Ohio Bill Protecting Pastors Who Decline to Host, Officiate Same-Sex ‘Weddings’ Clears House Committee

Bible Pew II pdCOLUMBUS, Ohio — An Ohio bill known as the “Pastor Protection Act” has cleared a state House committee, but it is not certain whether lawmakers have enough time to pass the legislation this year.

H.B. 286, presented by Rep. Nino Vitale, R-Urbana, protects pastors from punishment in instances when they decline to officiate a wedding that is unbiblical or disallow their church buildings from being used for such ceremonies.

“No ordained or licensed minister … or religious society … is required to solemnize a marriage that does not conform to the ordained or licensed minister’s or religious society’s sincerely held religious beliefs,” it reads in part. “No religious society is required to allow any building or property of the religious society to be used to host a marriage ceremony for a marriage that does not conform to the religious society’s sincerely held religious beliefs.”

The bill declares that those who decline because of their adherence to the tenets of their faith are “immune from civil or criminal liability and neither the state nor a political subdivision of the state shall penalize or withhold any benefit or privilege from the ordained or licensed minister or religious society, including any governmental contract, grant, or license.”

Vitale said in July when he first announced his intent to introduce the bill that pastors should not be forced to violate their conscience.

“This is not an issue of discrimination,” he remarked in a statement. “It is an issue of protection; protection for those who have committed their lives to the service of God and their community.”

However, some have opined that the measure is unnecessary as pastors are already protected under the First Amendment.

  • Connect with Christian News

“This legislation would send a message to same-sex couples that they are somehow a threat, against which protection is necessary,” Ian Lynch of Old South United Church of Christ told lawmakers on Tuesday prior to the vote. “Why would the Ohio legislature choose to go out of its way to send that sort of message? If there is a concern for protection, perhaps it should be protecting the reputation of the state as a place where all are welcome.”

The House Community and Family Advancement Committee approved the bill 9-4, allowing it to move forward to the full House, but the measure has until Dec. 8 to clear both the House and Senate or it will have to be reintroduced next year.

Co-sponsors include Reps. Brian Hill, R-Zanesville, Tim Schaffer, R-Lancaster, Ron Young, R-Leroy Township, Wes Retherford, R-Hamilton, and Robert Sprague, R-Findlay.

Similar bills are being considered in Tennessee, Oklahoma and Alabama.


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, because of your generous support, we have received enough funds to send many audio Bibles to Iraqi and Syrian refugees displaced by ISIS in the Middle East. Many have been distributed and received with gladness. While we provide for the physical needs of the people, we seek to provide the eternal hope only found in Jesus Christ through the word of God. Would you join us by making a donation today to this important work? Please click here to send an audio Bible to a refugee family >>

Print Friendly
  • http://www.personaltouchmaids.org/ TammyHenson

    Good

  • Liberal Elitist

    Yet another solution in search of a problem.

    • Amos Moses

      canada has religious liberty ……… until you start preaching what scripture says ….. then they put the kibosh on it ……. and persecu ….. sorry …… prosecute ……….. the law has no meaning to the lawless ……..

      • james blue

        Is Ohio in Canada?

        • Steven

          No! But the same spiritual entity that is in Cananda, the U.K., China, etc…resides in the United States too.

          • james blue

            But not our laws

          • Steven

            True, but this progressive generation has already demonstrated that laws are malleable and can be reshaped to fit.

          • james blue

            Get back to me when it happens. As it is this is a superfluous law as they are already protected.

          • Steven

            Get back to me when it happens.
            Thus, the nature of the “Ohio Bill.” A preemptive measure.

          • james blue

            There is no need to preempt something that has already been preempted. Laws can be changed even if you make the same law twice.

        • Amos Moses

          it makes no difference to those pushing the agenda ………. homomarriage is the common denominator ……….

  • LadyInChrist♥BlessedBeTheLord

    Pastors should be protected. They should not be forced to do what they feel is wrong.

    • james blue

      They already are.

      • LadyInChrist♥BlessedBeTheLord

        No they are not.

        • james blue

          Churches can refuse to marry anyone. They can refuse to marry divorcees,
          they can refuse to marry people of different faiths, they can refuse to
          marry people who haven’t attended services regularly enough, they can
          refuse to marry couples who find themselves pregnant and they can refuse
          to marry gay couples.

