'Religious liberty' bill passes Georgia Legislature

[presence]

'Religious liberty' bill passes Georgia Legislature (http://www.ajc.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/religious-liberty-bill-could-get-surprise-vote-wed/nqmkF/)

Atlanta Journal Constitution-19 hours ago
The Georgia Legislature over the course of a few hours Wednesday unveiled changes to a controversial “religious liberty” bill and gave it final ...

Religious liberty bill passes Georgia Legislature (http://www.religionnews.com/2016/03/17/religious-liberty-georgia-state-legislature/)
Religion News Service-3 hours ago
Religious liberty bills protect bigotry, not freedom (http://www.themaneater.com/stories/2016/3/16/religious-liberty-bills-protect-bigotry-not-freedo/)
The Maneater-22 hours ago
GOP majority in Georgia Legislature passes 'religious liberty' bill (http://www.myajc.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/gop-majority-in-georgia-legislature-passes-religio/nqmwc/)
MyAJC-14 hours ago
Sweeping religious liberties bill passes Senate (http://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/ky-legislature/2016/03/15/senate-passes-sweeping-religious-liberty-bill/81822942/)
The Courier-Journal-Mar 15, 2016
​Georgia's "religious liberty law" stirs backlash from business (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/georgias-religious-liberty-law-stirs-backlash-from-business/)
In-Depth-CBS News-Mar 16, 2016


http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/en-US/display/20152016/HB/757




AM 25 1379
- 1 -
ADOPTED
Representative Tanner of the 9th offers the following amendment:
Amend the Senate substitute to HB 757 by deleting all matter from line 1 through the end and
replacing it with the following:

To protect religious freedoms; to provide for defenses and relief related thereto; to amend
Chapter 3 of Title 19 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to marriage
generally, so as to provide that religious officials shall not be required to perform marriage
ceremonies, perform rites, or administer sacraments in violation of their legal right to free
exercise of religion; to provide that no individual shall be required to attend the
solemnization of a marriage, performance of rites, or administration of sacraments in
violation of their legal right to free exercise of religion; to amend Chapter 1 of Title 10 of the
Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to selling and other trade practices, so as to
change certain provisions relating to days of rest for employees of business and industry; to
protect property owners which are faith based organizations against infringement of religious
freedom; to protect certain providers of services against infringement of religious freedom;
to amend Chapter 1 of Title 34 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to labor
and industrial relations generally, so as to provide that faith based organizations shall not be
required to hire or retain certain persons as employees; to amend Title 50 of the Official
Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to state government, so as to provide for the
preservation of religious freedom; to provide for the granting of relief; to provide for waiver
of sovereign immunity under certain circumstances; to provide for definitions; to provide for
ante litem notices; to provide a short title; to provide for related matters; to provide for an
effective date; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF GEORGIA:

SECTION 1.
This Act shall be known and may be cited as the "Free Exercise Protection Act."

SECTION 2.
Chapter 3 of Title 19 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to marriage
generally, is amended by adding a new Code section to read as follows:

AM 25 1379
- 2 -
"
19-3-11.

(a) As used in this Code section, the term 'government' means the state or any political
subdivision of the state or public instrumentality or public corporate body created by or
under authority of state law.

(b) All individuals who are ministers of the gospel or clerics or religious practitioners
ordained or authorized to solemnize marriages, perform rites, or administer sacraments
according to the usages of the denomination shall be free to solemnize any marriage,
perform any rite, or administer any sacrament or to decline to do the same, in their
discretion, in the exercise of their rights to free exercise of religion under the Constitution
of this state or of the United States.

(c)
(1) A refusal by an ordained or authorized individual pursuant to subsection (b) of this
Code section shall not give rise to a civil claim or cause of action against such individual
or result in any state action to penalize, withhold benefits from, or discriminate against
such individual based on such refusal.

(2) A refusal by an ordained or authorized individual pursuant to subsection (b) of this

Code section shall not be grounds to:
(A) Alter in any way state tax treatment of an exemption from taxation for such
individual under state law;

(B) Cause any tax, penalty, or payment to be assessed against such individual or deny,
delay, or revoke an exemption from taxation for such individual under state law; or

(C) Disallow a deduction for state tax purposes of any charitable contribution made by
such individual.

