Law The Trump administration is officially moving to overturn a law that requires clergy to report child sexual abuse, saying it violates priests' constit

[nostradumbass]

Youre making my argument for me. Your argument here would only work if this requirment to report did not exist for every proffesion, but it does with the only exception being attorney client privlege.

Now both you and I know why AC privlege exists and that it is pertinent to a fair trial. You can keep screeching "religious freedom religious freedom" but we dont allow total religious freedom in this country and you know that as well. So besides letting your parishoners get away with heinous crimes what is the benefit of allowing this particular religious freedom to society as a whole?

Yikes, you just kind of proved me right that none of you even read the law or the lawsuit that you're passionately screeching about. Yes they goddamn do include exemptions for secular professions, and not just lawyers. They include, lawyer, physician, public officer, peer supporter, sexual assault advocate, domestic violence advocate unless failure to disclose would result in clear, imminent risk of death or serious injury, mental health counselor, social worker, marriage or family counselor, union representative, substance abuse sponsor. Basically anybody in any secular profession offering any advice or counseling of any kind in any official or unofficial capacity are allowed to keep confidential communication confidential, and the seal of confession is the only one that was removed.

So according to you, a "fair trial" means everybody on both sides know the person is guilty as fuck but still try to deceive and manipulate and hide information from jurors to get criminals off? Sounds real "fair" to the victims. And why is it important that someone everybody knows is guilty still gets a "fair trial"? Because you are guaranteed a fair trial in the constitution, as you are the freedom to practice your religion, and the constitution isn't a menu where you get to pick which ones you want and which ones you don't.

I really don't know why you people keep pretending "but religious freedom isn't absolute" is an argument. Yeah, no shit, it isn't nonexistent either, and the mandatory reporting requirements sure as hell aren't absolute. We aren't talking about human sacrifice, we are talking about the right to private communication, which already exists in lots of situations, and to whom it applies.

Here is the big ass list of people and circumstances where according to you, they "let people get away with heinous crimes".

RCW 5.60.060: Who is disqualified—Privileged communications.

app.leg.wa.gov

And here is the bill and where they blew it and took a shit on the constitution by singling out ONLY the religious institution.

https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2025-26/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Passed%20Legislature/5375.PL.pdf?q=20250726163618

Except for members of the clergy, no one shall be11
required to report under this section when he or she obtains the12
information solely as a result of a privileged communication as13
provided in RCW 5.60.060



The benefit is that the 53 million Catholics in the country get the same 5th amendment rights as every non Catholic without the state using their religious beliefs and practices as a compelled serveillance tool that applies to them and nobody else.

 

[nostradumbass]

Name another secular proffesion that has privledged communication in this manner other than attorneys.

answer this as well. Do we allow total religious freedom in this country? Ill give you a hint... polygamy.

Named them and sourced both the bill and the exemptions from Washington's .gov website. Do you understand the difference between not having "total absolute religious freedom" and having fewer rights than every nonreligious person?

 

[AZ103]

Yes they goddamn do include exemptions for secular professions, and not just lawyers. They include, lawyer, physician, public officer, peer supporter, sexual assault advocate, domestic violence advocate unless failure to disclose would result in clear, imminent risk of death or serious injury.

this is what im advocating for for the clergy. That they must report if their is risk of harm or harm has already occured. So im not being a hypocrite in any manner. Do you think the clergy should be required to report under the same circumstances? If not why?

You spent all that time crying saying the bill wasnt about child abuse but its literally the first line of the bill you posted? It says immeadiately its about child abuse and neglect. Do you deny that?

 

[Soggust]

Named them and sourced both the bill and the exemptions from Washington's .gov website. Do you understand the difference between not having "total absolute religious freedom" and having fewer rights than every nonreligious person?

Yikes, you just kind of proved me right that none of you even read the law or the lawsuit that you're passionately screeching about. Yes they goddamn do include exemptions for secular professions, and not just lawyers. They include, lawyer, physician, public officer, peer supporter, sexual assault advocate, domestic violence advocate unless failure to disclose would result in clear, imminent risk of death or serious injury, mental health counselor, social worker, marriage or family counselor, union representative, substance abuse sponsor. Basically anybody in any secular profession offering any advice or counseling of any kind in any official or unofficial capacity are allowed to keep confidential communication confidential, and the seal of confession is the only one that was removed.