          • LadyInChrist♥BlessedBeTheLord

            Sigh. Shakes head. Rolls eyes.

          • james blue

            Are you so desperate to be a victim that you wish to deny reality?

          • LadyInChrist♥BlessedBeTheLord

            I’m not your victim. Nor am I anyone’s victim. You are another troll that I choose not to play with. And I still shake my head. Good bye.

          • james blue

            You are claiming pastors are not protected, I pointed out they can refuse to marry anyone they wish…you think that’s trolling?

          • LadyInChrist♥BlessedBeTheLord

            Find someone else to troll. I have no troll food to feed you after this post. Good bye.

          • tatoo

            You Christians have to whine even when there is nothing to whine about. If the legislature wants to spend time and money passing unnecessary laws, fine.

          • LadyInChrist♥BlessedBeTheLord

            🙂 Have a wonderful day 🙂 It’s a beautiful day that the Lord had made.

        • Michael C

          Look up the names Charles and Te’Andrea Wilson.

          • LadyInChrist♥BlessedBeTheLord

            Sorry but you are one of the trolls I choose not to play with.
            Good Night. Pleasant dreams.

      • cadcoke5

        When the ACA came out, the Obama administration decided that Christian schools, and mission organizations, etc, were not entitled to the protections given to church sanctuaries. The left has steadily been seeking to erode the barriers preventing them from attacking these institutions so they can force them out of existence. The LGBT related laws are similar.

        • james blue

          Should it be legal for a a private business to refuse goods and services to us because they disagree with our faith?

          • cadcoke5

            I am saying that people should not be required to do things that violate their faith. E.g., the nuns being required to purchase coverage that include potentially abortion-inducing contraceptives.

            I think the examples of bakers who were very heavily fined for not baking a homosexual wedding cake is a great example. These bakers had regularly served the homosexual customers, even knowing they were homosexual. However the LGBT activists demanded the bakers do something specific to spit in the face of God’s design.

            So, it is not that the victims of the LGBT activists are not serving these people based on the faith of the LGBT people. It is that the LGBT demand that Christians be put out of business for failing to act against their Christian faith.

          • james blue

            You didn’t answer the question asked.

          • cadcoke5

            I actually was a little vague about the scope of your question, since it didn’t seem to be directly to one of my prior statements. I see now you were approaching it from a different angle.

            I will also approach the argument from a broader perspective. All laws have a moral basis, and ultimately they probably all violate someone’s personal moral code. For an extreme example, there used to be South American natives that practiced human sacrifice. Hmm… I was about to say our laws are strongly against that religious practice.. but with abortion and assisted suicide, perhaps not so strong as it used to be.

            We impose moral laws about sex that prevent an adult from “loving” a child this way, even if they have reached puberty an’d aren’t forced. This may change in the future, since so many in the homosexual community are OK with it, and they seem to be carrying a lot of political weight at the moment.

            The goal of government should be on the side of protecting the moral and just citizen, and not take a role in persecuting them.

            Earlier I mentioned the Christian schools. Since they would not fund the drugs that can induce abortion, Obama wanted them out of business since they were not what he considered to be a religious institution. To any U.S. military contractor, who don’t require their female employees to submit to having men in their toilet/locker rooms, he dictated that they cannot do business with the U.S. Such laws have been proposed for all businesses. They may permit such business to eliminate all gender specific facilities, and substitute rooms for individuals. E.g. Require a private school to provide an individual room for each student in gym. Obviously, such actions are crushing financially.

            It may be in my life time that the Christian in the U.S. will either be forced to compromise their faith or starve to death. Such things are predicted in God’s word about the end times. But, of course, things turn around in the end.

          • james blue

            Okay but again you skipped the entire foundation of the questions, which is should a private business be allowed to refuse good and services to us because they disagree with our faith or should they be forced to serve us?

            The foundation of the question is about there being this demand that people of faith not have to follow big government anti discrimination and public accommodation laws while at the same time demanding those laws protect them from being discriminated against.

            By law a baker who makes wedding cakes is not allowed to refuse to make a wedding cake for a Christian wedding even if he disagrees with our faith. The question is should he have to?

            For the record I believe a self employed person should be able to do or refuse to do business with whomever they wish for whatever reason they wish and let the market of public opinion decide if they wish to do business with him.

            A self employed Christian photographer should be able to refuse to do gay weddings and a non Christian should be able to refuse goods, services, employment etc to Christians.

