Beto O’Rourke claims 1964 Civil Rights Act forces churches to affirm LGBT dogma

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Site Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
October 22, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) — Over the weekend, Democrat presidential candidate Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke walked back his recent threat to eliminate tax-exempt status for churches that hold to a biblical understanding of marriage, but made clear that his stance was largely unchanged by interpreting the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as requiring churches to indulge homosexuality and gender confusion.

During a CNN town hall on LGBT issues earlier this month, the former Texas state representative answered “yes” to revoking the tax-exempt status of any religious institution that “oppose(S) same sex-marriage,” declaring that “there can be no reward, no benefit, no tax break for anyone ... that denies the full human rights and the full civil rights of every single one of us.”

“The answer to the direct question that you just asked is no,” O’Rourke said. “I see tremendous value in what religious institutions do in this country, not just for congregants and parishioners, but what they do in our communities...of course they should be able to do that work. And of course any one of us should be able to worship as we please, believe what we like.”

“But the moment that any nonprofit organization in this country offers services in the public sphere — higher education is a great example, or a health care clinic or hospital — then they must follow the laws of this country, including the law that prohibits discrimination based on any difference of race, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation, which is the question that I was asked at that CNN town hall,” he continued. “That is a longstanding value, and certainly since 1964 and the Civil Rights Act a longstanding law in this country.”

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” The U.S. Supreme Court is currently consideringwhether its reference to sex should be interpreted to include “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.”

“The meaning of ‘sex’ depends on the term’s public meaning in 1964, the year Congress enacted Title VII,” Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) senior counsel John Bursch says. “There is little dispute that, in 1964, the term ‘sex’ was publicly understood, as it is now, to mean biological sex: male and female. After all, the term ‘gender identity’ wasn’t even part of the American lexicon at the time. Its first use was at a European medical conference in 1963. And no semblance of it appeared in federal law until 1990.”

More at link: Beto O’Rourke claims 1964 Civil Rights Act forces churches to affirm LGBT dogma
 
Last edited:

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Site Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Can't wait for the left to force black Churches and Mosques to accept homosexuality.
I’m sure it will be selectively applied but don’t even see Black churches getting a pass.
 
Upvote 0

GACfan

Well-Known Member
Aug 15, 2019
1,958
2,257
Texas
✟77,930.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Can't wait for the right to stop treating their fellow LGBTQ American citizens like second-class citizens who don't deserve the same civil rights and equality that they themselves enjoy as American citizens.

"There can be no reward, no benefit, no tax break, for anyone, or any institution, any organization in America that denies the full human rights and the full civil rights of every single one of us." - Beto
 
  • Like
Reactions: iluvatar5150
Upvote 0

nonaeroterraqueous

Nonexistent Member
Aug 16, 2014
2,915
2,724
✟188,987.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
And now a copy of the OP without the endless strike-through:

Beto O’Rourke claims 1964 Civil Rights Act forces churches to affirm LGBT dogma


October 22, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) — Over the weekend, Democrat presidential candidate Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke walked back his recent threat to eliminate tax-exempt status for churches that hold to a biblical understanding of marriage, but made clear that his stance was largely unchanged by interpreting the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as requiring churches to indulge homosexuality and gender confusion.

During a CNN town hall on LGBT issues earlier this month, the former Texas state representative answered “yes” to revoking the tax-exempt status of any religious institution that “oppose(S) same sex-marriage,” declaring that “there can be no reward, no benefit, no tax break for anyone ... that denies the full human rights and the full civil rights of every single one of us.”

“The answer to the direct question that you just asked is no,” O’Rourke said. “I see tremendous value in what religious institutions do in this country, not just for congregants and parishioners, but what they do in our communities...of course they should be able to do that work. And of course any one of us should be able to worship as we please, believe what we like.”

“But the moment that any nonprofit organization in this country offers services in the public sphere — higher education is a great example, or a health care clinic or hospital — then they must follow the laws of this country, including the law that prohibits discrimination based on any difference of race, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation, which is the question that I was asked at that CNN town hall,” he continued. “That is a longstanding value, and certainly since 1964 and the Civil Rights Act a longstanding law in this country.”

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” The U.S. Supreme Court is currently consideringwhether its reference to sex should be interpreted to include “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.”

“The meaning of ‘sex’ depends on the term’s public meaning in 1964, the year Congress enacted Title VII,” Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) senior counsel John Bursch says. “There is little dispute that, in 1964, the term ‘sex’ was publicly understood, as it is now, to mean biological sex: male and female. After all, the term ‘gender identity’ wasn’t even part of the American lexicon at the time. Its first use was at a European medical conference in 1963. And no semblance of it appeared in federal law until 1990.”

