The Jeff Sessions "Religious Liberty Task Force"

[Succubus]

This  is something America definitely needs. I have been to the United States, and sometimes I would have to walk as much as 30 or 40 feet without seeing a Christian church. Clearly the persecution of Christians is out of control.

Boru

[RoadRunner79]

Well at least we have moved from the unconstitutional nonsense.

Good on you for admitting that a government organisation for the promoting of christianity is unconstitutional. Bringing up the idea that it wasn't was nonsesne, but everybody is entitled to be an idiot when not in possession of the facts.

I agree that the establishment of a religion by the government is unconstitutional. I never said otherwise. But nice try!

[CapnAwesome]

Christian persecution is all such nonsense. Now the main complaint is that they have to buy the same insurance for their employees as everyone else. Which why are the employees religious beliefs not the important ones?? It's their health that's affected.

This is just another way to allow Christian's to impose their values on others. A Christian employs me, he should have no say over my insurance, much less my contraceptive use. Yet he's the one who is discriminated against? Fuck off.

It's the same logic as the ban on school prayer. There is no such thing. You can pray your ass off in school and nobody will stop you. What the 'ban' actually was was the schools no longer forcing everyone to listen or recite the Lord's prayer.

Once again, Christian's imagining persecution because they can't force others to behave how they want.

[RoadRunner79]

---

However I think that we are starting to see censorship Assembly Bill 2943 of California which would censor speech.   I've also heard of Pastors in Texas being asked to submit their sermons to the government.

Where are you getting your information from about California 2943 from?  Briefly reading about it, it would do no such thing.  This seems like an example of the fake claims of religious discrimination I was talking about.  And while you're at it, let's have a source on the Texas claim.  (ETA:  Nevermind.  I found your Texas case and it's not about censorship at all.)

California Assembly Bill 2943 does not mention the Bible, Christianity, or religion at all, so when Allen claimed that the legislation would “literally” prohibit the sale of the Bible, he was stating something that is demonstrably and clearly false.

In reality the legislation, which was introduced in February 2018 by San Jose-based Democrat Evan Low, enhances California’s already-existing prohibition on “sexual orientation change efforts” (SOCE), commonly known as “gay conversion therapy.” In 2012, the California Assembly passed Senate Bill 1172, which banned mental health professionals from performing SOCE on children under the age of 18. The law defines SOCE as: “any practices by mental health providers that seek to change an individual’s sexual orientation. This includes efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions, or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same sex.”

A.B. 2943, as it stood on 20 April 2018, would extend that earlier prohibition in the following ways:

• Prohibit SOCE from being performed on anyone, not only children under the age of 18
  
• Prohibit the advertising or sale of SOCE as a service
  

The bill also appears to prohibit SOCE from being performed by any individual, not just by mental health providers, but the Assembly Judiciary Committee’s analysis notes it is not clear whether the text of A.B. 2943 would amount to a blanket prohibition on any and all SOCE.

Snopes || Would a Proposed Law ‘Ban the Bible’ in California?
A Republican politician and a right-wing television station grossly misrepresented California
legislation that would amplify restrictions on "gay conversion therapy."

Houston city officials maintain the subpoenas are about determining the validity of the petitions seeking the recall of HERO and the manner in which signatures for them were gathered:

"The issue centers around a subpoena sent to some pastors actively involved in collecting petition signatures against Houston’s non-discrimination ordinance. The subpoena asked the religious leaders to turn over “all speeches, presentations, or sermons related to HERO, the Petition, Mayor Annise Parker, homosexuality, or gender identity prepared by, delivered by, revised by, or approved by you or in your possession.”

"Pastors claim it’s an overly broad fishing expedition. “The city council and its attorneys are engaging in an inquisition designed to stifle any critique of its actions,” said a rep for the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal firm. “Political and social commentary is not a crime; it is protected by the First Amendment.”

"But their complaints make it sound like the pastors are about to be tried for hate speech using the new law, which is far from the case.

"[City attorneys] were looking into what instructions pastors gave out to those collecting signatures for a referendum on the non-discrimination law. (What exactly the pastors said, and what the collectors knew about the rules, is one of the key issues in pending litigation around whether opponents of the law gathered enough signatures for a referendum.)

"Feldman said the pastors made their sermons relevant to the case by using the pulpit to do political organizing. That included encouraging congregation members to sign petitions and help gather signatures for equal rights ordinance foes, who largely take issue with the rights extended to gay and transgender residents.

"“There’s no question, the wording was overly broad. But I also think there was some deliberate misinterpretation on the other side,” [Houston mayor Annise] Parker said at a press conference. “The goal is to find out if there were specific instructions given on how the petitions should be accurately filled out. It’s not about, ‘What did you preach on last Sunday?'”

"To reiterate: The mayor’s office is not interested in what they preached, or how the pastors feel about Parker or her sexual orientation. (Those things are all well protected under the First Amendment, as they should be.) All officials want to know is what kinds of instructions the pastors gave out with respect to collecting petition signatures, and whether what they said agrees with what they’re arguing in court while appealing the referendum."