(d) All individuals shall be free to attend or not attend, at their discretion, the
solemnization of any marriage, performance of any rite, or administration of any sacrament
in the exercise of their rights to free exercise of religion under the Constitution of this state
or of the United States.

(e) An individual may assert a violation of this Code section by a government as a claim
or defense in a judicial, agency, or other proceeding and obtain a declaratory judgment or
injunctive relief in a court of competent jurisdiction.

(f) When an aggrieved individual prevails in an action pursuant to this Code section, the
court may award reasonable attorney's fees and court costs.

(g) No individual having a claim against a government under this Code section shall bring
any such action without first giving notice of the claim to such government, in writing, by
certified mail or statutory overnight delivery, at least 30 days prior to filing such action,
setting forth the particular prohibited action alleged to have been taken by the government
against such individual.
"

AM 25 1379
- 3 -
SECTION 3.

Chapter 1 of Title 10 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to selling and other
trade practices, is amended by revising Code Section 10-1-573, relating to day of rest for
employees of business and industry, as follows:

"
10-1-573.
(a)
Any business or industry which operates on either of the two rest days (Saturday or
Sunday) and employs those whose habitual day of worship has been chosen by the
employer as a day of work shall make all reasonable accommodations to the religious,
social, and physical needs of such employees so that those employees may enjoy the same
benefits as employees in other occupations.

(b) No business or industry shall be required by ordinance or resolution of any county,
municipality, or consolidated government to operate on either of the two rest days
(Saturday or Sunday).
"

SECTION 4.

Said chapter is further amended by adding a new article to read as follows:
"
ARTICLE 35
10-1-1000.

As used in this article, the term:

(1) 'Faith based organization' means a church, a religious school, an association or
convention of churches, a convention mission agency, or an integrated auxiliary of a
church or convention or association of churches, when such entity is qualified as an
exempt religious organization under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986, as amended.

(2) 'Government' means the state or any political subdivision of the state or public
instrumentality or public corporate body created by or under authority of state law.

10-1-1001.
(a) No faith based organization shall be required to rent, lease, or otherwise grant
permission for property to be used by another person for an event which is objectionable
to such faith based organization.

(b) No faith based organization shall be required to provide social, educational, or

charitable services that violate such faith based organization's sincerely held religious belief
as demonstrated by its practice, expression, or clearly articulated tenet of faith; provided,

AM 25 1379
- 4 -
however, that government may enforce the terms of a grant, contract, or other agreement
voluntarily entered into by such faith based organization.

10-1-1002.

(a)(1) A refusal by a faith based organization pursuant to Code Section 10-1-1001 shall

not give rise to a civil claim or cause of action against such faith based organization or
an employee thereof or result in any state action to penalize, withhold benefits from, or
discriminate against the faith based organization or employee based on such refusal.

(2) A refusal by a faith based organization pursuant to Code Section 10-1-1001 shall not
be grounds to:

(A) Alter in any way state tax treatment of an exemption from taxation for such faith
based organization under state law;

(B) Cause any tax, penalty, or payment to be assessed against such faith based
organization or deny, delay, or revoke an exemption from taxation for such faith based
organization under state law; or

(C) Disallow a deduction for state tax purposes of any charitable contribution made by
or to such faith based organization.

(b) A faith based organization may assert a violation of this Code section by a government
as a claim or defense in a judicial, agency, or other proceeding and obtain a declaratory
judgment or injunctive relief in a court of competent jurisdiction.

(c) When an aggrieved faith based organization prevails in an action pursuant to this Code
section, the court may award reasonable attorney's fees and court costs.