So according to you, a "fair trial" means everybody on both sides know the person is guilty as fuck but still try to deceive and manipulate and hide information from jurors to get criminals off? Sounds real "fair" to the victims. And why is it important that someone everybody knows is guilty still gets a "fair trial"? Because you are guaranteed a fair trial in the constitution, as you are the freedom to practice your religion, and the constitution isn't a menu where you get to pick which ones you want and which ones you don't.

I really don't know why you people keep pretending "but religious freedom isn't absolute" is an argument. Yeah, no shit, it isn't nonexistent either, and the mandatory reporting requirements sure as hell aren't absolute. We aren't talking about human sacrifice, we are talking about the right to private communication, which already exists in lots of situations, and to whom it applies.

Here is the big ass list of people and circumstances where according to you, they "let people get away with heinous crimes".

RCW 5.60.060: Who is disqualified—Privileged communications.

app.leg.wa.gov

And here is the bill and where they blew it and took a shit on the constitution by singling out ONLY the religious institution.

https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2025-26/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Passed%20Legislature/5375.PL.pdf?q=20250726163618

Except for members of the clergy, no one shall be11
required to report under this section when he or she obtains the12
information solely as a result of a privileged communication as13
provided in RCW 5.60.060



The benefit is that the 53 million Catholics in the country get the same 5th amendment rights as every non Catholic without the state using their religious beliefs and practices as a compelled serveillance tool that applies to them and nobody else.

I didn't believe you, so I threw this into ChatGPT, who agrees that you are completely full of shit:

You’re conflating privileged communications in court (RCW 5.60.060) with mandatory reporting laws (RCW 26.44.030). Most of the secular professionals you listed are already mandatory reporters — they must report suspected child abuse even if it’s learned confidentially. Clergy used to have a special exemption for confessions — that’s what the new law removed. It didn’t “target” them; it put them on equal footing with doctors, therapists, and teachers. And no, this doesn’t violate the Constitution — similar laws have already been upheld in other states.

​

Claim	Reality
Secular professionals are exempt from reporting abuse	False — most are mandatory reporters under RCW 26.44.030
The new law “singles out” clergy	False — it removes their special exemption and aligns them with others
The Constitution protects the seal of confession	False — courts have upheld these laws in multiple states
This violates the 5th Amendment	False — the 5th is about self-incrimination, not third-party reporting

Spoiler: details

1. He is conflating​

RCW 5.60.060:​

This is about courtroom testimony — who can be forced to testify or reveal confidential info in legal proceedings.

RCW 26.44.030:​

This is about mandatory reporting — who is required to report suspected child abuse to law enforcement or CPS, regardless of confidentiality.

Many of the people he lists as having "privilege" under RCW 5.60.060 are STILL mandatory reporters under RCW 26.44.030. That means they must report abuse even if it was learned in a confidential setting.

Examples:

• Therapists
• Social workers
• Physicians
• School staff
• Nurses

So, no, these people are not allowed to "keep confidential communication confidential" when it involves child abuse. The privilege doesn't override mandatory reporting laws.

---

2. The new law​

What the new law (SB 5375 / HB 1098) actually did:​

• Previously, clergy had a special exemption: they did not have to report child abuse if they learned about it through confession.
• The new law removes that exemption.
• This means clergy are now treated the same as therapists, doctors, counselors, etc., who have long been required to report suspected abuse.

The line he quotes:

“Except for members of the clergy, no one shall be required to report under this section when he or she obtains the information solely as a result of a privileged communication...”

He’s ignoring that this clergy exception was unique. Now it’s gone, and clergy are held to the same standard as secular professionals.

So it’s not “singling out” clergy — it’s ending their special exemption.

---

​

3. He invokes the Constitution, but this has already been upheld in other states​

His rant about “they shit on the Constitution” isn’t legally sound.

• Courts have repeatedly ruled that mandatory reporting laws — even those requiring clergy to report abuse learned in confession — do not violate the First Amendment.
• Religious freedom is not absolute. It can be restricted to protect others (especially children).
• Courts apply strict scrutiny: is the law narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest (like preventing child abuse)? Yes, it is.

