Scott Signs ‘Pastor Protection’ Bill

March 11, 2016

Gov. Rick Scott on Thursday signed a controversial bill aimed at protecting clergy members from performing same-sex marriages against their religious beliefs.

Known as the “Pastor Protection Act,” the measure filed by Rep. Scott Plakon, R-Longwood, will prevent churches, pastors and church employees from facing lawsuits for discrimination if they refuse to perform gay and lesbian weddings. Its passage follows a landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling last year that found same-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry. P

lakon and Senate sponsor Aaron Bean, R-Fernandina Beach, said the verdict had shaken conservative Christians.

“The entire marriage world turned upside down,” Bean said last week as the Senate debated the measure. Opponents said the First Amendment already protects pastors who refuse to perform same-sex weddings and challenged supporters to show that any religious organizations have been punished for discriminating against gay and lesbian couples. But supporters of the measure maintained that it was too soon for such lawsuits to have surfaced because the Supreme Court ruling has been in effect less than a year

Opponents also said the bill could open the door for pastors to refuse to marry interracial couples or divorced people.

by The News Service of Florida

Comments

12 Responses to “Scott Signs ‘Pastor Protection’ Bill”

  1. dm on March 15th, 2016 11:10 am

    Pensacola pete,

    I could not have said it any better — Thank You !!!

  2. Pensacola pete on March 14th, 2016 7:21 am

    Sorry to correct some comments but…

    Private organizations have already been sued and punished by the courts for not catering to same sex customers. The courts have ruled that businesses are not protected by the first amendment.

    As for the case being laughed out of court, talk to any of the Rock of Ages missionaries to our prisons. Every one of them we have histed has multiple lawsuits pending for not holding prayer sessions for other religions. To do so would violate their belief but the courts let the case run it’s course

    This law is needed to protect every pastor who believes the church would be wrong to give the appearance of God’s approval to any union that defies God’s word from being bankrupted by frivolous lawsuits from the entitlement crowd and the “no one can judge me” generation we have raised.

  3. Bryan Bethea on March 12th, 2016 4:02 pm

    This is just more red meat for the base in an election year. The First Amendment to the Constitution already allows pastors to only choose to provide their services as they see fit. What does this law accomplish? Absolutely nothing. This is what the legislature of Florida chooses to focus on while hundreds of thousands of Floridians lack health insurance and our roads and bridges are crumbling. It’s shameful, really, that those who claim to be speaking for Christ choose to ignore Christ in their deeds and actions.

    By the way, the Supreme Court has held time and time again that private organizations are free to operate with whatever exclusions they choose to have. Any lawsuit against a church or pastor would be laughed out of court as quickly as it was filed. If your church doesn’t want to gay members, black members, divorced members, or anyone with over 6 feet tall, then the Constitution fully protects your church from liabilty. This new law has zero impact on that scenario. Zero.

  4. molino jim on March 12th, 2016 3:57 pm

    @ Molinoman- there are a number of churches that will not marry a couple where one or both have been divorced. I know getting divorced and remarrying is adultery per the old testiment and some churches. The trouble with using religion to say it’s right or wrong is there are so many “other sins” in the Bible. Eating pork, getting tattoos, eat fish such as catfish and so on. If a couple is a member of the congregation the minster should know them and explain his churches position. The couple who just walks in off of the street I doubt would just ask a minster to marry them. Do it the easy way and ask a judge or clerk to marry them. This “law” signed by governor Jerk was just a knee jerk reaction to a small vocal minority.

  5. Puddin on March 11th, 2016 8:10 pm

    This is a clear example of seperation of church and state. The government has no business telling a pastor who they can and can’t marry. They can tell a Judge/justice of the peace because that’s not religious. What’s next, telling us what religion we must follow? Good for Governor Scott.

  6. Bill McPhillips on March 11th, 2016 7:58 pm

    Rodney, Great point!

  7. billy on March 11th, 2016 7:37 pm

    Thank you Gov. RIck Scott

  8. Patti on March 11th, 2016 3:32 pm

    I agree with the molinoman. So many CHRISTIAN folks are having their religious rights taken away. This country was FOUNDED on RELIGIOUS freedom. What has happened to our COUNTRY? Why should one have to go against God’s word, which does not go against the law, to please another one. It breaks my heart to think of how folks live, and what they do that isn’t morally right. I think of the children that are being raised by same sex couple, some having NO mother or daddy! That is not HOW God intended it to be, or else HE would not have made Adam & Eve, a man and a woman. SAD, SAD!! This country is so LOST!!

  9. chris in Molino on March 11th, 2016 1:37 pm

    The last virtue of a dying society is tolerance – Aristotle

  10. Pfft on March 11th, 2016 12:08 pm

    @molinoman
    That’s what I have to say to people that believe you have to be “married” by a preacher to be together…..”pfft”
    Why would anyone want to “marry” the same sex, the straight folks have shown how miserable it is with over a 50% divorce rate in America. Hahaha

  11. Rodney on March 11th, 2016 10:23 am

    What is the difference between a pastor refusing to marry a couple that is not heterosexual and a business refusing to serve someone who doesn’t comply with a dress code?

  12. molinoman on March 11th, 2016 8:15 am

    I hate to tell “opponents” but there are already churches/ministers that will not marry divorced couples if both or one was an adulterer, as it should be, it goes against their religious beliefs. Or if they have reason to believe one of them left their ex for reasons not allowable in the Bible.

    I feel this measure is not too soon. Do we need X lawsuits to start happening against the church before it would be appropriate? No! In this “everyone owes me world” it is a measure that will head of such lawsuits before they even begin. Everyone knows as well as I do someone would sue the church if they were refused their “right” to get married just for the attention and the possibility of going viral and them get media attention. pfft.

Written by William Reynolds · Filed Under News