(d) No faith based organization having a claim against a government under this Code
section shall bring any such action without first giving notice of the claim to such
government, in writing, by certified mail or statutory overnight delivery, at least 30 days
prior to filing such action, setting forth the particular prohibited action alleged to have been
taken by the government against such faith based organization.
"

SECTION 5.
122
Chapter 1 of Title 34 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to labor and
123
industrial relations generally, is amended by adding a new Code section to read as follows:
124
"
34-1-9.
125
(a) As used in this Code section, the term:
126
(1) 'Faith based organization' means a church, a religious school, an association or
127
convention of churches, a convention mission agency, or an integrated auxiliary of a
128
church or convention or association of churches, when such entity is qualified as an
129
AM 25 1379
- 5 -
exempt religious organization under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of
130
1986, as amended.
131
(2) 'Government' means the state or a
ny political subdivision of
the state or public
132
instrumentality or public corporate body created by or under authority of state law.
133
(b) Except as provided by the Constitution of this state or the United States or federal law,
134
no faith based organization shall be required to hire or retain as an employee any person
135
whose religious beliefs or practices or lack of either are not in accord with the faith based
136
organization's sincerely held religious belief as demonstrated by practice, expression, or
137
clearly articulated tenet of faith.
138
(c)(1) A refusal by a faith based organization to hire or retain a person pursuant to
139
subsection (b) of this Code section shall not give rise to a civil claim or cause of action
140
against such faith based organization or an employee thereof or result in any state action
141
to penalize, withhold benefits from, or discriminate against the faith based organization
142
or employee based on such refusal.
143
(2) A refusal by a faith based organization to hire or retain a person pursuant to
144
subsection (b) of this Code section shall not be grounds to:
145
(A) Alter in any way state tax treatment of an exemption from taxation for such faith
146
based organization under state law;
147
(B) Cause any tax, penalty, or payment to be assessed against such faith based
148
organization or deny, delay, or revoke an exemption from taxation for such faith based
149
organization under state law; or
150
(C) Disallow a deduction for state tax purpos
es of any charitable contribution made by
151
or to such faith based organization.
152
(d) A faith based organization may assert a violation of this Code section by a government
153
as a claim or defense in a judicial, agenc
y, or other proceeding and obtain a declaratory
154
judgment or injunctive relief in a court of competent jurisdiction.
155
(e) When an aggrieved faith based organization prevails in an action pursuant to this Code
156
section, the court may award reasonable attorney's fees and court costs.
157
(f) No faith based organization having a claim against a government under this Code
158
section shall bring any such action without first giving notice of the claim to such
159
government, in writing, by certified mail or statutory overnight delivery, at least 30 days
160
prior to filing such action, setting forth the par
ticular prohibited action alleged to have been
161
taken by the government against such faith based organization.
"
162
SECTION 6.
163
Title 50 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to state government, is amended
164
by adding a new chapter to read as follows:
165
AM 25 1379
- 6 -
"
CHAPTER 15A
166
50-15A-1.
167
As used in this chapter, the term:
168
(1) 'Delinquent act' shall have the same meaning as provided for in Code Section
169
15-11-2.
170
(2) 'Demonstrates' means meets the burdens of going forward with the evidence and of
171
persuasion.
172
(3) 'Exercise of religion' means the exercise of religion pursuant to Paragraphs III and
173
IV of Section I, Article I of the Constitution
of this state or the Free Exercise Clause of
174
the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
175
(4) 'Government' means the state or any political subdivision of the state or public
176
instrumentality or public corporate body created by or under authority of state law.
177
(5) 'Penal institution' means any jail, corr
ectional institution, or similar facility for the
178
detention of violators of state laws or local ordinances and any entity supervising such
179
violators placed on parole, probation, or other
conditional release and any facility for the
180
restrictive custody of children and any entity supervising children who are not in
181
restrictive custody but who are accused of or adjudicated for a delinquent act.
182
(6) 'Restrictive custody' shall have the same meaning as provided for in Code Section
183
15-11-2.
184
50-15A-2.
185
(a) Government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the
186
burden results from a law, rule, regulation, ordinance, or resolution of general applicability,
187
except as provided in subsection (b) of this Code section.
188
(b) Government may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if it
189
demonstrates that application of the burden to the person is:
190
(1) In furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
191
(2) The least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
192
(c) A person whose exercise of religion has been burdened in violation of this Code
193
section may assert that violation as a claim
or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain
194
a declaratory judgment or injunctive relief against a government.
195
50-15A-3.
196
In any action or proceeding to enforce a provision of this chapter, the court or tribunal may
197
allow the prevailing party, other than government, reasonable attorney's fees and court
198
costs.
199
AM 25 1379
- 7 -
50-15A-4.
200
No person having a claim under this chapter shall bring any action against government
201
without first giving notice of the claim to such government, in writing, by certified mail or
202
statutory overnight delivery, at least 30 days prior to filing such action, setting forth the
203
particular discriminatory action alleged to have been taken by the government against such
204
person.
205
50-15A-5.
206
(a) With respect to interactions which affect the rights or interests of third persons, this
207
chapter shall be construed consistent with Article I, Section I, Paragraphs III and IV of the
208
Constitution of Georgia and consistent with decisions of the Georgia Supreme Court made
209
pursuant to said paragraphs.
210
(b) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to:
211
(1) Permit invidious discrimination on any grounds prohibited by federal or state law;
212
(2) Apply to penological rules, regulations, conditions, or policies established by a penal
213
institution that are reasonably related to the safety and security of incarcerated persons,
214
staff, visitors, supervised violators, or the public, or to the maintenance of good order and
215
discipline in any penal institution or parole or probation program;
216
(3) Create any rights by an employee against an employer, if such employer is not a
217
government; or
218
(4) Afford any protection or relief to a public officer or employee who fails or refuses
219
to perform his or her official duties; provided, however, that this paragraph shall not
220
prohibit any person from holding any public office or trust on account of religious
221
opinions, in accordance with Paragraph IV of Section I of Article I of the Constitution.
"
222
SECTION 7.
223
Said title is further amended by adding a new Code section to read as follows:
224
"
50-21-38.
225
The defense of sovereign immunity is waived as to any claim, counterclaim, cross-claim,
226
or third-party claim brought in the courts of
this state by an aggrieved individual or faith
227
based organization seeking a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, or reasonable
228
attorney's fees and court costs against the state as provided for in Code Section 19-3-11,
229
Article 35 of Chapter 1 of Title 10, Code Sec
tion 34-1-9, or Chapter 15A of this title. In
230
any such case, the applicable provisions of said Code sections, article, or chapter shall
231
control to the extent of any conflict with the provisions of this article.
"
232
AM 25 1379
- 8 -
SECTION 8.
233
This Act shall become effective upon its appr
oval by the Governor or upon its becoming law
234
without such approval.
235
SECTION 9.
236
All laws and parts of laws in conflict with this Act are repealed.
237