            On the other hand if A christian photographer is employed by a company that does cater gay weddings, he should do the gig or seek employment elsewhere. Employers should not be forced by law to make accommodations for our faith. It’s nice that employers do make accommodations, but they should be forced to by law.

            Your original was about government forcing people to follow regulation even if it runs counter to their faith. Well people with no faith have to live with that and get no pass….so why should we expect to not be treated the same?

            I’ll try to keep it more brief next time….

          • cadcoke5

            We seem generally to be in agreement.

            However, I think phrasing it as ” to refuse goods and services to us because they disagree with our faith” is not correct. I would rephrase that as “to refuse goods and services to us because the service act itself is against the vendor’s faith”. Note that an athiest has faith, and that faith has the same protections as other beliefs.

            The way you originally phrased it would permit a company to refuse service to a Jewish person, such as serving them when they show up at your restaurant. But, I suspect that you actually meant by your original phrase, that it is OK for a Jewish person to refuse to serve pork. If so, then, we agree.

          • james blue

            Okay so should an atheist baker be able to refuse to sell cakes to Christians if he believes it will be used in a Christian wedding where there will be prayer, or even if he suspects grace would be said over food?

            I was actually phasing it as a non religious person who refuses to serve a religious person specifically because he disagrees with their faith (the way they live) and that serving them would be endorsing their faith.

            With employment Christians wish to only employ Christians but secular outlets cannot refuse to employ Christians (I’m only using Christianity to invoke empathy, it could be any faith).

            For example Ken Ham’s Ark encounter. It’s not a church, it’s a business, but he only employs Christians. Even the cleaning staff

          • cadcoke5

            I worked for a Christian theater that only employed Christians. Some on a secular theater list were upset at that. But, I will add that this theater is not simply a place for entertainment. The plays are God-honoring. Company-wide employee meetings are more like church worship services, and even occasionally included communion. Department meetings always opened in prayer. And then there is the purpose of the business. Its goals included spiritual purposes, that a non-Christian cannot accomplish. So, the janitor was not only expected to clean the floor, but to also participate in the spiritual health of the company, and its ministry to the customers, by means of the power of the Holy Spirit. Of course, the non-believer will say that such power does not exist, and that expecting the Holy Spirit to be dwelling in your employees is nonsensical discrimination.

            For such an organization to hire a non-believer, would be like hiring a totally deaf man to be the theater’s audio engineer. He may, or may not, actually believe sound exists. He might possibly even understand how things are electrically connected, and how a slider is expected to be pushed up, when an actor is about to say his lines. But those of us with hearing, will say that that he is unable to truly do his job, because his job involves something he cannot perceive.

            So, at the Ark Encounter, if the janitor cannot perceive or participate with the spiritual aspects of the company, he will at best, only be able to get dirt off of the floor. To some extent, he will be a drag on the company. I fondly remember some of the janitorial staff at that
            theater where I used to work. They’ve even received letters from
            patrons about their work. So, yes, the janitor certainly has influence
            in the ministry of a company. Such is the work of the Holy Spirit.

            As for an atheistic organization rejecting Christians, That is already practiced by some public schools. Many want every subject to be taught as though there were no God, under false claims of “neutrality” in regards to religion. So, you must, at least, pretend to be atheist to teach there. The science department is especially strict about their doctrines. Heretics are often removed.

            The examples of the Christian baker, was not her simply suspecting the cake might be used to celebrate sin. It was a customized piece of art for the purpose of celebrating sin. If the homosexual customer would simply have asked for a generic cake, she probably would have sold them one, because she had sold cakes to them for years.

            I do think the atheist baker should be permitted to deny special cakes to Christians for Christian celebrations. Though, I don’t know that they acknowledge any “god” (other than themselves), that requires them to keep themselves clean from participating in the “sin of Christianity”. But, such rulings (at least in Colorado) tend to be unevenly applied in favor of those who are against God, and the fines are levied against Christians.

          • james blue

            As for an atheistic organization rejecting Christians, That is already practiced by some public schools.”

            NO IT’S NOT!!!!!! (please forgive the caps) No teacher, secretary, custodial or any other employee public school has ever been refused employment or fired from a public school for being a Christian. They are not allowed to force their faith onto students, but that’s not the same thing as refusing to employ them because they are Christian. If an atheist employee at a Christian school or Ark encounter went around telling students and visitors there in no God I would expect that employee to be fired, that’s not the same as not employing him because he is an atheist.