Example: Oregon, Colorado, North Carolina, and West Virginia all have laws requiring clergy to report child abuse, even if learned during confession. Courts have upheld them.

---

4. The 5th Amendment argument is nonsense​

He says:

“Catholics deserve the same 5th amendment rights...”

But:

• The 5th Amendment is about self-incrimination. It applies to criminal defendants, not to priests hearing confessions.
• The priest is not the one being prosecuted.
• The issue is whether a third party (a priest) can be compelled to report suspected abuse of a child to authorities — not whether a suspect is being forced to testify against themselves.

This is a red herring.

 

[nostradumbass]

this is what im advocating for for the clergy. That they must report if their is risk of harm or harm has already occured. So im not being a hypocrite in any manner. Do you think the clergy should be required to report under the same circumstances? If not why?

Lol, that's quite an "or" you tried to smuggle in there. "Has already occurred" is not a requirement for any of the others, you just added that yourself. Clear, imminent risk of death or severe injury for a domestic violence counselor means like someone shared death threats from their spouse.

I mean sure to the warning one in theory, but that's not really applicable because that's not what confession is. Confession is exactly what it sounds like, it's confessing sins you've already committed that you regret, feel guilty or ashamed or embarassed about to admit fault and ask for forgiveness from God. There's nobody in there making threats or sharing plans to start neglecting their kids.

Forced to report other people's past sins, no, unless you would like to get rid of every other type of privileged communication too, including attorney client privilege, and hell, let's just bug everyone's house too and get rid of privacy altogether. It's not saving anybody or anything, you just make people stop going to confession when they know you're just going to repeat whatever they tell you in confidence.


Chief justice Berger already discussed these types of privileged communication in a decision for a case involving spousal privilege. There is 0 chance of this law holding up.

Otis TRAMMEL, Jr., Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

www.law.cornell.edu

No other testimonial privilege sweeps so broadly. The privileges between priest and penitent, attorney and client, and physician and patient limit protection to private communications. These privileges are rooted in the imperative need for confidence and trust. The priest-penitent privilege recognizes the human need to disclose to a spiritual counselor, in total and absolute confidence, what are believed to be flawed acts or thoughts and to receive priestly consolation and guidance in return. The lawyer-client privilege rests on the need for the advocate and counselor to know all that relates to the client's reasons for seeking representation if the professional mission is to be carried out. Similarly, the physician must know all that a patient can articulate in order to identify and to treat disease; barriers to full disclosure would impair diagnosis and treatment.

 

[nostradumbass]

I didn't believe you, so I threw this into ChatGPT, who agrees that you are completely full of shit:

​

Claim	Reality
Secular professionals are exempt from reporting abuse	False — most are mandatory reporters under RCW 26.44.030
The new law “singles out” clergy	False — it removes their special exemption and aligns them with others
The Constitution protects the seal of confession	False — courts have upheld these laws in multiple states
This violates the 5th Amendment	False — the 5th is about self-incrimination, not third-party reporting

Spoiler: details

1. He is conflating​

RCW 5.60.060:​

This is about courtroom testimony — who can be forced to testify or reveal confidential info in legal proceedings.

RCW 26.44.030:​

This is about mandatory reporting — who is required to report suspected child abuse to law enforcement or CPS, regardless of confidentiality.

Many of the people he lists as having "privilege" under RCW 5.60.060 are STILL mandatory reporters under RCW 26.44.030. That means they must report abuse even if it was learned in a confidential setting.

Examples:

• Therapists
• Social workers
• Physicians
• School staff
• Nurses

---

2. The new law​

What the new law (SB 5375 / HB 1098) actually did:​

• Previously, clergy had a special exemption: they did not have to report child abuse if they learned about it through confession.
• The new law removes that exemption.
• This means clergy are now treated the same as therapists, doctors, counselors, etc., who have long been required to report suspected abuse.

The line he quotes:


He’s ignoring that this clergy exception was unique. Now it’s gone, and clergy are held to the same standard as secular professionals.

---

​

3. He invokes the Constitution, but this has already been upheld in other states​

His rant about “they shit on the Constitution” isn’t legally sound.