More at link: Beto O’Rourke claims 1964 Civil Rights Act forces churches to affirm LGBT dogma
 
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Site Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
And now a copy of the OP without the endless strike-through:

Beto O’Rourke claims 1964 Civil Rights Act forces churches to affirm LGBT dogma


October 22, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) — Over the weekend, Democrat presidential candidate Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke walked back his recent threat to eliminate tax-exempt status for churches that hold to a biblical understanding of marriage, but made clear that his stance was largely unchanged by interpreting the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as requiring churches to indulge homosexuality and gender confusion.

During a CNN town hall on LGBT issues earlier this month, the former Texas state representative answered “yes” to revoking the tax-exempt status of any religious institution that “oppose(S) same sex-marriage,” declaring that “there can be no reward, no benefit, no tax break for anyone ... that denies the full human rights and the full civil rights of every single one of us.”

“The answer to the direct question that you just asked is no,” O’Rourke said. “I see tremendous value in what religious institutions do in this country, not just for congregants and parishioners, but what they do in our communities...of course they should be able to do that work. And of course any one of us should be able to worship as we please, believe what we like.”

“But the moment that any nonprofit organization in this country offers services in the public sphere — higher education is a great example, or a health care clinic or hospital — then they must follow the laws of this country, including the law that prohibits discrimination based on any difference of race, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation, which is the question that I was asked at that CNN town hall,” he continued. “That is a longstanding value, and certainly since 1964 and the Civil Rights Act a longstanding law in this country.”

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” The U.S. Supreme Court is currently consideringwhether its reference to sex should be interpreted to include “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.”

“The meaning of ‘sex’ depends on the term’s public meaning in 1964, the year Congress enacted Title VII,” Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) senior counsel John Bursch says. “There is little dispute that, in 1964, the term ‘sex’ was publicly understood, as it is now, to mean biological sex: male and female. After all, the term ‘gender identity’ wasn’t even part of the American lexicon at the time. Its first use was at a European medical conference in 1963. And no semblance of it appeared in federal law until 1990.”

More at link: Beto O’Rourke claims 1964 Civil Rights Act forces churches to affirm LGBT dogma
Yikes did not see that. Will fix it.
 
Upvote 0

Ignatius the Kiwi

Dissident
Mar 2, 2013
7,056
3,767
✟290,234.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Can't wait for the right to stop treating their fellow LGBTQ American citizens like second-class citizens who don't deserve the same civil rights and equality that they themselves enjoy as American citizens.

"There can be no reward, no benefit, no tax break, for anyone, or any institution, any organization in America that denies the full human rights and the full civil rights of every single one of us." - Beto

A church refusing to acknowledge a marriage doesn't impede on anyone's rights.
 
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Site Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Can't wait for the right to stop treating their fellow LGBTQ American citizens like second-class citizens who don't deserve the same civil rights and equality that they themselves enjoy as American citizens.

"There can be no reward, no benefit, no tax break, for anyone, or any institution, any organization in America that denies the full human rights and the full civil rights of every single one of us." - Beto
You mean forcing one’s sexuality on the free exercise of a religion is not treating said religion as second class citizens?

I guess the First Amendment needs to be amended.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Site Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
"There can be no reward, no benefit, no tax break, for anyone, or any institution, any organization in America that denies the full human rights and the full civil rights of every single one of us." - Beto
All we have to do is insert “First Amendment” in his statement and it works against him.

Some of these candidates need to actually read the Constitution.
 
Upvote 0

Not David

I'm back!
Apr 6, 2018
7,356
5,235
25
USA
✟231,310.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
You mean forcing one’s sexuality on the free exercise of a religion is not treating said religion as second class citizens?

I guess the First Amendment needs to be amended.
They ask for tolerance and then they impose their views.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

Quartermaine

Well-Known Member
Sep 16, 2019
2,794
1,615
49
Alma
✟80,772.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
A church refusing to acknowledge a marriage doesn't impede on anyone's rights.

A church isn't a business or a place or public accommodation meaning that churches do not fall under local or federal laws regarding civil rights or discrimination. No government agency, local, state or federal can force a minister/priest to perform a marriage or any other sacrament. The decision to do so or refuse is entirely in the hands of that individual minister. Which is why every so often you hear about a church refusing to marry an interracial couple or a church refusing African American's a members of their congregation and that these refusals are perfectly legal.
 
Upvote 0

Dave-W

Welcoming grandchild #7, Arturus Waggoner!
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2014
30,521
16,866
Maryland - just north of D.C.
Visit site
✟771,800.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Dangerous position indeed. Even if you go back to what was intended in 1964, applying it to ecclesiastical institutions would force the Catholic church to hire female priests and allow currently celibate priests to marry.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums