If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Raw Story)   KY children's home enacts anti-discrimination policy to allow LGBT employees in order to avoid losing government funding. KY churches decide to withhold their funding instead. Won't someone please think of the children?   (rawstory.com) divider line 274
    More: Asinine, LGBT, think of the children, LGBT employees, churches, discrimination, financing, Crooks & Liars, WDRB  
•       •       •

3874 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Mar 2014 at 3:47 PM (27 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



274 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-11 12:32:59 PM

"Oh, you mean they might possibly encounter a gay person at some point? Well, fark those kids. I'm keeping my money."

brgulker.files.wordpress.com

 
2014-03-11 12:35:23 PM
Look, once those kids get Gay Cooties, it's for life, like Herpes.  Just let 'em go, man.
 
2014-03-11 12:37:29 PM
Christians.  Just... Christians.  Fark.
 
2014-03-11 12:38:07 PM
It's more important to discriminate against gays than to provide day care services to poor people
 
2014-03-11 12:39:16 PM
Tax the churches.
 
2014-03-11 12:39:36 PM
My parents were houseparents at a children's group home when I was growing up. At the time, I didn't understand the way that the director had to play politics with everyone in order to keep funding going, I just heard my parents b*tching about it an awful lot.

Thing is, they forced the kids to attend religious services as a condition of staying there, with the alternative being a "reform school" type of institution. It did not endear Christianity to any of them the way you might think, especially considering that it was such a fundamentalist church.

Having said that, the idea that these churches are somehow "protecting" these kids from gay people is laughable. Here's a hint: these kids already interact with gay people on a daily basis, and nothing you can do or say to these kids will change the fact that some of them will be gay themselves.

The tragedy of this, to me, is that it cost this director his job. He was trying to do the right thing and get funding for these kids. Thing is, no one takes a job like that unless they really do want to do some good; it doesn't pay very well at all, and you have to take the "self-satisfaction" of doing genuinely good work by providing children who have suffered abuse and neglect through no fault of their own with an alternative to the institutions as part of your salary.
 
2014-03-11 12:43:08 PM

netizencain: It's more important to discriminate against gays than to provide day care services to poor people


This isn't day care services; it's for children who have been removed from their parents' care due to abuse or neglect. Sometimes the parents are in prison, sometimes they are drug addicts who can't or won't provide for their children. Places like this provide an alternative to the "boarding school" atmosphere of most state-run facilities. It provides the kids with a more home-like atmosphere, usually with their own bedrooms. The one I spent the most time at even provided private bathrooms for each child. Each home generally has about 6-8 kids and a set of full-time "house parents" who perform mommy and daddy duties on a more personal level than the institutions.
 
2014-03-11 12:49:01 PM

ox45tallboy: netizencain: It's more important to discriminate against gays than to provide day care services to poor people

This isn't day care services; it's for children who have been removed from their parents' care due to abuse or neglect. Sometimes the parents are in prison, sometimes they are drug addicts who can't or won't provide for their children. Places like this provide an alternative to the "boarding school" atmosphere of most state-run facilities. It provides the kids with a more home-like atmosphere, usually with their own bedrooms. The one I spent the most time at even provided private bathrooms for each child. Each home generally has about 6-8 kids and a set of full-time "house parents" who perform mommy and daddy duties on a more personal level than the institutions.


But it's still WAY more important for a good Christian to discriminate against gay people than to provide kids with food, clothing and shelter.

/HEY!  Is that a millstone?  Wow - I've never seen one this close up.
 
2014-03-11 12:49:06 PM

ox45tallboy: netizencain: It's more important to discriminate against gays than to provide day care services to poor people

This isn't day care services; it's for children who have been removed from their parents' care due to abuse or neglect. Sometimes the parents are in prison, sometimes they are drug addicts who can't or won't provide for their children. Places like this provide an alternative to the "boarding school" atmosphere of most state-run facilities. It provides the kids with a more home-like atmosphere, usually with their own bedrooms. The one I spent the most time at even provided private bathrooms for each child. Each home generally has about 6-8 kids and a set of full-time "house parents" who perform mommy and daddy duties on a more personal level than the institutions.