            Regardless we are in agreement that we should not expect to be protected from discrimination while demanding the right to discriminate.

            Have a blessed day.

  • Michael C

    Well, yes. Ministers and churches are already protected by the First Amendment. They don’t need to make a new law. It’s not necessary. No church can be required to solemnize anything that they don’t want to.

    Ministers and churches can even legally refuse to host interracial marriages if they so please.

    If they want to pass a whole bunch of redundant laws, that’s fine I guess but it doesn’t seem very conservative.

    • Edward Hill

      You are right ,protection is already in place .This law needs to extend to business owners who don’t want to make gay wedding cakes .Every citizen should be protected from doing things that are against their religious beliefs .

      • johndoe

        Not in a public business

        • Edward Hill

          yes in public .We are not only Christians in private .A part of being a Christian is public confession of that fact .

          • johndoe

            You cannot discriminate in public business transactions

          • Edward Hill

            We can discriminate if it violates our beliefs .

          • Edward Hill

            We feel that God is more important to us than the United States government .The government may be your god but its not ours .

        • Edward Hill

          Jesus Christ died for us in public so we can stand for Him in public .

        • Edward Hill

          I have a Muslim run business in my community and they don’t like non Muslims to shop there .So I go somewhere else outside my neighborhood to shop .Its my duty to see that none of my money goes to support terrorist acts against others so its a good thing that I don’t spend my money with Muslims who will use a portion called charity which actually is not charity but a terror organization .I don’t get all upset I just spend my money elsewhere .

      • Michael C

        So you believe that a business should be permitted to refuse to provide it’s regularly offered goods and services to a customer if the business owner morally objects to what the goods and services will be used for?

        Is this a fair summation of your position?

        • Becky

          Oh, please. Be specific, as this is a specific matter. The religious beliefs of a Christian business owner is also reflected on his business…they’re one and the same really. Therefore, a homosexual asking a Christian business owner to provide a service (in some capacity) for his ssm automatically impacts his business. The business owner would not be able to offer goods and services because his business would no longer be operating “regularly”. In order to serve the homosexual patron, the owner would have to disorganise his business by going against his beliefs. His “regularly offered goods and services” would never include going against his beliefs (eg ssm).

          I know it’s difficult for you to comprehend…but…being Christian is all consuming.

          • Michael C

            Oh, please…don’t generalise.

            Edward Hill made the general statement “Every citizen should be protected from doing things that are against their religious beliefs .”

            I was seeking a confirmation of their beliefs.

            The religious beliefs of a Christian business owner is also reflected on his business…they’re one and the same really.

            If interfaith relationships were in violation of a florists religious beliefs, do you think they’d be permitted to refuse to sell flowers to an interfaith couple for their wedding despite the fact that discrimination on the basis of a customer’s religion is prohibited by federal law?

            It’s an honest question. Do you believe that this would be permitted?

          • Edward Hill

            Why must you create fake scenarios lets just stick to what is actually happening and not get into fake scenarios of WHAT IF .

          • Edward Hill

            THE bottom line is that gay rights are not covered under the Civil Rights act and its going to cost you a lot of money to get the Civil rights act amended .Did I mention that Trump is a billionaire and its going to cost billions to impress him .Obama only wanted millions but Trump is going to want billions so dig deep .

          • Edward Hill

            I am not saying you cant get the law amended to include gays but its not going to be cheap and you have a lot of gay billionaires who can dig deep so pony up to the bar .Its going to cost you a lot more than a few million well placed dollars to get this law amended to include gays and lesbians .

        • Edward Hill

          Yes businesses should be allowed to practice their private religious beliefs in a public setting .

          • Michael C

            Yes businesses should be allowed to practice their private religious beliefs in a public setting .

            This would require repealing the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

            Is that what you want?

          • Edward Hill

            that law is not legally in affect and is a redundant law for Black people are Americans and as American they have the same rights as other Americans law or not .

          • Edward Hill

            Congress never voted to extend the Civil Rights act so its not really in effect any more .People seem to think its not necessary anymore and tends to separate people rather than protect the rights of a segment of the society .I am black and will continue to act as if the law is in affect .

          • Michael C

            Congress never voted to extend the Civil Rights act so its not really in effect any more .

