Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Asinine, LGBT, think of the children, LGBT employees, churches, discrimination, financing, Crooks & Liars, WDRB  
•       •       •

3902 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Mar 2014 at 3:47 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2014-03-11 04:30:49 PM  

CheekyMonkey: Oh, it's in there somewhere.  Probably near the back.


Revelations. You can make Revelations say anything.

It's a literary acid trip.
 
2014-03-11 04:31:24 PM  

TerminalEchoes: So gays boycott the Salvation Army for their anti-gay stance. Churches cut funding to children's home for accepting gays. Both circumstances involve a group of people "voting with their wallet" for what they believe in. What's the difference, honestly?


One of these things is not like the other. One of these things doesn't belong.
 
2014-03-11 04:33:27 PM  

hardinparamedic: CheekyMonkey: Oh, it's in there somewhere.  Probably near the back.

Revelations. You can make Revelations say anything.

It's a literary acid trip.


Whenever I had to go to church, I'd always whip out the bible in the pew and just read Revelations. Pretty much the only thing that interested me while there. It's definitely a trip.
 
2014-03-11 04:36:46 PM  

oldtaku: For shame, subby. KY, gay people, children getting screwed, and not a single lube comment?


I grew up in one of these places. It's hard to be objective enough for snark.
 
2014-03-11 04:38:01 PM  

Gary-L: 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."

Believe it or not, I had this very argument with a Christian friend of mine a couple of weeks ago.  He feels strongly that (so-called) Christian businesses (like Hobby Lobby) have every right to require employees and customers adhere to the religious beliefs of the business owners.

That includes the freedom  to discriminate.


The obvious question to such a claim is to ask them to define which religions get to ignore which laws? I presume he wouldn't claim a Cthulhu cultist should be free to murder anyone they like in their quest to wake the sleeping God to avoid infringing his religious beliefs, so presumably the line gets drawn somewhere, and by someone.


If only some "real" religions rules take precedence over the law, who decides what is a "real" religion and which ones don't count. Secondly which laws are not "real" laws and can be ignored by anyone that claims religious beliefs that conflict with that law? Do laws that can be set aside for religious belief get appended with a religious asterisk when drafted? And who makes the decisions as to what religions are "real" and what laws are negotiable?
 
2014-03-11 04:38:15 PM  

oldtaku: For shame, subby. KY, gay people, children getting screwed, and not a single lube comment?


People like this guy are why the dynamics of HIV and other STDs are changing from being hotbeded in the urban areas, to being epidemic in rural areas. All of those proud, straight, gay hating men and women are getting it on with other proud, totally straight, gay hating men and women of their own sex.

They never had sex with a same-sex partner, after all. Why would they need to use protection?
 
2014-03-11 04:41:27 PM  

That Guy Jeff: Meh, people can spend their money however they want to spend their money. I'm not too thrilled with a children's home being funded by religious folks anyway. They usually attach strings or least try to get people to read their incredibly violent and pornographic novelization of Hebrew history.


This is true; it was in our house rules that all kids must attend "worship services". There was a policy that if any kid wanted to attend a different church, the organization would work with that church to arrange transportation to and from services, but it wasn't exactly advertised to the kids. We all went to a local church that donated money, and about every two months we would all take a road trip to a different church that gave us money and show the congregation what nice Christian children the home was raising. Praying before each meal was also not optional.
 
2014-03-11 04:44:01 PM  

Headso: it seems a number of churches stopped funding the home, that is who I was referring to


As I said upthread, it was politics more than anything. One of the board members leaked this proposal by the director (which was never enacted) and got enough churches to withhold their funding to pressure the board to ask for the director's resignation.
 
2014-03-11 04:44:35 PM  
These churches need to be re-classified as hate groups. Their tax exemption should be pulled, and all members should be put on a watch list.

You don't like living in a free nation? Get out.
 
2014-03-11 04:45:40 PM  

ox45tallboy: Headso: it seems a number of churches stopped funding the home, that is who I was referring to

As I said upthread, it was politics more than anything. One of the board members leaked this proposal by the director (which was never enacted) and got enough churches to withhold their funding to pressure the board to ask for the director's resignation.


yeah,  and if they want to do so with the money they give as charity then they should IMO.
 
2014-03-11 04:46:56 PM  
Gotta go against the churches on this one.  That's a d!ck move guys.
 
2014-03-11 04:47:12 PM  

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

They aren't required to, but it really isn't reasonable. They're using children as pawns in their bullshiat, which is as slimy as it gets. We're perfectly allowed to call them out on their Christian behavior.