[tod evans]

Wonder if this applies to joos, mooslums and Buddhists too?

Druids, krishna's and wiccans? :cool:

[Origanalist]

The courts, he said, will likely ultimately decide how far the bill goes and whether, for example, it overrides local anti-discrimination laws such as the one in the city of Atlanta.

Pfffft, much ado about nothing....

[willwash]

The Georgia bill, reworked several times by lawmakers amid criticism that earlier versions went too far, declares that no pastor can be forced to perform a same-sex wedding.

The bill also grants faith-based organizations — churches, religious schools or associations — the right to reject holding events for people or groups of whom they object. Faith-based groups also could not be forced to hire or retain an employee whose beliefs run counter to the organization’s.

How is that not supportive of liberty?

[farreri]

How hypocritical. Religious bigots cry about gays getting special rights, yet this bill they support gives them special rights.

[pcosmar]

How hypocritical. Religious bigots cry about gays getting special rights, yet this bill they support gives them special rights.

What special right?

My reading It only prevents being forced against their beliefs to provide some service.

No one should be forced to associate with anyone against their will.

[farreri]

What special right? My reading It only prevents being forced against their beliefs to provide some service. No one should be forced to associate with anyone against their will.
Right, NO ONE should be forced to. This bill allows for only religious people to not be forced to.

[Origanalist]

Are gay pastors being sued for not performing hetero weddings?

[farreri]

Will atheist cake makers be able to refuse service to religious people?

[presence]

Will atheist cake makers be able to refuse service to religious people?

unfortunately, as worded, no

this applies to "religious officials"

[farreri]

unfortunately, as worded, no

this applies to "religious officials"
Then as I stated, it's a special rights bill!