            The Civil Rights Act of 1964 doesn’t expire.

            I am black and will continue to act as if the law is in affect .

            The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is not just about black people.

            Back to my question. Do you believe that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 should be repealed? Do you believe that businesses should be permitted to refuse service on the basis of a customers race, religion, sex, national origin, etc., etc.?

          • Edward Hill

            It doesn’t have to be repealed its not in effect .there was a time limit on the Civil Rights act and that time was up a year or two ago .

          • Michael C

            .there was a time limit on the Civil Rights act and that time was up a year or two ago .

            Now I’m just not sure if you’re just joking around…

            There was no “time limit” on the Civil Rights Act of 1964. You are mistaken.

            Back to my question. Do you believe that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 should be repealed? Do you believe that businesses should be permitted to refuse service on the basis of a customer’s race, religion, sex, national origin, etc., etc.?

          • Edward Hill

            No It should not be repealed for it helps a lot of people and not only black Americans .

          • Michael C

            No It should not be repealed for it helps a lot of people and not only black Americans .

            The Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires businesses to serve all customers equally even if they’re in violation of the business owners personal religious beliefs.

            I thought you said that “Every citizen should be protected from doing things that are against their religious beliefs” ?

            Which is it? Should businesses be permitted to use their religious beliefs to deny service or should we keep the Civil Rights Act of 1964 around?

          • Edward Hill

            gay sex is not a civil rights issue .that wont fly unless you buy some congressmen so dig deeper for its not a issue that anyone really cares about in the churches of God .

          • Michael C

            You said “Every citizen should be protected from doing things that are against their religious beliefs .”

            Even if a baker or florist strongly believes that providing a cake or flowers for an interfaith or interracial wedding would violate their deeply held, personal religious beliefs, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits them from refusing their services on the basis of religion or race.

            From how you’re describing the situation, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forces businesses to do things that may go against the business owner’s personal religious beliefs.

          • Edward Hill

            I had a congressional app that told me which bills were being voted on and a year or so ago I saw this act being ignored by congress .No I was mistaken it was the Voter rights act .

          • Kevin Quillen

            you seem to put a lot of stock in a bloated, overreaching federal
            government. I do not need big gov telling me how to live or who to do
            business with. Can’t you take care of yourself? life too tough for you?

          • Edward Hill

            the civil rights act does not include gays and that is a fact .Its at no time mentions gays .Being gay is a moral issue and not a civil rights issue .

          • Liberal Elitist

            The Civil Rights Act of 1964 most definitely covers gender, and that includes gays and lesbians.

          • Edward Hill

            NOT IN WORD .IT DOES NOT SPECIFICALLY COVER GAYS OR LESBIANS

          • Edward Hill

            GAY IS NOT COVERED UNDER CIVIL RIGHTS .

          • Edward Hill

            It came up in congress and they did not act on it and allowed the time limit to pass .

          • Edward Hill

            give me a moment while I read the civil rights act and see exactly what it includes

          • Edward Hill

            Show me what portion of the civil rights act would be affected by allowing business to not serve people because of religious convictions .I want you to post it .

          • Edward Hill

            Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term “private”.[43]
            Title III[edit]
            Prohibited state and municipal governments from denying access to public facilities on grounds of race, color, religion or national origin.
            Title IV[edit]
            Encouraged the desegregation of public schools and authorized the U.S. Attorney General to file suits to enforce said act.
            Title V[edit]
            Expanded the Civil Rights Commission established by the earlier Civil Rights Act of 1957 with additional powers, rules and procedures.
            Title VI[edit]
            Prevents discrimination by government agencies that receive federal funds. If an agency is found in violation of Title VI, that agency may lose its federal funding.
            General

          • Kevin Quillen

            you seem to put a lot of stock in a bloated, overreaching federal government. I do not need big gov telling me how to live or who to do business with. Can’t you take care of yourself?

          • Edward Hill

            We are a nation of laws and the law is in place to keep people like you from abusing other peoples rights .All rights are respected including religious freedom .If gay rights did not contradict our rights then there would be no problem .But their rights do contradict our rights when they try to force our businesses to be a part of their sin . YES BEING GAY OR LESBIAN IS A SIN TO US AND WE WANT NO PART OF IT .and not even the law can force us to be a part of if we will simply not obey any law that contradicts our religious beliefs .

            Government rules with the consent of those ruled .You need to understand what that means .