Call them out, I guess, if that makes you feel good. It's no different than if I was funding a group and my religion forbade people walking on stilts. Then the group goes and hires people who walk on stilts. I pull my funding. It's is entirely reasonable. It may not be good or moral but reason isn't about those things.
 
2014-03-11 04:47:56 PM  

Tyee: This seems like a great opportunity for GLBT, atheist or liberal charities to set up.   Maybe they can show some real tolerance and compassion by reaching into their own pockets instead of pointing out other peoples failures.

This is not a defense of the people withdrawing funding.


No, it's just a red herring.
 
2014-03-11 04:49:54 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: Christians.  Just... Christians.  Fark.


This sums it up.
 
2014-03-11 04:51:26 PM  
A little background on this case is that Sunrise, previously known as Kentucky Baptist Children's Home, was involved in a 15-year lawsuit centered around the termination of an employee for announcing that she was a lesbian.  There were also taxpayer claims brought against the Home and the State for funding it.   This suit was finally settled last year.  The discrimination claim was dismissed a while back because Title VII doesn't recognize sexual orientation as a protected category, but Kentucky still had to address its funding of an organization that required kids to attend church and fired gays, etc.

I'm pretty sure Sunrise changed its name partly in connection with the bad publicity of this lawsuit.  In any event, while I don't have much sympathy for Sunrise given that it started all of these problems by firing someone for being a lesbian, I also feel some sympathy for the recent director who found himself stuck between state and church funding, unable to satisfy both.

The bigger lesson here is that the use of religious organizations to perform government functions has unintended consequences down the road.  Here, a lot of children are directly dependent on an organization that will lose a significant portion of its funding (State or church donors) based on whether it keeps or drops a discriminatory policy.  We should probably avoid entanglements or else find ourselves in this impossible position.
 
2014-03-11 04:51:56 PM  
FTFA: However, the policy of discrimination puts Sunrise at risk of losing government funding, which provides 85 percent of its $27 million budget.

Sunrise Children's Services is working to recover from a massive budget shortfall after Kentucky churches withheld $7 million

But the damage was done, and Sunrise Children's Services was already facing a $7 million budget shortfall


Except that with $7m being paid in by KY churches, the government would need to pay $39 million to be 85% of the budget.  The total then, of almost $47m, is higher than the sum of all totals mentioned in this article combined = 7 shortfall + 7 church + 27 budget = $41m.

I'm not commenting on the meaning in this article, but I don't trust the author/editor's math.
 
2014-03-11 04:53:18 PM  

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

They aren't required to, but it really isn't reasonable. They're using children as pawns in their bullshiat, which is as slimy as it gets. We're perfectly allowed to call them out on their Christian behavior.

Call them out, I guess, if that makes you feel good. It's no different than if I was funding a group and my religion forbade people walking on stilts. Then the group goes and hires people who walk on stilts. I pull my funding. It's is entirely reasonable. It may not be good or moral but reason isn't about those things.


People who walk on stilts are not inherently disadvantaged compared to abused and neglected foster children.
 
2014-03-11 04:53:46 PM  

Headso: yeah,  and if they want to do so with the money they give as charity then they should IMO


I don't think anyone's saying that they don't have the right to fund whatever charitable organization they choose.

I think everyone is saying they're colossal douchebags who do not follow the teachings of Christ for refusing to fund an organization that helps kids (you know, like Jesus said to do) simply because a gay person might someday work there.

You might have the "right" to do tons of things just because you want to do them, but many of the things you might choose to do will make you a colossal douchebag. The fact that they're wrapping it up with a big shiny cross, as if to say, "Well, sheesh, we'd love to help you, it tears our heart out that these kids will suffer, but, you know, we don't want to go to hell," makes them scum as well.
 
2014-03-11 04:55:01 PM  

Contrabulous Flabtraption: Call them out, I guess, if that makes you feel good. It's no different than if I was funding a group and my religion forbade people walking on stilts. Then the group goes and hires people who walk on stilts. I pull my funding. It's is entirely reasonable. It may not be good or moral but reason isn't about those things


Then what is it about? What makes not walking on stilts more important than kids having a home?
 
2014-03-11 04:56:51 PM  

boyofd: A little background on this case is that Sunrise, previously known as Kentucky Baptist Children's Home, was involved in a 15-year lawsuit centered around the termination of an employee for announcing that she was a lesbian.  There were also taxpayer claims brought against the Home and the State for funding it.   This suit was finally settled last year.  The discrimination claim was dismissed a while back because Title VII doesn't recognize sexual orientation as a protected category, but Kentucky still had to address its funding of an organization that required kids to attend church and fired gays, etc.