• Courts have repeatedly ruled that mandatory reporting laws — even those requiring clergy to report abuse learned in confession — do not violate the First Amendment.
• Religious freedom is not absolute. It can be restricted to protect others (especially children).
• Courts apply strict scrutiny: is the law narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest (like preventing child abuse)? Yes, it is.

Example: Oregon, Colorado, North Carolina, and West Virginia all have laws requiring clergy to report child abuse, even if learned during confession. Courts have upheld them.

---

4. The 5th Amendment argument is nonsense​

He says:


But:

• The 5th Amendment is about self-incrimination. It applies to criminal defendants, not to priests hearing confessions.
• The priest is not the one being prosecuted.
• The issue is whether a third party (a priest) can be compelled to report suspected abuse of a child to authorities — not whether a suspect is being forced to testify against themselves.

This is a red herring.

Well shit, if only the federal judge who already said it's unconstitutional and blocked it had just checked chat gpt, he would have ruled differently. Lol, I like how chat gpt is just ballparking it now, "most of those still have to" and "many of those are" is a great look when the answer that would make this valid is all.

Didn't say it violated their 5th amendment right, I said everybody has a 5th amendment right and theirs is rendered useless when the state tries to turn the clergy into undercover cops spying on parishioners without a warrant.

And the priest IS who they are threatening to prosecute, that's what the law is, and unless you plan on turning the whole place into North Korea and installing wiretaps in the confessional, then you don't have any way to follow through on the prosecution of priests for noncompliance. The priest doesn't have to testify with information learned in confessional in the other person's trial, and they don't have to testify against themselves if they were to be prosecuted, and they're not like other mandatory reporters who gossip among each other in the teacher's lounge.

 

[ShadowRun]

 

[AZ103]

Lol, that's quite an "or" you tried to smuggle in there. "Has already occurred" is not a requirement for any of the others, you just added that yourself. Clear, imminent risk of death or severe injury for a domestic violence counselor means like someone shared death threats from their spouse.

I mean sure to the warning one in theory, but that's not really applicable because that's not what confession is. Confession is exactly what it sounds like, it's confessing sins you've already committed that you regret, feel guilty or ashamed or embarassed about to admit fault and ask for forgiveness from God. There's nobody in there making threats or sharing plans to start neglecting their kids.

Forced to report other people's past sins, no, unless you would like to get rid of every other type of privileged communication too, including attorney client privilege, and hell, let's just bug everyone's house too and get rid of privacy altogether. It's not saving anybody or anything, you just make people stop going to confession when they know you're just going to repeat whatever they tell you in confidence.


Chief justice Berger already discussed these types of privileged communication in a decision for a case involving spousal privilege. There is 0 chance of this law holding up.

Otis TRAMMEL, Jr., Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

www.law.cornell.edu

No other testimonial privilege sweeps so broadly. The privileges between priest and penitent, attorney and client, and physician and patient limit protection to private communications. These privileges are rooted in the imperative need for confidence and trust. The priest-penitent privilege recognizes the human need to disclose to a spiritual counselor, in total and absolute confidence, what are believed to be flawed acts or thoughts and to receive priestly consolation and guidance in return. The lawyer-client privilege rests on the need for the advocate and counselor to know all that relates to the client's reasons for seeking representation if the professional mission is to be carried out. Similarly, the physician must know all that a patient can articulate in order to identify and to treat disease; barriers to full disclosure would impair diagnosis and treatment.

You accuse me of smuggling something in and then completey ignoring the part about how this bill was specifically written to protect children is fucking rich.

Drop the "or" then. Heres why it doesnt even really matter. If some sick son of a bitch walks in and says "hey preist, ive been beating my kids and forcing myself on their mother but i feel bad about it and id like to stop" that fits the first criteria the fact that he says hed like to stop does not mean their is not imminient threat of danger or death to his family. Likewise if some other sick fuck comes in an admits to having innappropriate feelings for children and has acted on them we can pretty fucking safely assume he will do it again no matter "how bad he feels".

So lets play the game again to steel man your position on why the clergy should be allowed to let child abusers run rampant. Should the clergy be required to report on child abuse and neglect when it appears their is imminent danger of harm or death?

