Second Congressman Renounces His Vote for ‘Disrespect for Marriage’ Act

Everlasting Life

Through Faith in Jesus

.....Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.) announced on Monday that he will reverse his vote in favor of H.R. 8404, which skeptics call the “Disrespect for Marriage” Act....

.....he said this bill goes too far.

“My record shows that I am a long-standing advocate against discrimination of all types,” he said. “I, however, cannot support any effort that undermines religious liberties by failing to provide legitimate safeguards for faith-based organizations that object based on their deeply-held religious beliefs.”

The proposal would allow federal law to override state constitutional marriage protection amendments and allow private individuals to sue business owners for “harm” resulting from the owner’s faith-based refusal to participate in a ceremony he or she believes to be a sin. The U.S. Senate passed the bill last Tuesday, 61-36. A more punitive version of the bill passed the House on July 19 with 47 Republican votes, including that of Diaz-Balart.

But the Florida Republican chided Senate Democrats for rejecting religious liberty amendments and other protections for Christians offered by Senators Mike Lee (R-Utah), James Lankford (R-Okla.), and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) to safeguard people of faith from being legally compelled to violate their conscience. Instead, they substituted a legally ambiguous bipartisan amendment which critics say opens the floodgates for lawsuits against faithful business owners.

“Our Founders understood that religious liberties are sacred and vulnerable, and must always be vigorously protected,” said Diaz-Balart. “Senate Democrats … doubled down on a bill that fails to uphold the religious liberties which are sacred to our nation.”

....Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) blamed the expedited vote for Republicans’ confusion and his former “yea” vote. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) gave congressmen just one day to review the consequential legislation. “We didn’t have a lot of information on it when they were calling for the vote,” said Perry last month.

“They jammed it through without any religious liberty protections,” agreed Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) on Monday’s “Washington Watch with Tony Perkins.” The amended bill only protects nonprofits from participating in the marriage ceremony itself, “not, for example, if you’re running an adoption organization, or maybe you’re a private Christian school. No, that’s not what they’re protecting, so it falls way short.”

“This [bill] actually destroys religious freedom … and that’s why they’re doing this,” Perry said. Without the strong religious freedom and conscience protections offered in the Senate, his fellow Republicans “absolutely must vote no,” he said.

It “will be a mistake for them if they vote for this. And I would encourage them absolutely not to do it.”...


Say something Righteous and Wholesome...
Being black, being Hispanic, being disabled, being female are not sins.

Pursuing homosexuality is.

The 1st Amendment protects religion, and where there is a disagreement we have to learn to live together. Respecting beliefs.

Perhaps Christian business simply needs a disclaimer: We fear God and sinful conduct is not promoted but seen for what it is and we endeavor to abstain and help others understand the implications of such godless conduct and be freed from it through the grace of God.

I can't help but think that those bringing charges against Christian businesses have malicious intent, AND have alternative businesses to go to.

The courts should not even spend time on this.

As far as the new marriage protection law, its an affront to God and it violates the Constitution by imposing a religious dogma on those with an opposing theology.

There is a base argument : Does the conduct in question rob an individual of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness?
Are there no options? Or are those with Christian ethos to suffer? [We know they will]

There is another argument in the employer-employee realm: Are business employment practices equitable regardless of faith? Is there equity in benefits and compensation for those who differ in beliefs? Those issues can merit court jurisprudence.

But in a world sold out to satan, I expect a biased jury.

The SCOTUS has tougher problems such as islam where belief flies in the face of such freedoms. Slay the infidel. It's their religion but it robs the victim of life.