Jesus... that's even worse
 
2014-03-11 12:51:46 PM
So much for "love thy neighbor" and "judge not".
 
2014-03-11 12:54:24 PM
Whose funding would Jesus pull?
 
2014-03-11 12:59:52 PM
I'd really like to know how many children were removed from broken homes of homosexual parents.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-03-11 01:09:42 PM
ox45tallboy:

The tragedy of this, to me, is that it cost this director his job. He was trying to do the right thing and get funding for these kids. Thing is, no one takes a job like that unless they really do want to do some good; it doesn't pay very well at all, and you have to take the "self-satisfaction" of doing genuinely good work by providing children who have suffered abuse and neglect through no fault of their own with an alternative to the institutions as part of your salary.

So nothing at all like religion.
 
2014-03-11 01:10:42 PM
"And we know that, at least for now, the state appreciates that, needs the ministry of Kentucky Baptists to these children, thrilled to have the relationship,"

... what?
 
2014-03-11 01:12:11 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: But it's still WAY more important for a good Christian to discriminate against gay people than to provide kids with food, clothing and shelter.

/HEY!  Is that a millstone?  Wow - I've never seen one this close up.


At first, I was thinking that maybe the churches didn't really want to pull their funding, they were just trying to put pressure on the home to reverse course on a policy. But the director did reverse the policy, and the churches still demanded his head on a pike for even considering the policy.

I once asked my dad if he thought Jesus would refuse to serve a gay couple who came into Joseph's carpentry shot looking for a dining room table. He told me that he really thought he would.

I don't think people read the Bible looking for Jesus's message of love and compassion anymore. In fact, I think they purposefully skip over those parts. I love my dad, but I can't believe anyone would want to subscribe to any religion that taught hate and bigotry. Back when my parents were doing this kind of work, they would have probably threatened to resign if the organization had hired a gay person, especially if that person was ever *gasp* interacting with the children. And that sucks. At least this next generation will hopefully know better.
 
2014-03-11 01:25:52 PM

Relatively Obscure: "And we know that, at least for now, the state appreciates that, needs the ministry of Kentucky Baptists to these children, thrilled to have the relationship,"

... what?


They're technically a religious nonprofit, but it's still up in the air as to whether they are considered a "church" and therefore exempt from such things as the Obamacare contraception mandate and gender discrimination in hiring practices. This goes back to those Republican "faith based initiatives" in which religious organizations could get funding for the government for their ministry as long as they were actually doing good work. Think "feed the homeless" programs run out of some churches, only as a condition for receiving a free lunch (paid for almost entirely by the government, mind you), the homeless people are forced to go through certain religious rituals.

They view themselves as a "government partner" because they receive government funding and in return they demand complete autonomy and exemption from government regulations due to their status as a religious body. By "government partner" what they mean is that they see themselves as helping the government out, not the other way around.
 
2014-03-11 01:26:47 PM
I was told that we didn't need the gubmint to provide what private charities would.
 
2014-03-11 01:32:13 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: But it's still WAY more important for a good Christian to discriminate against gay people than to provide kids with food, clothing and shelter.


So, it's not bigotry when you do it. I get it.
 
2014-03-11 01:40:18 PM

ox45tallboy: Relatively Obscure: "And we know that, at least for now, the state appreciates that, needs the ministry of Kentucky Baptists to these children, thrilled to have the relationship,"

... what?

They're technically a religious nonprofit, but it's still up in the air as to whether they are considered a "church" and therefore exempt from such things as the Obamacare contraception mandate and gender discrimination in hiring practices. This goes back to those Republican "faith based initiatives" in which religious organizations could get funding for the government for their ministry as long as they were actually doing good work. Think "feed the homeless" programs run out of some churches, only as a condition for receiving a free lunch (paid for almost entirely by the government, mind you), the homeless people are forced to go through certain religious rituals.

They view themselves as a "government partner" because they receive government funding and in return they demand complete autonomy and exemption from government regulations due to their status as a religious body. By "government partner" what they mean is that they see themselves as helping the government out, not the other way around.


Okay.  I'm still not sure the sentence I quoted makes any sense at all.
 