Cue you conflation attorney privlege with religous enablers.

 

[AZ103]

I didn't believe you, so I threw this into ChatGPT, who agrees that you are completely full of shit:

​

Claim	Reality
Secular professionals are exempt from reporting abuse	False — most are mandatory reporters under RCW 26.44.030
The new law “singles out” clergy	False — it removes their special exemption and aligns them with others
The Constitution protects the seal of confession	False — courts have upheld these laws in multiple states
This violates the 5th Amendment	False — the 5th is about self-incrimination, not third-party reporting

Spoiler: details

1. He is conflating​

RCW 5.60.060:​

This is about courtroom testimony — who can be forced to testify or reveal confidential info in legal proceedings.

RCW 26.44.030:​

This is about mandatory reporting — who is required to report suspected child abuse to law enforcement or CPS, regardless of confidentiality.

Many of the people he lists as having "privilege" under RCW 5.60.060 are STILL mandatory reporters under RCW 26.44.030. That means they must report abuse even if it was learned in a confidential setting.

Examples:

• Therapists
• Social workers
• Physicians
• School staff
• Nurses

---

2. The new law​

What the new law (SB 5375 / HB 1098) actually did:​

• Previously, clergy had a special exemption: they did not have to report child abuse if they learned about it through confession.
• The new law removes that exemption.
• This means clergy are now treated the same as therapists, doctors, counselors, etc., who have long been required to report suspected abuse.

The line he quotes:


He’s ignoring that this clergy exception was unique. Now it’s gone, and clergy are held to the same standard as secular professionals.

---

​

3. He invokes the Constitution, but this has already been upheld in other states​

His rant about “they shit on the Constitution” isn’t legally sound.

• Courts have repeatedly ruled that mandatory reporting laws — even those requiring clergy to report abuse learned in confession — do not violate the First Amendment.
• Religious freedom is not absolute. It can be restricted to protect others (especially children).
• Courts apply strict scrutiny: is the law narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest (like preventing child abuse)? Yes, it is.

Example: Oregon, Colorado, North Carolina, and West Virginia all have laws requiring clergy to report child abuse, even if learned during confession. Courts have upheld them.

---

4. The 5th Amendment argument is nonsense​

He says:


But:

• The 5th Amendment is about self-incrimination. It applies to criminal defendants, not to priests hearing confessions.
• The priest is not the one being prosecuted.
• The issue is whether a third party (a priest) can be compelled to report suspected abuse of a child to authorities — not whether a suspect is being forced to testify against themselves.

This is a red herring.

I dont use AI but as the kids say... this is fire.

 

[AZ103]

Well shit, if only the federal judge who already said it's unconstitutional and blocked it had just checked chat gpt, he would have ruled differently. Lol, I like how chat gpt is just ballparking it now, "most of those still have to" and "many of those are" is a great look when the answer that would make this valid is all.

Didn't say it violated their 5th amendment right, I said everybody has a 5th amendment right and theirs is rendered useless when the state tries to turn the clergy into undercover cops spying on parishioners without a warrant.

And the priest IS who they are threatening to prosecute, that's what the law is, and unless you plan on turning the whole place into North Korea and installing wiretaps in the confessional, then you don't have any way to follow through on the prosecution of priests for noncompliance. The priest doesn't have to testify with information learned in confessional in the other person's trial, and they don't have to testify against themselves if they were to be prosecuted, and they're not like other mandatory reporters who gossip among each other in the teacher's lounge.

Chat gpt got pretty specfic for what he gave it. If you think you can shut it down by attacking what you think is broad or sweeping language id love to see you try and then post it like @Soggust did.

 

[Soggust]

Well shit, if only the federal judge who already said it's unconstitutional and blocked it had just checked chat gpt, he would have ruled differently. Lol, I like how chat gpt is just ballparking it now, "most of those still have to" and "many of those are" is a great look when the answer that would make this valid is all.

Didn't say it violated their 5th amendment right, I said everybody has a 5th amendment right and theirs is rendered useless when the state tries to turn the clergy into undercover cops spying on parishioners without a warrant.

