It seems that Florida churches and clergy members are receiving some assistance from the state government in drawing lines in the sand when it comes to possible lawsuits if they refuse to respect marriage equality.
Just last year in January of 2015, Florida legalized gay marriage. Now, one year later, State lawmakers might pass a law that would prohibit any lawsuits being filed against churches or pastors that choose not to marry gay couples. – fox4now.com
The PastorProtectionAct.org states on its website that its vision is …
To partner with State legislators to see all 50 States in the United States of America sign into law a "Pastor Protection Act" that is modeled after the Texas SB 2065.
To partner with our Federal Legislators to see H.R.2802 the First Amendment Defense Act become law.
Several other states are fighting this type of bill. Equality Florida has sent many emails out in regard to this issue. Below is the group's latest communication I received this morning:
|
The dangerous so-called Pastor Protection Act (SB 110) is scheduled for its last committee vote before reaching the Senate Floor in the Senate Rules Committee tomorrow afternoon at 4:00p.m. The bill has already passed all of its House committees and is heading for a full vote on the floor. The so-called Pastor Protection Act is allegedly designed to protect pastors and clergy from being forced to perform marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples. Pastors and clergy of all faiths are already fully protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution, rendering this bill unnecessary, divisive, and a dangerous vehicle for even more extreme anti-LGBT legislation. Call the members of the committee to ask them to vote NO on the so-called Pastor Protection Act!
Members in both chambers have stated their support for expanding the scope of this bill to include all individuals who may wish to assert their religious or moral objections to avoid providing services to certain customers. Call committee members now to ask them to oppose any expansion of the bill and to vote no. |
|||||||||||||||||
So is this bill something that is needed since the First Amendment is already there?
Is it protecting a group that feels threatened and just a way for them to feel safe?
Does it go against any of our rights as stated but still holds the danger of being opened up to "moral objections to avoid providing services to certain customers?"
|
|
|||||