          • Kevin Quillen

            forgive my mistaken reply to you.

          • Edward Hill

            In order to include gays in the civil rights act you would have to amend the civil rights act for it does not include them .It says nothing about same sex or homo sex .

          • Kevin Quillen

            the answer is yes. the market will decide who succeeds and who does not.

          • Roy Hobs

            It is really this simple! Amazing how the sheeple can’t see it. It is Talmudic Law that rulls this Country. The same garbage Jesus spoke against.

      • james blue

        Should it be legal for a non Christian to be able to refuse goods, services, accommodation, employment etc. to Christians because they disagree with our faith?

        • Edward Hill

          It should only be illegal to force Christians to sell products or services that conflict with their religious beliefs .

          • james blue

            Okay, but Should it be legal for a non Christian to be able to refuse goods,
            services, accommodation, employment etc. to Christians because they
            disagree with our faith?

          • Edward Hill

            if IT AGAINST THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS THEN YES .

          • james blue

            What if they are just Atheists and disagree with our beliefs?

          • Edward Hill

            Atheists will always oppose anything religious for they don’t believe in any God .But the fact is that we do and that’s not going to change because they don’t .Atheists do things to be mean to other people .We do things to please our Creator .

          • james blue

            Not what I asked. You’ve come just so far with the right to refuse goods and service to Christians if it goes against the FAITH of the vendor. So what if the vendor has no faith and simply doesn’t want to serve Christians because he thinks we are wrong to believe?

          • Edward Hill

            then I would simply take my money elsewhere and its no big deal for I have a Muslim super market in my neighborhood who doesn’t like to serve Christians so I take my money elsewhere and shop where my money is appreciated and welcomed with smiling faces .but that’s just me because I HAVE SELF CONFIDENCE IN HOW I LIVE MY LIFE .Self confidence will work miracles for people who have no self esteem .

          • james blue

            Should that Atheist be protected from a lawsuit and or government fines?

          • Edward Hill

            forcing Christians to serve you in their businesses will not give you self esteem .you will still feel bad about yourself .

          • james blue

            Again, not what I asked.

          • Edward Hill

            It is a good plan for you to not support Christian businesses for its possible that they never depended on your income to begin with .So boycott them and see how far you get with you meager 3 to 7 % of the population

          • james blue

            ?????

          • Liberal Elitist

            More than seven percent. Regardless, you are forgetting about the support of friends and family.

        • Edward Hill

          You can make all the laws you want but you cant force a Muslim to make a gay cake .And I have yet to see anyone who tried . YOU SEEM TO KNOW WHO TO MESS WITH AND WHO TO LEAVE ALONE .

          • james blue

            You didn’t answer the question.

          • Edward Hill

            YES IS THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION .NO FAITH SHOULD BE FORCED BY LAW TO DISOBEY THEIR RELIGIOUS CONVICTIONS .you may think it a small compromise but we think it a big thing .

          • james blue

            Okay good

          • Edward Hill

            we cannot allow the non religious to dictate our religious duty to us .

          • james blue

            The question wasn’t about that. It was about refusing goods and services to us because they disagree with our faith.

        • Kevin Quillen

          yes. I someone owns a business they should be able to serve or refuse anyone they choose. The invisible hand of the market will work it out. It is called “freedom”.

          • james blue

            Good man, Can’t understand why the other guy was dancing around it.

            Way too many are shouting about the right to refuse goods and services to those who they don’t approve of, but think they should be protected from discrimination themselves.

    • Amos Moses

      canada has religious liberty ……… until you start preaching what scripture says ….. then they put the kibosh on it ……. and persecu ….. sorry …… prosecute ……….. the law has no meaning to the lawless ………….

      • Michael C

        If I’m not mistaken, Ohio is in the United States of America.

        • Amos Moses

          If i am not mistaken ……. it makes no difference to those pushing the agenda ……….

    • Eye Know

      It’s hardly “redundant laws” when your kind is trying to drag Christians into court and shut down our businesses. You started the culture war, we didn’t. As recently as ten years, no one would ever have imagined that homosexuals would have the legal power to harass Christians.

      • Michael C

        It’s hardly “redundant laws” when your kind is trying to drag Christians into court and shut down our businesses.

        This proposed legislation relates to churches, not public accommodations.

        This law is redundant because churches have always had the freedom to discriminate against whomever they please. It’s in the Constitution.