And the priest IS who they are threatening to prosecute, that's what the law is, and unless you plan on turning the whole place into North Korea and installing wiretaps in the confessional, then you don't have any way to follow through on the prosecution of priests for noncompliance. The priest doesn't have to testify with information learned in confessional in the other person's trial, and they don't have to testify against themselves if they were to be prosecuted, and they're not like other mandatory reporters who gossip among each other in the teacher's lounge.

I just posted the entire response for transparency, but I was really just attacking your position that religion was somehow being treated worse than other reporters, as opposed to having their special exemption removed.


But I do think it's a bit interesting that the best take you have imo is "Hey it's realistically an unenforceable law that only serves to make good faith actors uncomfortable".

And as much as I want to continue my take, if I'm being unbiased, that seems like essentially the Trans Bathroom Bill position that I've been arguing for years, so I'll have to determine which side I want to come down consistent on.

I personally like being consistent that ideology shouldn't override public policy, but I assume normal people have compassion and shit.

 

[nostradumbass]

You accuse me of smuggling something in and then completey ignoring the part about how this bill was specifically written to protect children is fucking rich.

Drop the "or" then. Heres why it doesnt even really matter. If some sick son of a bitch walks in and says "hey preist, ive been beating my kids and forcing myself on their mother but i feel bad about it and id like to stop" that fits the first criteria the fact that he says hed like to stop does not mean their is not imminient threat of danger or death to his family. Likewise if some other sick fuck comes in an admits to having innappropriate feelings for children and has acted on them we can pretty fucking safely assume he will do it again no matter "how bad he feels".

So lets play the game again to steel man your position on why the clergy should be allowed to let child abusers run rampant. Should the clergy be required to report on child abuse and neglect when it appears their is imminent danger of harm or death?

Cue you conflation attorney privlege with religous enablers.

Again, if you'd like to make the law the extreme examples, then make the law the extreme examples. remove all exemptions, and force them to testify as well.

You can call pointing out hypocrisy "conflation" because it's inconvenient for you, but that is what makes it unconstitutional and why it already hasn't held up in court. Your "religious freedom isn't absolute" argument and giving polygamy as your example, or human sacrifice or anything else doesn't make your point, it makes mine. Those things are illegal for everybody, so the law is consistent and therefore constitutional. A law that still does allow exemptions for some professions but specifically removes it from religious ones is not constitutional. It is constitutional in a state like Texas, because they also removed the exemption for attorney client privilege and the law applies equally to everyone.

As any adult should know, constitutional protections aren't there to protect the most extreme examples, they are there to protect everybody else from becoming collateral damage. You seem to understand this perfectly well when it comes to even someone who's raping puppies and suplexing babies receiving a fair trial because the same right protects innocent people who didn't do that, yet you completely blank out and accept any and all collateral damage in pursuit of extreme hypotheticals when it comes to privacy.

It isn't on me to defend your extreme hypotheticals because the law is not limited to the extreme hypotheticals, so it does absolutely nothing for your argument to give the highest end extreme hypotheticals that would already be reported voluntarily by anybody who notices the psycho whose family is always bruised up. It's the low end, questionable or flat out wrong cases that deserve the protection that you think should still have their kids taken away. Do you think someone should have their kids taken away for not affirming their gender? Because CPS departments in several states have already said that qualifies as "abuse" and is grounds for taking kids away, and that's who you've just granted the authority to prosecute for not reporting. The parents obviously don't consider that abuse, the priests don't consider that abuse, but you don't think it should be their call anymore and want the state who doesn't know any of them to decide, and the state does consider it abuse that needs to be reported.

• Dennis Hannon: A software engineer from New York who lost custody of his nine-year-old son after objecting to the child's gender transition. Hannon claimed he was not informed about the transition until the child was five and later took legal action to prevent the use of puberty blockers, which led to the court stripping him of custody.
• 
  
• Jeffrey Younger: A Texas father who lost custody of his twins after disagreeing with his child's gender transition. Younger argued that his daughter, who was diagnosed with gender dysphoria at age five, was being forced to transition against his will. The court granted sole custody to the mother, and Younger has since run for political office to ban gender-affirming care for minors.
• 
  
• Adam Vena: A California father who lost custody of his child after disputing the child's gender identity. Vena claims the court took custody due to his refusal to accept the child's transgender identity, though the case is more complex than his public statements suggest.
• 
  
• The Cox family: A family from Indiana who lost custody of their teenage daughter after she came out as transgender. The court ruled that the child's severe eating disorder was linked to the conflict with her parents, leading to the child being placed in the custody of Child Protective Services

 

[AZ103]

Again, if you'd like to make the law the extreme examples, then make the law the extreme examples. remove all exemptions, and force them to testify as well.