I'm pretty sure Sunrise changed its name partly in connection with the bad publicity of this lawsuit.  In any event, while I don't have much sympathy for Sunrise given that it started all of these problems by firing someone for being a lesbian, I also feel some sympathy for the recent director who found himself stuck between state and church funding, unable to satisfy both.

The bigger lesson here is that the use of religious organizations to perform government functions has unintended consequences down the road.  Here, a lot of children are directly dependent on an organization that will lose a significant portion of its funding (State or church donors) based on whether it keeps or drops a discriminatory policy.  We should probably avoid entanglements or else find ourselves in this impossible position.


Thank you for that. Have a month of TF.
 
2014-03-11 04:57:16 PM  

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

They aren't required to, but it really isn't reasonable. They're using children as pawns in their bullshiat, which is as slimy as it gets. We're perfectly allowed to call them out on their Christian behavior.

Call them out, I guess, if that makes you feel good. It's no different than if I was funding a group and my religion forbade people walking on stilts. Then the group goes and hires people who walk on stilts. I pull my funding. It's is entirely reasonable. It may not be good or moral but reason isn't about those things.


Yea, going by the definition of 'reasonable' (having sound judgment; fair and sensible), I would not say that's fair or sensible, or made with sound judgment. It's petty and vindictive.
 
2014-03-11 04:57:39 PM  

ox45tallboy: Headso: yeah,  and if they want to do so with the money they give as charity then they should IMO

I don't think anyone's saying that they don't have the right to fund whatever charitable organization they choose.

I think everyone is saying they're colossal douchebags who do not follow the teachings of Christ for refusing to fund an organization that helps kids (you know, like Jesus said to do) simply because a gay person might someday work there.

You might have the "right" to do tons of things just because you want to do them, but many of the things you might choose to do will make you a colossal douchebag. The fact that they're wrapping it up with a big shiny cross, as if to say, "Well, sheesh, we'd love to help you, it tears our heart out that these kids will suffer, but, you know, we don't want to go to hell," makes them scum as well.


It's a grotesque violation of the doctrine of double effect. Giving money to this agency is clearly intended to help the most needy of children and not to employ gay people. I bet none of these people would have a problem with me killing somebody if they were pointing a gun at my head or my child's head, but if you reject DDE, you should find me guilty of murder.
 
2014-03-11 05:00:10 PM  

ox45tallboy: boyofd: A little background on this case is that Sunrise, previously known as Kentucky Baptist Children's Home, was involved in a 15-year lawsuit centered around the termination of an employee for announcing that she was a lesbian.  There were also taxpayer claims brought against the Home and the State for funding it.   This suit was finally settled last year.  The discrimination claim was dismissed a while back because Title VII doesn't recognize sexual orientation as a protected category, but Kentucky still had to address its funding of an organization that required kids to attend church and fired gays, etc.

I'm pretty sure Sunrise changed its name partly in connection with the bad publicity of this lawsuit.  In any event, while I don't have much sympathy for Sunrise given that it started all of these problems by firing someone for being a lesbian, I also feel some sympathy for the recent director who found himself stuck between state and church funding, unable to satisfy both.

The bigger lesson here is that the use of religious organizations to perform government functions has unintended consequences down the road.  Here, a lot of children are directly dependent on an organization that will lose a significant portion of its funding (State or church donors) based on whether it keeps or drops a discriminatory policy.  We should probably avoid entanglements or else find ourselves in this impossible position.

Thank you for that. Have a month of TF.


You rock.  Muchos thanks.
 
2014-03-11 05:00:51 PM  

Katolu: Benevolent Misanthrope: Christians.  Just... Christians.  Fark.

This sums it up.


Indeed. And if decent people who call themselves Christians are upset by this kind of generalization, they can do something about it. They can say publicly and on a regular basis that asshole "christians" aren't Christians at all. Until then, they're just like the "good" cop who lets the bad cop do what he wants.
 
2014-03-11 05:01:34 PM  

grumpfuff: No, it's just a red herring.


Are you saying GLBT, atheists and liberals don't have charities?  Or that they don't care about, or give to children?  Or they are just as bad as these churches because they didn't give in the first place?  What is the red herring?

Why can't liberal, atheist or GLBT charities fill the need out of their own pockets if the Baptist won't empty theirs any longer?
 