[DamianTV]

Poll: 58% of “Liberals” Think People Should be Prosecuted For Criticizing Religion
http://www.infowars.com/poll-58-of-liberals-think-people-should-be-prosecuted-for-criticizing-religion/


The poll, conducted by Populus, found that almost half of respondents (46%) think that there are “some things” you should “not be able to say about religion”. This is an increase of 6 per cent on a previous poll in 2011 which asked the same question.

...

If anything is supposed to be beyond the scrutiny of the individual, corruption is guaranteed.

The reason, in essence, is similar between a drug addict and a dealer. Dealers financially profit by continuously enabling their clients with drugs, and the clients enable the dealers by paying for their products. Basically, a circle-jerk. The term "enabling" characterizes a behavior that prevents the identification of the moral responsibility of the consequences of their action. "I was angry so it was okay that I hurt someone else." By putting any behavior beyond reproach, it is an Enabling action that, on a psychological level, prevents an unbiased self evaluation where no progression past a state of Denial is ever experienced. "I'm a cop and although that kid wasnt armed when I killed him, I did the right thing." Now, just swap out Cop with Pastor or Politician or CEO, and you can see how this cycle of denial can continue forever, and ultimately lead to total moral corruption. The immoral actions wont be limited in scope to just one event. It becomes a justifier for the next immoral action. "He questioned my judgement so I shot him, and that is okay because the last kid I shot was also in the wrong." And that will be followed by a pattern of immoral actions without the necessary consequence to preserve moral equilibrium.

What is necessary is each person has to have the ability to derive an unbiased evaluation of a religion they are considering adopting. True religious freedom comes with the religious responsibility to see that the faith to be held does not cause the suffering of others. That religious responsibility is something that Sharia Law really appears to be lacking in.

[presence]

Then as I stated, it's a special rights bill!
I like the bill, I would prefer to see it apply to any "natural person" rather than any "religious official". But that is a few strokes of the pen away.

With that small change the sole proprietorship also gets property rights back lost in 1964.

[Cabal]

How hypocritical. Religious bigots cry about gays getting special rights, yet this bill they support gives them special rights.

Since when is the right to refuse special?


Will atheist cake makers be able to refuse service to religious people?

If they want to, they should be able to.


I don't like that this issue is always framed as a "religious liberty" issue. It's not. It's simply a liberty issue. The State shouldn't be forcing people to exchange with, associate with, and interact with one another. They shouldn't need "religious reasons" to refuse or say "no." They should be able to refuse and say "no" for whatever reason they want, and they shouldn't be required to explain themselves.

[otherone]

Wonder if this applies to joos, mooslums and Buddhists too?

you mean "Boodhists"?

[The Free Hornet]

Right, NO ONE should be forced to. This bill allows for only religious people to not be forced to.

False:

Some portions unambiguously apply to all "at their discretion". An atheist doesn't lack 'religious' rights they have not only freedom from religion but they may qualify their beliefs or lack of beliefs as faith-based (like positive atheism versus negative) or even religious based (like atheistic religions).

I could make certain religious claims on the basis of not having yet been excommunicated. I don't know what they put in holy water, but it has yet to burn me!


(d) All individuals shall be free to attend or not attend, at their discretion,

It is not clear to me if a lay person or judge that administers weddings in some 'atheistic' fashion is intended to be excluded:


All individuals who are ministers of the gospel or clerics or religious practitioners ordained or authorized to solemnize marriages, perform rites, or administer sacraments according to the usages of the denomination shall be free ...

That's a big fucking net and even a blind lawyer could catch an atheist with it (provided they are officiating a marriage and have any conscience-based objection. Perhaps a D&D player could 'role 20' to see if someone is permitted a marriage in their domain).

As a promoter of liberty, I don't expect one bill to free the world. As an atheist, this bill doesn't seem necessarily exclusive. It's easy to work around if needed (IMO).



unfortunately, as worded, no

this applies to "religious officials"

I disagree. But if you're right, try defining 'religious officials' to necessarily exclude atheists. It can be done, but this bill doesn't do that.

[presence]

I think the notion to deny other people religious belief and practice because they deny your conception of "god" is abhorrent.

yes, atheists should have religious freedom

just because someone doesn't believe in "god" does not mean they don't have profound beliefs, asceticisms, a developed and lived system of morality, and personally held religious practices.