You can call pointing out hypocrisy "conflation" because it's inconvenient for you, but that is what makes it unconstitutional and why it already hasn't held up in court. Your "religious freedom isn't absolute" argument and giving polygamy as your example, or human sacrifice or anything else doesn't make your point, it makes mine. Those things are illegal for everybody, so the law is consistent and therefore constitutional. A law that still does allow exemptions for some professions but specifically removes it from religious ones is not constitutional. It is constitutional in a state like Texas, because they also removed the exemption for attorney client privilege and the law applies equally to everyone.

As any adult should know, constitutional protections aren't there to protect the most extreme examples, they are there to protect everybody else from becoming collateral damage. You seem to understand this perfectly well when it comes to even someone who's raping puppies and suplexing babies receiving a fair trial because the same right protects innocent people who didn't do that, yet you completely blank out and accept any and all collateral damage in pursuit of extreme hypotheticals when it comes to privacy.

It isn't on me to defend your extreme hypotheticals because the law is not limited to the extreme hypotheticals, so it does absolutely nothing for your argument to give the highest end extreme hypotheticals that would already be reported voluntarily by anybody who notices the psycho whose family is always bruised up. It's the low end, questionable or flat out wrong cases that deserve the protection that you think should still have their kids taken away. Do you think someone should have their kids taken away for not affirming their gender? Because CPS departments in several states have already said that qualifies as "abuse" and is grounds for taking kids away, and that's who you've just granted the authority to prosecute for not reporting. The parents obviously don't consider that abuse, the priests don't consider that abuse, but you don't think it should be their call anymore and want the state who doesn't know any of them to decide, and the state does consider it abuse that needs to be reported.

• Dennis Hannon: A software engineer from New York who lost custody of his nine-year-old son after objecting to the child's gender transition. Hannon claimed he was not informed about the transition until the child was five and later took legal action to prevent the use of puberty blockers, which led to the court stripping him of custody.
• 
  
• Jeffrey Younger: A Texas father who lost custody of his twins after disagreeing with his child's gender transition. Younger argued that his daughter, who was diagnosed with gender dysphoria at age five, was being forced to transition against his will. The court granted sole custody to the mother, and Younger has since run for political office to ban gender-affirming care for minors.
• 
  
• Adam Vena: A California father who lost custody of his child after disputing the child's gender identity. Vena claims the court took custody due to his refusal to accept the child's transgender identity, though the case is more complex than his public statements suggest.
• 
  
• The Cox family: A family from Indiana who lost custody of their teenage daughter after she came out as transgender. The court ruled that the child's severe eating disorder was linked to the conflict with her parents, leading to the child being placed in the custody of Child Protective Services

Im against transitioning kids in any way, shape or form. That is a seperate issue of course. The rest of that rant is the same shit youve been spewing.

What is most telling is you refuse to simply answer the question and your answer is no. You do not beleive clergy should be required to report child abuse even in the case of imminent danger or death to the child.

Youre free to beleive that. And im free to beleive youre a peice of shit.

 

[Strychnine]

"Bbbubbuuttt!!! The DRAAaAaaaggg Queeeennnnssss!!!!!"

- MAGA

 

[Absolut]

Question is why is the federal government suing to protect philes? Leave it up to the church or the phile to make the argument.

 

[Absolut]

Double post

 

[nostradumbass]

Im against transitioning kids in any way, shape or form. That is a seperate issue of course. The rest of that rant is the same shit youve been spewing.

What is most telling is you refuse to simply answer the question and your answer is no. You do not beleive clergy should be required to report child abuse even in the case of imminent danger or death to the child.

Youre free to beleive that. And im free to beleive youre a peice of shit.