2014-03-11 01:43:50 PM

Old_Chief_Scott: Benevolent Misanthrope: But it's still WAY more important for a good Christian to discriminate against gay people than to provide kids with food, clothing and shelter.

So, it's not bigotry when you do it. I get it.


Since when did I say children should be de-funded because the Director wants to hire a Christian?
 
2014-03-11 01:46:57 PM

Old_Chief_Scott: Benevolent Misanthrope: But it's still WAY more important for a good Christian to discriminate against gay people than to provide kids with food, clothing and shelter.

So, it's not bigotry when you do it. I get it.


Huh?
 
2014-03-11 01:48:55 PM
I love the people that think:

"Not allowing me to discriminate as I see fit is a form of discrimination. I should be allowed to discriminate against anyone I choose, and not letting me do that is an infringement of my rights."
 
2014-03-11 01:52:52 PM

Sin_City_Superhero: Old_Chief_Scott: Benevolent Misanthrope: But it's still WAY more important for a good Christian to discriminate against gay people than to provide kids with food, clothing and shelter.

So, it's not bigotry when you do it. I get it.

Huh?


He means, I'm the real discriminator here, for pointing up their discrimination.  It's the same "logic" as the GOP racist playbook.
 
2014-03-11 01:57:46 PM

Relatively Obscure: Okay.  I'm still not sure the sentence I quoted makes any sense at all.


Point taken. Apparently proper use of the English language, especially in a statement to the press, is secondary in importance to these people to f*cking people of the opposite sex.

It came from a pure and holy man of God's mouth that has never had a penis in it, therefore God understands what he meant.
 
2014-03-11 02:02:24 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: Sin_City_Superhero: Old_Chief_Scott: Benevolent Misanthrope: But it's still WAY more important for a good Christian to discriminate against gay people than to provide kids with food, clothing and shelter.

So, it's not bigotry when you do it. I get it.

Huh?

He means, I'm the real discriminator here, for pointing up their discrimination.  It's the same "logic" as the GOP racist playbook.


No, what I mean is that you become what you abhor when you use "Christian" as your label.
 
2014-03-11 02:09:10 PM

Old_Chief_Scott: No, what I mean is that you become what you abhor when you use "Christian" as your label.


I'm not following you. How do you mean that? Can you please elaborate?
 
2014-03-11 02:23:33 PM

Sin_City_Superhero: Old_Chief_Scott: No, what I mean is that you become what you abhor when you use "Christian" as your label.

I'm not following you. How do you mean that? Can you please elaborate?


I'm not sure what h means, but I think what he could mean is that the label of "Christian" just doesn't mean "follower of Christ" the way that "Buddhist" means "follower of Buddha". Most people who use the label in order to defend their actions do so to defend an action that pretty much no one who reads the teachings of Jesus and the accounts of his life could see Jesus as having taken. You just don't see Buddhists do this sort of thing.
 
2014-03-11 02:25:42 PM

Old_Chief_Scott: Benevolent Misanthrope: Sin_City_Superhero: Old_Chief_Scott: Benevolent Misanthrope: But it's still WAY more important for a good Christian to discriminate against gay people than to provide kids with food, clothing and shelter.

So, it's not bigotry when you do it. I get it.

Huh?

He means, I'm the real discriminator here, for pointing up their discrimination.  It's the same "logic" as the GOP racist playbook.

No, what I mean is that you become what you abhor when you use "Christian" as your label.


It's not the same.  Being 'Christian' is a choice.
 
2014-03-11 02:34:29 PM
*sigh*

The point is that by using the label "Christian" instead of the specific "The Kentucky Baptist Convention" you lump all Christians in with the perpetrators. That is the very definition of bigotry, isn't it? It's the same as when someone tosses out "Red State" or "Blue State", it's a convenient way to lump together a group of people for the purpose of marginalizing them in some way.
 
2014-03-11 02:44:31 PM

Old_Chief_Scott: *sigh*

The point is that by using the label "Christian" instead of the specific "The Kentucky Baptist Convention" you lump all Christians in with the perpetrators. That is the very definition of bigotry, isn't it? It's the same as when someone tosses out "Red State" or "Blue State", it's a convenient way to lump together a group of people for the purpose of marginalizing them in some way.