2014-03-11 05:04:15 PM  
I've been 100% pro-gay rights for as long as i can remember and thought Clinton was a douche for DOMA and DADT, but I have an issue with having an issue discriminating against "openly gay" employees.  My issues is a church should be able to discriminate against openly sexual employees whether heterosexual or openly gay.  You don't work for a church and come to work and talk about sucking cauk or eating at the Y while at work.  It's not the place for lifestyle attention whoring.  If an employee won't shut up about their gayness or their hetero exploits or sexuality, you should be able fire them.  If an employee doesn't shut up about their black supremacy, racial superiority, or Jew hate, you should be able to fire them too.  Nobody should be forced to employ a person they find detestable and nobody should be forced to work for somebody they despise.  It's a two-way street.  Government employment should be different.
 
2014-03-11 05:06:39 PM  

TerminalEchoes: So gays boycott the Salvation Army for their anti-gay stance. Churches cut funding to children's home for accepting gays. Both circumstances involve a group of people "voting with their wallet" for what they believe in. What's the difference, honestly?


One group is fighting so that ALL people have the same rights. The other group is fighting to keep another group from enjoying the benefits that they themselves enjoy. It's not even "apples & oranges". It's "apples & cow pies".
 
2014-03-11 05:07:39 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."



I always find it weird when they want to carry on about wanting to be against intolerance when it comes to people being intolerant of their intolerance. I suppose it seems despicable to them to be in favor of intolerance, so the mental acrobatics they go through to equate the concepts, of coexisting with people and treating them as humans, to being horribly intolerant is kinda fascinating in a way.
 
2014-03-11 05:07:51 PM  

punkhippie: Katolu: Benevolent Misanthrope: Christians.  Just... Christians.  Fark.

This sums it up.

Indeed. And if decent people who call themselves Christians are upset by this kind of generalization, they can do something about it. They can say publicly and on a regular basis that asshole "christians" aren't Christians at all. Until then, they're just like the "good" cop who lets the bad cop do what he wants.


But... they are Christians.  "Church is the people", is the phrase Christians are fond of.  Well, there's a reason I and many other people have the opinion that, when someone tells us they are a Christian, we put our hands on our wallets and look for the door.  "Christian" has come to mean "people like these asshats" over time, because of their behavior.

Like miss diminutive, I'm not one little bit surprised that this was done by a Christian organization - be it Baptist, Catholic, Presbyterian or anything else.
 
2014-03-11 05:08:00 PM  

Tyee: grumpfuff: No, it's just a red herring.

Are you saying GLBT, atheists and liberals don't have charities?  Or that they don't care about, or give to children?  Or they are just as bad as these churches because they didn't give in the first place?  What is the red herring?

Why can't liberal, atheist or GLBT charities fill the need out of their own pockets if the Baptist won't empty theirs any longer?


I see you've graduated from red herring to begging the question.
 
2014-03-11 05:11:25 PM  
Benevolent Misanthrope: "Christian" has come to mean "people like these asshats" over time, because of their behavior.

Like miss diminutive, I'm not one little bit surprised that this was done by a Christian organization - be it Baptist, Catholic, Presbyterian or anything else.


Fair enough. I'm an ex-believer and so glad I'm free of that toxic bullshiat. But I still know a few decent people who call themselves Christian, so I can't condemn them all. Just most of them.
 
2014-03-11 05:12:44 PM  

Tyee: grumpfuff: No, it's just a red herring.

Are you saying GLBT, atheists and liberals don't have charities?  Or that they don't care about, or give to children?  Or they are just as bad as these churches because they didn't give in the first place?  What is the red herring?

Why can't liberal, atheist or GLBT charities fill the need out of their own pockets if the Baptist won't empty theirs any longer?


Argumentum ad odium.

Christians outnumber Atheists and Non-Christians in the country 8 to 1. Therefor, logic would reason they have a larger financhial base to donate to causes, and can hurt social causes far more by withdrawing funding. Withdrawing funding, in addition, that is done so in a manner hypocritical to their own religious teachings of charity, samaritanism, selflessness and altruism.
 
