27
posted ago by PamelaCincinnatus

[TFF Lobbyist] “We found that there are a number of things in [the bill] that really don’t provide protections for religious entities in particular – churches, and so forth. There are some exemptions in the bill, but they are pretty narrow.

As for the punitive damages, there is no limit on the punitive or compensatory damages. There’s also an award of attorney’s costs and fees – only to the Plaintiff if they prevail, but not to the Defendant. In addition, there are fines that are pretty hefty. In totality, this makes it a Plaintiff attorney’s DREAM, to go suing everyone and everything.” [cut off at this point]

[Delegate Simon on the Committee] “I’ve actually looked at the [unlimited punitive damages] language…and I think it’s actually doing exactly what we intended for it to do. If you don’t want to be subject to unlimited punitive damages, don’t discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

I mean, this wasn’t meant to be a non-punitive bill. We created a private right of action for a reason. And so I think that the bill accomplishes exactly what it’s intended to do in the form that it’s intended to do it. And so, at this point, I would move that we report the bill.” (To which all the other Democrats “seconded” in unison and voted to pass the bill.)

And we shouldn’t be surprised, either. After all, that was from the same Delegate who, just two years ago, when speaking in favor of a similar bill and responding to similar SOGI concerns of religious groups and universities, said: "There are certain sincerely held religious beliefs which are so discriminatory that we don't give them the protection of the law, and this is one of those cases."

[TFF Lobbyist] “We found that there are a number of things in [the bill] that really don’t provide protections for religious entities in particular – churches, and so forth. There are some exemptions in the bill, but they are pretty narrow. As for the punitive damages, there is no limit on the punitive or compensatory damages. There’s also an award of attorney’s costs and fees – only to the Plaintiff if they prevail, but not to the Defendant. In addition, there are fines that are pretty hefty. In totality, this makes it a Plaintiff attorney’s DREAM, to go suing everyone and everything.” [cut off at this point] [Delegate Simon on the Committee] “I’ve actually looked at the [unlimited punitive damages] language…and I think it’s actually doing exactly what we intended for it to do. If you don’t want to be subject to unlimited punitive damages, don’t discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. I mean, this wasn’t meant to be a non-punitive bill. We created a private right of action for a reason. And so I think that the bill accomplishes exactly what it’s intended to do in the form that it’s intended to do it. And so, at this point, I would move that we report the bill.” (To which all the other Democrats “seconded” in unison and voted to pass the bill.) And we shouldn’t be surprised, either. After all, that was from the same Delegate who, just two years ago, when speaking in favor of a similar bill and responding to similar SOGI concerns of religious groups and universities, said: "There are certain sincerely held religious beliefs which are so discriminatory that we don't give them the protection of the law, and this is one of those cases."
Comments (13)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
cilantro 0 points ago

Yes and although I'm a Christian, I do think any religion that discriminates against people based on basic human rights should not receive tax exemptions.

I'd happily donate more to my local Christian churches if it also meant that my tax dollars weren't supporting other religions that promote pedophilia or claim I should convert or die.

It's cruel and unusual for civilized people to support mosques and it's also not appropriate to expect homosexuals to indirectly fund Catholic churches. People should have the freedom to choose.

PamelaCincinnatus [S] 4 points ago

But this bill doesn't deal with who your taxes go to. What it does is makes it easy and profitable to sue anyone into oblivion who doesn't go along with the LGBTQ agenda and prevents 1st Amendment defenses from being used.

cilantro -1 points ago

I know, but that's how I think such issues like religion and homosexuality should be dealt with.

Perhaps just read my original comment again.

PamelaCincinnatus [S] 3 points ago

I don't want to live in a country where the government gets to persecute my religion. That is the purpose of this bill. The government has no place telling a church what sex the pastors should be or who is allowed to get married there. Everyone is already tired of DC elites thinking they're better than us because of their "updated" morality, and at this point, I think anyone who hasn't caught on what direction that's going is a fool.

Or, perhaps your point was, you genuinely wish to persecute us. If that is so, then, what use is there in speaking to you any more?

cilantro -1 points ago

I don't think you're even reading my comments.

I'm gonna just step back and let you argue with yourself.

PamelaCincinnatus [S] 1 point ago

Maybe I'm misinterpreting what I'm seeing. The first line of your initial post, which is a reply to my post, states "I disagree."

This leads me to believe the general context of what you are saying is that you disagree with my distaste for the bill, and that what follows is your argument in favor of it. The arguments you make thereafter seem to support that conclusion; you state that you do think this is how religions and LGBT issues should be handled, and state some complaints about tax dollars going to religions you don't support.

You go on to raise the matter of religions supporting genocide and discriminatory ideologies; given the context of the discussion, that is, treatment under color of law of churches which do not go along with the LGBT agenda, this leads me to believe you feel that these issues are similar. Therefore, your belief seems to be that not only should religions which promote "hate" be attacked by these laws (you state this belief very clearly), but that failing to toe the party line with respect to LGBT issues should fall under that same umbrella and be treated accordingly.

Since my religion, and devout Christianity in general, tends to run very much afoul of the LGBT agenda, the implication is that you want us and our institutions to be treated with destructive lawsuits aimed at eliminating our churches and our ability to do business in general. This is, quite simply, persecution.

Have I gotten something wrong?

cellardoor -1 points ago

I can’t wait to see a few homosexuals suing a mosque for not performing their “marriage”. That should be fun.