I wouldn't say that it's bigotry, per se. They ARE Christians. Perhaps it's misleading if it makes it seem like ALL Christians are the same way, but it's not incorrect to call them Christians, if that's what they are.
 
2014-03-11 02:48:53 PM

Sin_City_Superhero: wouldn't say that it's bigotry, per se. They ARE Christians. Perhaps it's misleading if it makes it seem like ALL Christians are the same way, but it's not incorrect to call them Christians, if that's what they are.


Your thought being that it's stereotyping but not bigotry?
 
2014-03-11 02:50:08 PM

Old_Chief_Scott: *sigh*

The point is that by using the label "Christian" instead of the specific "The Kentucky Baptist Convention" you lump all Christians in with the perpetrators. That is the very definition of bigotry, isn't it? It's the same as when someone tosses out "Red State" or "Blue State", it's a convenient way to lump together a group of people for the purpose of marginalizing them in some way.


You make a very good point. However, the meaning of "Christian" has changed quite a bit throughout the years, and even today, the definition changes based on geography. In the Middle Ages in Europe, "Christian" meant Catholic and nothing else. Post-Henry VIII, Christian in the UK mean the Church of England. "Christianity" in modern Africa has different elements of former religions of the area, the same way that European Christianity contains Pagan elements such as the "borrowing" of legends of Mithras for the story of Jesus.

Today in America, the "Christian" label has been taken by evangelical Protestants, mainly because they use it more loudly and more often than most other denominations. Like it or not, the actions of these people and the use of this label to justify or explain their actions reflects on everyone else who uses this label. I'm not saying that's the way it should be, just that it's the way it is. I feel it is up to those people who wish to use the label but do not agree with these beliefs or actions to publicly denounce them just as loudly, and use the label the way they feel it should be used.

Then again, I'm a techie guy. I gave up on "hacker" and "cable/DSL modem" a long time ago. They now mean something different than they used to (hell, a cable or DSL "modem" is not in any shape, form, or fashion a "modem" since there is no modulating/demodulating), and I can't do a damn thing about it.
 
2014-03-11 02:58:52 PM

Gecko Gingrich: Sin_City_Superhero: wouldn't say that it's bigotry, per se. They ARE Christians. Perhaps it's misleading if it makes it seem like ALL Christians are the same way, but it's not incorrect to call them Christians, if that's what they are.

Your thought being that it's stereotyping but not bigotry?


Not exactly, but sort of.  My point is that it's not incorrect to refer to a small group of Christians as Christians, except in that you make it seem as though you're referring to ALL Christians.  It's correct to refer to surgeons as doctors.  They ARE doctors.  Just because there are doctors that AREN'T surgeons, doesn't mean that surgeons are not doctors.  It's a sub-set of another group being referred to by the main group's identity.  That MAY or MAY NOT be confusing, but it's not incorrect.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-03-11 03:01:17 PM
Old_Chief_Scott:

He means, I'm the real discriminator here, for pointing up their discrimination.  It's the same "logic" as the GOP racist playbook.

No, what I mean is that you become what you abhor when you use "Christian" as your label.


No it's  not.  This is a comment thread for a specific article.  It's pretty clear what sort of Christian people are referring to.
 
2014-03-11 03:02:53 PM
Let me guess....Baptists?

*checks article*

The Kentucky Baptist Convention, which approves of the anti-LGBT policy, is now back in the Sunrise's corner.

Sweet merciful crap, I wish I were more surprised. These people really have a hard-on for prejudice against gays, don't they?

I'll admit, I'm no expert on their specific denomination and I don't know any Southern Baptists well, but is there some kind of underlined or italicized text in the Baptist Bible that encourages so many of them to be such raging assholes?
 
2014-03-11 03:10:02 PM

Old_Chief_Scott: *sigh*

The point is that by using the label "Christian" instead of the specific "The Kentucky Baptist Convention" you lump all Christians in with the perpetrators. That is the very definition of bigotry, isn't it? It's the same as when someone tosses out "Red State" or "Blue State", it's a convenient way to lump together a group of people for the purpose of marginalizing them in some way.


