Posted on 11/27/2018 3:11:14 PM PST by lowbridge
After Houston rejected similar measures three years ago, churches in Austin may be forced to hire homosexual and transgender pastors and ministers due to a city ordinance.
Ground zero in the turmoil because of non-discrimination reforms that fail to protect religious and moral objections to sinful lifestyles has shifted to Austin.
The city’s leaders passed an employment discrimination ordinance much like 2015’s “HERO” measure in Houston, prohibiting decisions against hiring based on sexual orientation and gender identity in addition to other reasons.
The ordinance provides no limit to enforcement against churches that decide against hiring of homosexuals and transsexuals on moral and religious grounds.
Not even pastoral and other leadership positions at churches are excluded from possible city oversight and regulatory management in the capital of Texas.
Dozens of Texas churches that are members of the U.S. Pastor Council (USPC) are represented by a federal lawsuit filed earlier this month, following the Houston pattern of possibly a long battle in the courts.
“Every church in Austin that refuses to hire practicing homosexuals as clergy or church employees is violating city law and subject to civil penalties and liability,” the filing, U.S. Pastor Council v. Austin, reads.
“The City of Austin’s failure to exempt church hiring decisions . . . violates the U.S. Constitution, the Texas Constitution and the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act.”
(Excerpt) Read more at christianaction.org ...
Irrelevant ... there are no “Christian” churches in this Texas’ Progressive sh!thole .
Before you can change your gender you must first change into a frog or a worm. That’s about as scientific as it gets.
that would be my position as a church - either you’re singling out Christians, or your ordinance has to apply to all religions, from buddists to jewish to pagans to mohammadeens.
For that matter, why should any employer be forced to hire anyone they don’t want to hire? Anti-discrimination laws destroyed freedom of association and gave government tremendous power over our lives and took away our freedom. Only government must be non-discriminatory. Everybody else should be free to hire, do business with (or not), rent to, sell to, etc. on any basis he or she chooses.
Try as you might with this ordinance, you will never prevail against the church.
And a FYI for those that are pushing this assault, the scriptures are clear that those that continually rebel, celebrate sin and reject Christ and His commands will not inherit the Kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).
It's all right there in writing for anyone to see. The Lord left you with more than enough evidence to know what you are forcing is an offense.
Hello........., Supreme Court?????? First Amendment under attack!
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...”
free exercise thereof, FREE, not prohibiting you from practising your core religious beliefs.
No puny city ordinance can take away your first amendment rights.
“Incorporation” says you’re full of it.
Really? Truth be told, there seems to be a few LGBT folks on that court. (not that there is anything wrong with that)
I suspect the time is long past for “citizen nullification” on discrimination. Associate with whoever you want, for whatever reasons you want....just don’t tell people you don’t want to associate with why..... It’s none of their business—nor the business of the government—anyway.
It is for me.
The fence sitters are not Bible believing.
Won’t survive legal challenge... left wingers are just flat out evil people.
Good point . . . .but they think they are.
What happens if the first known gay pastor decides he
wants to place a Nativity display at city hall?
Gotta love it, vettester!
Wasn’t it good old Rick Perry who got all them
“Caliwhackers” to move their a$$es to Texas? Is that
not working out, or what? If enough move out
of here maybe we can get our state back some day.
Oh, isn’t that the same Incorporation Doctrine that has been used for the past 60 years to remove religion from public schools and the public square? Are you certain you understand what you’re saying, here?
I've never been a fan of exemption clauses anyway. They imply that but for the presence of the exemption clause, churches and religious groups would be fair game. That is a very tenuous, defensive position to find ourselves.
I know quite well what I speak of. The new rules in Austin are a clear and egregious breach of the free exercise and free association parts of the first amendment. These aspects and the restrictions have been affirmed numerous times at every court level, and have further been affirmed against the wishes of states and cities.
The root of the issue with non-establishment is not the incorporation doctrine, but rather the “wall of separation” misinterpretation that has become the driving force behind the misapplication.
Finally, the incorporation doctrine, if it and the fedguv behind it were limited to their enumerated powers as they were supposed to be, would be a fine application of federalism. But, fedguv has become the be-all and end-all, with rules for anything and everything. So, the states and their sub-units are limited in what they can do with respect to not running afoul of the myriad laws unconstitutionally established outside the enumerated powers of fedguv.
I’ll have to check out Caetano v Massachusetts
“I would close down first.”
And fulfill the left’s endgame?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.