        The state of Ohio doesn’t even prohibit businesses from discriminating against gay men an women. It’s perfectly legal for stores and restaurants to refuse service to gay people in much of Ohio.

        …no one would ever have imagined that homosexuals would have the legal power to harass Christians.

        What you’re describing as harassment is actually the legal enforcement of fairly enacted laws protecting U.S. citizens from discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations.

        Do you believe that businesses in the United States should be permitted to deny jobs, homes, and service at stores and restaurants to U.S. citizens just because they’re gay?

  • james blue

    This bill is superfluous. Churches can refuse to marry anyone. They can refuse to marry divorcees, they can refuse to marry people of different faiths, they can refuse to marry people who haven’t attended services regularly enough, they can refuse to marry couples who find themselves pregnant and they can refuse to marry gay couples.

  • Judy Zwyghuizen

    I hope it passes ASAP! this is not right to make pastor’s do this against their belief’s against GOD’s will!

    • tatoo

      Are all you guys so uninformed? You are the ones Trump adores.

  • Steven

    Religion has a protection clause within the United States Constitution; unnatural unions do not. Yet! Somehow, the homosexual lifestyle receives protection status through legally enforced inclusion and bullying tactics. Tell me: how are we not fulfilling Luke 17:28? Can’t believe this is even an issue.

    However, some have opined that the measure is unnecessary
    Yes, because not so long ago we heard how the LGBT…community just wanted to come out of the closet. Once out though, like a parasite, they attached their cause to being a civil rights issue, which allowed them to adopt terms like bigot, or discrimination. This gives them the ammunition to try and force churches to follow cultural progressivism–maybe not today, but tomorrow.

    Heck!!! There’s already been issues about restroom usage at churches; in regards to this mentally unstable idea of gender identity.

    • Kevin Quillen

      1,000 up votes!

    • Roy Hobs

      The Spirit of Anti-Christ is best described as a parasite. “It” hates us, but can’t live without us. They just can’t walk away. Just like the couple who RUINED the lives of the Christian Baker in Oregon. The homosexuals could have just left and found another baker. But no……..I believe that was a calculated attempt to punish the Christians. Evil.

  • Becky

    I pray it passes. Lawmakers, give that law a go straightaway!

  • Grace Kim Kwon

    The Western nations( and their faithful greedy servant-nations) must stop imposing abnormal sexual depravity upon mankind. USA needs Christianity to be sane.

    • Sharon_at_home

      You tell us regularly that “the USA needs Christianity”, but there are a lot more nations that need God / Christianity than just the USA. You always sound like the USA is the worst, but it isn’t and you shouldn’t make it sound like it is. The World needs Christianity, not just the USA.

      • Grace Kim Kwon

        Yes, but many Earthlings get greatly influenced by what USA does. I love the USA the most; American missionaries and American soldiers rescued my mother countries and my favorite authors are mostly American. Other free Western nations are too late for salvage and most other nations are still struggling to get the basic human rights. USA alone has warriors who can still change the course of things greatly. Americans are also the most humble species in seeing their own nation although their contribution is the greatest. And the news is about the USA here anyway. Praying for the USA as my homeland.

        • johndoe

          If you love America, why do you continually insult it and its inhabitants?

  • Musky

    The left is authoritarian. They know that if people have freedom, they will inevitably do things that leftists don’t approve of.

    • james blue

      You think “the right” isn’t authoritarian?

  • Liberal Elitist

    Without at least the pretense of claimed persecution, even where none exists and will not exist, religion enthusiasts risk irrelevancy.

  • Tangent002

    There are already laws in place to protect ministers from having to perform any ceremony that is against their religion, but only if they are acting as agents of a particular church.

    This law is designed to allow a pastor that runs a small wedding chapel business on the side, with no church affiliation, to refuse same-sex weddings (or, presumably, inter-racial/inter-faith weddings). It’s basically an end-run around anti-discrimination laws.

  • Emmanuel

    Sacramento are you watching? I hope Cali gets the memo soon.

  • https://www.facebook.com/PandemicPreparednessGuide/ Ken

    I believe that this is all part of the great falling away, and that Christians had better get their houses in order and preach the Word of God as never before, as our redemption draws near. It’s time to quit playing church – “get right or get left.”

    2nd Timothy 4:1-4 “I charge you therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom: 2 Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; 4 and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.”