[farreri]

Since when is the right to refuse special?
When it's only applied to certain people.

[Cabal]

When it's only applied to certain people.

So, you'd like everyone's right to refuse for any reason to be ensured? Good, me too.

And, in pursuit of this, you want to to make sure the right to refuse is denied to people until it is universal? Not sure that makes much sense. Usually, when you're pursuing equal rights, you don't do this by denying rights, but by expanding them, when they aren't already universal. For instance, the "right to vote" wasn't revoked entirely to achieve eqaulity, it was expanded to women and minorities to achieve equality.

That you're in favor of denying anyone's rights for any reason is rather alarming, quite frankly.

The reason anything like this bill even has to exist is because of anti-discrimination laws and judgements were written and passed to deny people the right to refuse in the first place, no?

[farreri]

So, you'd like everyone's right to refuse for any reason to be ensured? Good, me too.
Yes.


And, in pursuit of this, you want to to make sure the right to refuse is denied to people until it is universal? Not sure that makes much sense. Usually, when you're pursuing equal rights, you don't do this by denying rights, but by expanding them, when they aren't already universal. For instance, the "right to vote" wasn't revoked entirely to achieve eqaulity, it was expanded to women and minorities to achieve equality.
Only if it's not the majority that gets these rights first if a group has to get them first. That way, the majority will get this same rights probably by the next day whereas if it was the other way around, the minority would get this same right many decades later.


That you're in favor of denying anyone's rights for any reason is rather alarming, quite frankly.
Well I'd rather that not be the case. I just don't like it when a majority legally discriminates against a minority.


The reason anything like this bill even has to exist is because of anti-discrimination laws and judgements were written and passed to deny people the right to refuse in the first place, no?
Yes, I wasn't for those laws in the first place.

[Cabal]

Only if it's not the majority that gets these rights first if a group has to get them first. That way, the majority will get this same rights probably by the next day whereas if it was the other way around, the minority would get this same right many decades later.

And how is this less preferable than everyone's right being denied indefinitely? Because that's the alternative, practically speaking. People's right to refuse has been rejected for a long time, and that isn't going to change any time soon unless a certain group gets their foot in the door and then an equality movement follows it. You are never going to ensure rights by denying rights.

"I'm only for rights if..." is a bizarre statement to make. They're called rights for a reason, you know.


Well I'd rather that not be the case.

Whether that is the case or not is entirely up to you. You are voluntarily choosing to prefer denying rights. You are not campaigning for an extension of rights, you are campaigning for a denial of rights.


Yes, I wasn't for those laws in the first place.

That's rather irrelevant. They exist, and bills like this are a direct consequence of them.

[farreri]

I think you know the intent of what I'm saying.

[Christian Liberty]

Wonder if this applies to joos, mooslums and Buddhists too?

Druids, krishna's and wiccans? :cool:


It shouldn't, the open practice of any of the above should be suppressed by the State, their buildings destroyed, their proselytizers put on heresy trial, etc. :p

[Origanalist]

It shouldn't, the open practice of any of the above should be suppressed by the State, their buildings destroyed, their proselytizers put on heresy trial, etc. :p

And we should all be forced to pay for this?

[Christian Liberty]

And we should all be forced to pay for this?

You'd be paying a lot less under theonomy. A LOT less. That said, Romans 13:6.

[tod evans]

It shouldn't, the open practice of any of the above should be suppressed by the State, their buildings destroyed, their proselytizers put on heresy trial, etc. :p

Best I can tell you and your like would met out the same punishment to Catholics too........

Count me out.

I'll have no part in religious killings.....

[Christian Liberty]

Best I can tell you and your like would met out the same punishment to Catholics too........

Count me out.

I'll have no part in religious killings.....

Yes, preaching Catholic idolatry and justification by works should be strictly banned.

[tod evans]

Yes, preaching Catholic idolatry and justification by works should be strictly banned.

It's been tried over in Ireland.........

[Christian Liberty]

It's been tried over in Ireland.........

Shouldn't teaching the damnation of souls matter more than matters of mere physical life?

[presence]

good jesus