2014-03-11 05:12:49 PM  

Big_Fat_Liar: I've been 100% pro-gay rights for as long as i can remember and thought Clinton was a douche for DOMA and DADT, but I have an issue with having an issue discriminating against "openly gay" employees.  My issues is a church should be able to discriminate against openly sexual employees whether heterosexual or openly gay.  You don't work for a church and come to work and talk about sucking cauk or eating at the Y while at work.  It's not the place for lifestyle attention whoring.  If an employee won't shut up about their gayness or their hetero exploits or sexuality, you should be able fire them.  If an employee doesn't shut up about their black supremacy, racial superiority, or Jew hate, you should be able to fire them too.  Nobody should be forced to employ a person they find detestable and nobody should be forced to work for somebody they despise.  It's a two-way street.  Government employment should be different.


You're aware that this organization takes care of a needed government service (helping take care of and raise children abused and/or neglected by their parents) in exchange for government money?

And what in the world does someone's sexuality have anything to do with their at-work behavior? Here's a link to the incident described above by boyofd. The person in question had worked there for a while before someone found out she was romantically involved with a woman; obviously she was not "going on about her gayness" at work. Some people had a problem with the organization thinking it had the right to take government money and still discriminate on religious grounds, hence the lawsuit.
 
2014-03-11 05:13:50 PM  

Big_Fat_Liar: I've been 100% pro-gay rights for as long as i can remember and thought Clinton was a douche for DOMA and DADT, but I have an issue with having an issue discriminating against "openly gay" employees.  My issues is a church should be able to discriminate against openly sexual employees whether heterosexual or openly gay.  You don't work for a church and come to work and talk about sucking cauk or eating at the Y while at work.  It's not the place for lifestyle attention whoring.  If an employee won't shut up about their gayness or their hetero exploits or sexuality, you should be able fire them.  If an employee doesn't shut up about their black supremacy, racial superiority, or Jew hate, you should be able to fire them too.  Nobody should be forced to employ a person they find detestable and nobody should be forced to work for somebody they despise.  It's a two-way street.  Government employment should be different.


What places of employment have you worked at where a straight man openly talked about the fantastic blowjob his wife/fiancee/girlfriend gave him last night? What places of employment have you worked at where a straight women described in vulgar terms how her husband/fiance/boyfriend ate her twat to an earth-shattering orgasm last night? Unless my experience is atypical, this shiat simply does not happen. No, what happens most of the time is people calling their spouses to let them know plans for the day, hanging up innocent pictures of the couple together in their office/cubicle, or making G-rated small talk about what you did over the weekend. That's what gay people want to be able to do. They want to be able to politely mention their significant other/spouse in company. They want to put up pictures of their loved ones. They want to openly talk about their weekends without censoring out the fact that they have a loved one that they spend time with.
 
2014-03-11 05:17:34 PM  

scottydoesntknow: Whenever I had to go to church, I'd always whip out the bible in the pew and just read Revelations. Pretty much the only thing that interested me while there. It's definitely a trip.


The whole book is like that! There's talking bushes, giant man-eating whales, plagues of locusts, and 900 year old men. The Bible is like the print version of the SyFy network.

Big_Fat_Liar: My issues is a church should be able to discriminate against openly sexual employees whether heterosexual or openly gay. You don't work for a church and come to work and talk about sucking cauk or eating at the Y while at work. It's not the place for lifestyle attention whoring. If an employee won't shut up about their gayness or their hetero exploits or sexuality, you should be able fire them. If an employee doesn't shut up about their black supremacy, racial superiority, or Jew hate, you should be able to fire them too.


Fair enough. But does a woman mentioning "my wife" in passing, or a man mentioning "my boyfriend" qualify? Because that's all it takes, and that really isn't disruptive behavior, to any reasonable adult.
 
2014-03-11 05:17:51 PM  

hardinparamedic: Argumentum ad odium.


Or that.
 
2014-03-11 05:19:28 PM  

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

They aren't required to, but it really isn't reasonable. They're using children as pawns in their bullshiat, which is as slimy as it gets. We're perfectly allowed to call them out on their Christian behavior.

Call them out, I guess, if that makes you feel good. It's no different than if I was funding a group and my religion forbade people walking on stilts. Then the group goes and hires people who walk on stilts. I pull my funding. It's is entirely reasonable. It may not be good or moral but reason isn't about those things.


A couple of points, first, the principal guide for Christianity, the Bible, does not require anyone to refuse to hire LGBT people.  If anything, the Bible teaches people who are without sin to cast the first stone (meaning, butt out of other's business).