The most shocking thing is the complacency from all the other Christian groups.  Everyone is upset when moderate muslims don't speak out against jihadists... this is the same thing.  One of the largest Christian organizations in Kentucky is shiatting all over the teachings of Christ.  But $5 says your pastor/priest wont discuss this in Church on Sunday.
 
2014-03-11 03:18:48 PM

miss diminutive: I'll admit, I'm no expert on their specific denomination and I don't know any Southern Baptists well, but is there some kind of underlined or italicized text in the Baptist Bible that encourages so many of them to be such raging assholes?


How would they know?
 
2014-03-11 03:22:03 PM

ox45tallboy: miss diminutive: I'll admit, I'm no expert on their specific denomination and I don't know any Southern Baptists well, but is there some kind of underlined or italicized text in the Baptist Bible that encourages so many of them to be such raging assholes?

How would they know?


Bold text?
 
2014-03-11 03:30:25 PM
Why would any organization fund something that it opposes? You may not like and it may suck but it's perfectly reasonable.
 
2014-03-11 03:32:34 PM

miss diminutive: ox45tallboy: miss diminutive: I'll admit, I'm no expert on their specific denomination and I don't know any Southern Baptists well, but is there some kind of underlined or italicized text in the Baptist Bible that encourages so many of them to be such raging assholes?

How would they know?

Bold text?


Okay, how would they know about the bold text?
 
2014-03-11 03:44:12 PM

Old_Chief_Scott: *sigh*

The point is that by using the label "Christian" instead of the specific "The Kentucky Baptist Convention" you lump all Christians in with the perpetrators. That is the very definition of bigotry, isn't it? It's the same as when someone tosses out "Red State" or "Blue State", it's a convenient way to lump together a group of people for the purpose of marginalizing them in some way.


Isolated incident, folks. Nothing to see. Move along.

Hey, I know -- pointing out the other Christian groups that are jumping in to make up the lost funding would go a long way towards making me think you have a leg to stand on. Heck, maybe even two legs. Actions/words, etc.
 
2014-03-11 03:47:36 PM

Contrabulous Flabtraption: Why would any organization fund something that it opposes? You may not like and it may suck but it's perfectly reasonable.


The Baptist church opposes children's homes? That doesn't sound right.

Ohh you mean it opposes hiring homosexuals. Because of all those passages in the bible about not hiring homosexuals.

Which passages are those?
 
2014-03-11 03:50:22 PM
KY Jelly.
 
2014-03-11 03:50:23 PM
Too much KY plus children in one headline
 
2014-03-11 03:50:46 PM
Whenever people tell me about all the charitable work that churches do I always respond that it's too bad that the good stuff they do is so completely caked in shiat that it doesn't matter.
 
2014-03-11 03:52:00 PM

miss diminutive: Let me guess....Baptists?

*checks article*

The Kentucky Baptist Convention, which approves of the anti-LGBT policy, is now back in the Sunrise's corner.

Sweet merciful crap, I wish I were more surprised. These people really have a hard-on for prejudice against gays, don't they?

I'll admit, I'm no expert on their specific denomination and I don't know any Southern Baptists well, but is there some kind of underlined or italicized text in the Baptist Bible that encourages so many of them to be such raging assholes?


I bolded the part that explains why they are such a bigoted, backwards, primitive bunch even when compared to other Christian denominations.  Hope that helps.
 
2014-03-11 03:52:09 PM

scottydoesntknow: I'd really like to know how many children were removed from broken homes of homosexual parents.


I'd really like to know how many children were created by homosexual parents.
 
2014-03-11 03:52:15 PM
Jesus wanted little kids suffering though, IIRC.
 
2014-03-11 03:52:34 PM

Sin_City_Superhero: I love the people that think:

"Not allowing me to discriminate as I see fit is a form of discrimination. I should be allowed to discriminate against anyone I choose, and not letting me do that is an infringement of my rights."


Contrabulous Flabtraption: Why would any organization fund something that it opposes? You may not like and it may suck but it's perfectly reasonable.


No, read above. You do not have the right to decide who gets your money.
 
2014-03-11 03:53:00 PM
People that worship a dead guy on a stick are creepy, anyway.
 
Displayed 50 of 274 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report