Snopes || City of Houston Subpoenas Pastors’ Sermons
Did the city of Houston, Texas, subpoena pastors' sermons as part of a crackdown on preaching against homosexuality?

---

I believe that the issue is how loosely the law is written, and also the previous one about conversion therapy as well.  Perhaps it was modified to be more specific before passing I don't know.  Why would you need to prohibit advertising of goods and services which are already illegal.   It seems that from a policing standpoint, that this would be a good way to find those who are acting illegally. (although maybe they could have sanctuary cities, where the local jurisdiction can ignore the law).   I think that most would be against conversion therapy as it was called, which uses harsh practices reminiscent of early 20th century psychotherapy shock treatment.  I am.  However, if the law means that one cannot write or say anything about the biblical view of homosexual practice, saying that it is a sin.  Then this is against religious liberty.  Someone who is religious and wants to seek counseling to deal with unwanted attractions should also be free to do so (and the one offering council should be free to give help from a religious point of view).  Really the law should be about methods, rather than who.  You cannot use shock therapy, the counseling must be voluntary and such.  Perhaps they are not intending it as what some feared, but then there should be no problem in adding language to clarify this if some feel that it is sloppy legislation.

edit:  Note - I'm not going to change the topic to this, but wanted to clarify where some fear that this could be used for religious persecution.

[Amarok]

Your talking out your ass Road spare us your whining .Christians are in no way disadvantages they are just piss off they no longer have all the power .

[Succubus]

...Someone who is religious and wants to seek counseling to deal with unwanted attractions should also be free to do so... 

Translation:
We cannot handle rational objections to our utterly insane beliefs and we insist the law protect us from such criticism.

[RoadRunner79]

...Someone who is religious and wants to seek counseling to deal with unwanted attractions should also be free to do so... 

Translation:
We cannot handle rational objections to our utterly insane beliefs and we insist the law protect us from such criticism.

No not at all, I suggest you get a new translator.

[Amarok]

...Someone who is religious and wants to seek counseling to deal with unwanted attractions should also be free to do so... 

Conversion therapy danger ineffective pseudoscience and the state has every right to ban it .

---

No not at all, I suggest you get a new translator.

Yes it is Succubus reads you bullshit like a book .You are not that clever .

---

I believe that the issue is how loosely the law is written, and also the previous one about conversion therapy as well.  Perhaps it was modified to be more specific before passing I don't know.  Why would you need to prohibit advertising of goods and services which are already illegal.   It seems that from a policing standpoint, that this would be a good way to find those who are acting illegally. (although maybe they could have sanctuary cities, where the local jurisdiction can ignore the law).   I think that most would be against conversion therapy as it was called, which uses harsh practices reminiscent of early 20th century psychotherapy shock treatment.  I am.  However, if the law means that one cannot write or say anything about the biblical view of homosexual practice, saying that it is a sin.  Then this is against religious liberty.  Someone who is religious and wants to seek counseling to deal with unwanted attractions should also be free to do so (and the one offering council should be free to give help from a religious point of view).  Really the law should be about methods, rather than who.  You cannot use shock therapy, the counseling must be voluntary and such.  Perhaps they are not intending it as what some feared, but then there should be no problem in adding language to clarify this if some feel that it is sloppy legislation.

edit:  Note - I'm not going to change the topic to this, but wanted to clarify where some fear that this could be used for religious persecution.

This is pure Religious fundie paranoia 

[KevinM1]

However, if the law means that one cannot write or say anything about the biblical view of homosexual practice, saying that it is a sin.  Then this is against religious liberty.

The law doesn't mean that. It has never meant that. There's no slippery slope here. Again, the law is about advertising SOCE as a service. Meaning, as a commercial enterprise. It's not about stopping people from speaking to counselors (whether they're licensed psychiatrists or religious leaders) or otherwise addressing their mental health, but stopping people trying to make money off of false and/or harmful 'gay cures'.

So, any pastor can rage against homosexuality in their sermon until they're blue in the face. As long as they're not offering to cure homosexuality for money, they're fine.

[Amarok]

However, if the law means that one cannot write or say anything about the biblical view of homosexual practice, saying that it is a sin.  Then this is against religious liberty.

The law doesn't mean that.  It has never meant that.  There's no slippery slope here.  Again, the law is about advertising SOCE as a service.  Meaning, as a commercial enterprise.  It's not about stopping people from speaking to counselors (whether they're licensed psychiatrists or religious leaders) or otherwise addressing their mental health, but stopping people trying to make money off of false and/or harmful 'gay cures'.

So, any pastor can rage against homosexuality in their sermon until they're blue in the face.  As long as they're not offering to cure homosexuality for money, they're fine

And for a little  humor

 

Mixed with some facts 

https://www.hrc.org/resources/the-lies-a...ve-therapy