Pastor in Georgia forced to turn over sermons

Sure? This is a 1st amendment issue, all I've done is highlight that problem. The 1st amendment bars the government from infringing on the free exercise of religion. So when it comes to stuff like this there needs to be a compelling government interest.

 

In other words "relate" is just another term for bigotry against gays.

Thank you for clarifying that point.

- - - Updated - - -

The compelling goverment interest would be the job that needs to be done by someone both qualified and willing to do it in a secular manner that doesn't discriminate against anyone.

 

Sure, but if he has posted youtube videos which disqualify him, why does the state need the sermons too?

 

Because he filed a lawsuit and the transcripts of the sermons are a standard part of the discovery process in every lawsuit.

 

Is there a less obtrusive way of conducting the investigation without them?

 

His lawyer can petition the judge but since his sermons are central to the case the petition is unlikely to be granted.

Since his sermons are on Youtube it isn't as though they are not already in the public domain and he opened this door by filing the lawsuit. He can withdraw his suit and then the discovery process becomes null and void. His choice entirely.

 

Quote for me.

- - - Updated - - -

How so?

 

I didn't watch his sermons.

 

So if the state has public things that it can cite, why does the pastor need to give them over? At this point it crosses into 1st amendment which is really messy to argue. The case is stronger if the state goes with the public stuff.

 

Except that isn't how the law works when it comes to discovery. And no, this is not a 1st Amendment issue. His right to preach his bigotry is not being infringed here.

This is an at will employment issue and whether or not he is qualified to fill a secular government position. No one is preventing him continuing to spout odious and hateful things against gays.

All that is being contested are his qualifications for the secular government position because it requires someone who won't violate the constitution by discriminating against gays.

 

Why does he believe that this is acceptable? It is caused by his religion. That makes it a 1st amendment question. Now it makes it harder for the state because they can't stop the free exercise of it. So if the state can use one tool to get at what they need, then why does the state need more than enough to make its case. What is the compelling interest?

 

I already answered all of those questions in my prior posts.

 

You need to take some history lessons since Seventh Day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Quakers, and Catholic Workers have been arrested and persecuted in this country since time immemorial and forced to turn over all these records and assets to the government by the right wing. Nobody ever complained about ''political correctness'' when the war mongering right wing did that to them.

 

I think a dangerous precedent was set when we elected a gameshow host/cyberbully as POTUS.

 

So you judge him even though you never heard him. Classy.

- - - Updated - - -

Probably because it didn't make the headlines. I would say the same thing.

- - - Updated - - -

We once elected a movie star and I've yet to see evidence that he's a cyberbully.

 

It did make the headlines.

The Berrigan brothers were on the headlines MANY times as was Father Groppi. Let us not forget that Dr Martin Luther King was a preacher - he and his church affiliates were persecuted by the government long before it became fashionable and politically correct to complain about government intrusion into church affairs.

Where the hell were all the conservatives back then? They were complaining that the churches were all controlled by the communist party and that they were all subversives who were committing treason.

As usual, it is the right wing with its double standards. And God help anyone who dares to call them out on it.

 

This is no different that being refused hire or fired because of a facebook post, which happens all the time.

 

Maybe he said something like what the Pastor in Sacramento said when the Orlando Gay Night Club, Pulse, shooting occurred.


Pastor refuses to mourn Orlando victims: ‘The tragedy is that more of them didn’t die’
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ore-of-them-didnt-die/?utm_term=.e5f4555a037e

“In America, you’re no longer allowed to have an opinion that goes against mainstream society,” Jimenez told the Bee, as controversy swirled around his sermon."


Besides, what good would a hater of those with HIV/AIDS do for those who do have HIV/AIDS, if he was such??

 

Who said he had a hatred for AIDS?

 

And your point?

 

no the second one is profoundly stupid and demonstrably false.

it's not his views on homosexuality per se it's his grasp on reality. He thinks acceptance of the something is a best clandestine conspiracy headed by The Boogeyman. Literally.

he's not being discriminated against because he's Christian he's being discriminated against because he's deranged or stupid or both. This is likely quite a rare belief among Christians. It stinks more of Islam.

 

What ever happened to the basic notion of Freedom of Speech, so precious (supposedly) to our founding fathers?

Or is it just some Local-Yokels overstepping their legal bounds, like Sheriff Arpaio whom Trump pardoned.

This PotUS is a loose canon ...

 

THOU SHALT NOT ...

That's how the Nazi's started in Germany. Not with Christians of course.

But with the Jews. And we all know how that sad-story ended.

Arpaio in New Mexico, as sheriff, insisted upon checking the identity of mexican-looking people. He had no right to do so (as a sheriff). That is the responsibility not of local police agencies, but national authorities. The man could not understand the law, and how he ever got elected "sheriff" is beyond belief.

And he insisted throughout his judicial process that he had the "right to do so" - even if corrected by being found guilty. And, so, Donald Dork pardoned him.

Maybe the Donald is looking forward to his own loss of the presidency? And, he is hoping that Pence will then pardon him as well?

Nothing is strange any more in that place called LaLaLand on the Potomac - abnormal has become the norm with the Replicants in power

We should have known. The Replicant party does not have an ounce of probity or cogency or soundness. All it has is kneejerk genuflexion to the Golden Rule: Thou shalt not increase taxes to do away with Reckless Ronnie's "miracle" reduction of upper-income taxation ...

 

Anyone who puts political sentiments into a Facebook post is a dork.

Freedom of speech is the ability or right to express one's opinions without censorship, restraint, or legal penalty. But there a limits.

One should not transgress those limits, as the law as abundantly explained here: What Does Free Speech Mean?
Excerpt:

One would have thought that the above was taught in a Civics Class - freedom is a two-sided coin. There are actions one can do, and actions one must not do.

Freedom is NOT THE RIGHT to do whatever one thinks they want to do whenever they want to do it. It has limits.

In most instance, here is a good rule: Your freedoms end where mine begin, and vice-versa. We are all equal members of the same nation ...

 

Dr. Eric Walsh had been appointed to President Obama’s Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/Aids and was hired by the Georgia state agency in May 2014. He was supposed to start working in June 2016.

He was working for State.

Maybe this timeline can help..

1607 : Jamestown is established in honor of King James I.

1620 : First set of pilgrims arrive

1776 : The representatives of the United States of America, in general Congress, assembled who wrote The Declaration of Independence wants formal separation from the British Crown. 'Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness' begins being used.

1799: The Napoleonic Wars began.


Today, we see the statement, 'life, liberty and pursuit of happiness' apply to every life regardless of repercussions.

Supposedly, less than 10 percent of the population identifies themselves as LGBT, yet over 70 percent of the population is being 'limited' due to policies and authority holders.