what he believes.

However when what he says conflicts with the Constitution that he would have had to have sworn an oath to uphold We the People have a legitimate interest in his ability to carry out his secular duties of office.

There is a conflict here and We the People have a right to a secular government.

 

Tell me, when is the US going to apply the same criminal justice laws evenly? I mean, just look at the Catholic Church. The US Dept of Justice should be filing charges and dismantling it using the RICO act because of the vast conspiracy, all the way to the Pope and Rome, to molest children and cover it up.

The age of religious sanctity must come to an end. It has become a massive rotten structure of abuse, misuse, waste and intolerance.

 

Being forced to turn over sermons during the interview/hiring process I would have no issue with. Once he was hired and officially started his job, I would believe those sermons would be inadmissible as the state should have done its due diligence.

Taking the source with a grain of salt as to the exact circumstances of his firing, but it sounds like he was fired for past actions, not for his on the job performance. Maybe one of the lawyers out there can tell us if an employer fails to do their due diligence on a potential employee can go back and fire them for past actions.

 

I am not an attorney but am an employer and have experience in labor law; an employer may terminate an employee if that employees actions (past or present) do not reflect the beliefs or values of the company, damage a company's reputation in the community, or hold beliefs that make them unable to faithfully execute the duties of the position. I have never seen an employment contract/agreement that did not contain the same or similar provisions.

I don't understand Christians; they want to write law yet be excluded from it. They want to be able to discriminate in housing, hiring, and commerce but want protections so the same cannot be done to them. The want the freedom to do whatever they feel like at the moment because it's their "religious freedom" but do not apply the same to other religions. They want to be free from those they dislike but demand that their symbols exist in public spaces and government buildings.

Anyone care to explain?

 

Religious people are pretty simple. If they werent in one of the popular religions, we would be taking about the crazy of believing in such obviously false gods.

Just like the ancient Egyptians, like the Vikings, like hundreds of tribes and cultures in the Amazon, and Africa, and the Australian bush.

 

That's total bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Where does it say in the Constitution you must accept everyone's lifestyles and life choices in order to serve the public? Quote it.

You liberals are just making stuff up at will because you dont agree with him. None of you have pointed to a single action he has taken to violate public service.

- - - Updated - - -

You want to be a pretend lawyer? Cite in the Constitution or labor law anywhere that states you must accept people's life choices in order to serve the public.

Can't wait to see it.

 

All laws are not contained within the constitution, his previous comments and beliefs show that he will not be able to work with 85% of the demographics. Would you hire someone who is unwilling to work with 85% of your clients?

Futhermore, his beliefs on contraception should immediately exclude him from this position.

Also, Not a liberal but I understand your need to label anyone that disagrees with your argument, especially when you have no actual argument.

I specifically said I was not an attorney so I'm not pretending to be anything, I'm sorry you're having such difficulties with very simple statements.

The NLRB as well as several courts have found that an individual may be terminated for past activities if they are "incompatible with their responsibilities and would present an insurmountable, recurring disruption". I also assume he lied on his entrance interviews about his beliefs seeing as how (we the taxpayer) had to bring in an investigative team to uncover it... Which results in immediate termination at any origination.

I cannot find the specific reason he was terminated, so until that is released everything is hyperbole and assumption. As typical, just like the BLM movement, the anti-gays will jump on anything that looks like a poor innocent loving Christian is being attacked without all the facts. Once we know more we can examine the specific elements of the case.

 

Amendment XIV

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

Right, I'm not arguing that. What I'm saying is that if the judgments that he is incapable of faithfully serving his office are religious based, that is a very different issue then if a person posted something on FB. Because of that there needs to be something a bit more in order to actually count.

 

Which is why there is a formal court process requesting transcripts of his sermons for the record. He is refusing to provide them. If he believes in what he said then why is he trying to hide it from the court? The court will uphold his 1st amendment rights to freedom of religion and speech so what is the problem with providing them?

 

Why?......

 

How would his belief interfere? Nowhere did he stated that he hates gays. In fact it'll be in accordance to Christianity love your enemies and such. Helping a homosexual with his battle with AIDS is not promoting the lifestyle. And again, if homosexuality has little to do with AIDS then whats all the fuss is about? It's not like he's going to run into a homosexual with AIDS, right?

- - - Updated - - -

What serious problems?

- - - Updated - - -

Then why is he required to turn over all of his sermons?

 

"You guys" being those you promote LGBT and the evidence is in every thread linking homosexuals to AIDS.

Don't accuse someone with anything unless you have evidence. Can you quote him?

- - - Updated - - -

Not on your own dime and time.

 

like I said, if he will agree to put mans laws above his gods laws, then I am fine with him working for the government

 

His sermons show that he is a bigot towards the people he will interact with in that position.

 

In other words you have nothing whatsoever to substantiate this completely bogus allegation of yours because no one has ever said anything of the kind.

"According to you guys gays have nothing to do with AIDS "

Already did, just go back and read my posts.

When what you say directly relates to your official goverment position then it does matter irrespective of when and where you said it.

 

He can say whatever he wants on his own time. As long as he does the job he was hired to do, and does it properly, that's all that matters.

Sound familiar? That's what you and the rest claimed when Kim Davis refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples - she should keep her personal beliefs out of the workplace.

And now you hide behind the Constitution, as if you actually care about the Constitution. Typical proggie.