And you're certainly exercising your right to prove that you're an ignoramus who gets all your information from memes and tweets.

I did answer multiple times, and I'm the one who brought that up as the line like 10 pages before you even asked, and I still answered again the very next post after you asked, and your takeaway is "Derp, the voices in my head are telling me you didn't answer and think they shouldn't report imminent threats"? Lol, maybe I should have made a meme out of it so you'd read it.

It just didn't feed your emotional outrage enough when I correctly pointed out that even thought I think they should, that it's unlikely to come up, and there isn't and couldn't be any mechanism to enforce it.

I've posted the old law, the new one, the legal challenge, the judge's ruling, the constituional amendment it violates, previous SCOTUS decisisions citing these concepts, what they would need to change to make it constitutional with examples from other states, the straw man and steel man from both sides, while you've posted absolutely nothing but strawmen, emotional pleas, ad homs, and creepy hypotheticals. Best of luck to you.

The line is imminent threat, not confessing past sins, which is what confession is.

I mean sure to the warning one in theory, but that's not really applicable because that's not what confession is. Confession is exactly what it sounds like, it's confessing sins you've already committed

 

[koa pomaikai]

As a therapist, I am obligated to report ANY suspected child abuse that I hear of from clients despite the confidentiality laws; they are told this in the first session, along with other limits to confidentiality.

They are trying to attach freedom of religion to this situation, which is bullshit. There always needs to be certain limits to confidentiality, and child abuse should always be one of them. Religious freedoms are important but not if they let kids get abused; no religious freedom justifies that.

The Aztecs sacrificed children painfully (they tortured them before they killed them to make sure they would cry a lot) because they believed their God (Tlaloc) liked children's tears. Is that going to be the next religious freedom?

You are licensed as a therapist that is why you are a mandatory reporter.

Normal citizens are not required, priests are not licensed by the state.

Why should they be mandatory reporters anymore so than a waiter, a busboy or any average Joe?

 

[AZ103]

And you're certainly exercising your right to prove that you're an ignoramus who gets all your information from memes and tweets.

I did answer multiple times, and I'm the one who brought that up as the line like 10 pages before you even asked, and I still answered again the very next post after you asked, and your takeaway is "Derp, the voices in my head are telling me you didn't answer and think they shouldn't report imminent threats"? Lol, maybe I should have made a meme out of it so you'd read it.

It just didn't feed your emotional outrage enough when I correctly pointed out that even thought I think they should, that it's unlikely to come up, and there isn't and couldn't be any mechanism to enforce it.

I've posted the old law, the new one, the legal challenge, the judge's ruling, the constituional amendment it violates, previous SCOTUS decisisions citing these concepts, what they would need to change to make it constitutional with examples from other states, the straw man and steel man from both sides, while you've posted absolutely nothing but strawmen, emotional pleas, ad homs, and creepy hypotheticals. Best of luck to you.

You are completely full of shit. I read your links, i read the bill, i took a stance. Another poster absolutey shit all over you using chat gpt. And now youre talking out of both sides of your mouth. Saying you beleive they should and shouldnt at the same fucking time to try to save your ass. I didnt ask if ifs constitutional (it is, thats why the total religous freedom argument is relevant that you deny has anything to do with it), i didnt ask if you think its enforcable ( it is, we see this with other proffesions that require mandatory reporting) i asked what you beleive and you cant and wont simply state that the clergy shouldnt be exempt from reporting child abuse even in the most heinous cases.

You have to fly off the handle and yell that its their constitutional right to cover for criminals before you can even hide behind your completely false admission that you personally beleive they should have to report. It is readily apparent what you beleive and its disgusting. Feel free to write another bull shit post but youre fully cooked, im done with you.

 

[AZ103]

You are licensed as a therapist that is why you are a mandatory reporter.

Normal citizens are not required, priests are not licensed by the state.

Why should they be mandatory reporters anymore so than a waiter, a busboy or any average Joe?

Those arent proffesions with a high likely hood of encountering abuse. Thats what the laws are for, to make sure people in positions most likely to encounter abuse report it. Typically in positions that are centered around helping, protecting or ensuring the saftey of people. If they do not report abuse they are litterally doing the opposite of what the spirit of their job entails.