Second, the problem isn't so much that the "churches" pulled the funding, but that the "churches" set up a religious organization that discriminates, and then sought government funding (which kept that government funding from going to other groups that would not discriminate), and then it holds the Home hostage when it seeks to join the 21st century.  The long history of this Home makes it extremely complicated and complex, but at the end of the day, the analogy I would make is:

A church told the government that it would build an interstate across it's property if the government gave it > 50% of the funds to do so, and then 1/2 way through, when people start asking whether everyone will be permitted to drive on the interstate, the church says, "We won't take the Irish," and threatens to abandon the project if they have to.  I understand why the church is free to stop work on the project, but we all made a huge mistake when we thought that letting the church provide a government function (and paying for it) was a good idea in the first place.  Let's not do that anymore.
 
2014-03-11 05:21:18 PM  

Sin_City_Superhero: scottydoesntknow: Whenever I had to go to church, I'd always whip out the bible in the pew and just read Revelations. Pretty much the only thing that interested me while there. It's definitely a trip.

The whole book is like that! There's talking bushes, giant man-eating whales, plagues of locusts, and 900 year old men. The Bible is like the print version of the SyFy network.


Yea but there's so much crap to slog through to get to the good stuff. Revelations is the only one that's insane in the membrane from beginning to end.

/Judges was pretty good too
//Violent farkers in that book
 
2014-03-11 05:24:22 PM  
You never go full Kentucky.

/I know
/live in Kentucky.
 
2014-03-11 05:24:33 PM  
Hey Farkers, how about instead of biatching about how all those bigots make decisions about when and where to donate their money, why don't you just show them how wrong they are...

https://sunriseorg.worldsecuresystems.com/donate

that's what I thought... carry on.
 
2014-03-11 05:28:15 PM  

ox45tallboy: Big_Fat_Liar: I've been 100% pro-gay rights for as long as i can remember and thought Clinton was a douche for DOMA and DADT, but I have an issue with having an issue discriminating against "openly gay" employees.  My issues is a church should be able to discriminate against openly sexual employees whether heterosexual or openly gay.  You don't work for a church and come to work and talk about sucking cauk or eating at the Y while at work.  It's not the place for lifestyle attention whoring.  If an employee won't shut up about their gayness or their hetero exploits or sexuality, you should be able fire them.  If an employee doesn't shut up about their black supremacy, racial superiority, or Jew hate, you should be able to fire them too.  Nobody should be forced to employ a person they find detestable and nobody should be forced to work for somebody they despise.  It's a two-way street.  Government employment should be different.

You're aware that this organization takes care of a needed government service (helping take care of and raise children abused and/or neglected by their parents) in exchange for government money?

And what in the world does someone's sexuality have anything to do with their at-work behavior? Here's a link to the incident described above by boyofd. The person in question had worked there for a while before someone found out she was romantically involved with a woman; obviously she was not "going on about her gayness" at work. Some people had a problem with the organization thinking it had the right to take government money and still discriminate on religious grounds, hence the lawsuit.


This.

Also, legitimate churches are typically exempt from Title VII requirements, meaning your local Catholic Church can restrict itself to hiring good Catholics to be the Priest's secretary, or the janitor.  That exemption ends when you open up a gym and start selling memberships, for example.  But it is pretty obvious that there is no reason for the "church" to be permitted to discriminate when its business is not running a church, but providing homes to neglected and abused children, especially when the majority of the funding comes from the government.
 
2014-03-11 05:30:16 PM  

jpadc: Hey Farkers, how about instead of biatching about how all those bigots make decisions about when and where to donate their money, why don't you just show them how wrong they are...

https://sunriseorg.worldsecuresystems.com/donate

that's what I thought... carry on.


Because with the firing of the Executive Director, the Board of Directors has shown that they are unrepentant. The kids' needs are taken care of now, so any additional money donated to them will support their bigotry and not actually help the kids. The organization has not budgeted for my donation the way they have for the donations of the churches insisting on discrimination in the workplace.
 
2014-03-11 05:33:49 PM  

TerminalEchoes: So gays boycott the Salvation Army for their anti-gay stance. Churches cut funding to children's home for accepting gays. Both circumstances involve a group of people "voting with their wallet" for what they believe in. What's the difference, honestly?


Gays, as a group, don't profess to be looking out for and loving their fellow man. It's the hypocrisy, not the dick move.
 
2014-03-11 05:36:17 PM  
Freedom of Sex  >  Freedom of Religion
 
2014-03-11 05:37:55 PM  

jpadc: Hey Farkers, how about instead of biatching about how all those bigots make decisions about when and where to donate their money, why don't you just show them how wrong they are...

https://sunriseorg.worldsecuresystems.com/donate

that's what I thought... carry on.


Do I have to specifically donate to this one organization to adequately prove that I care about disadvantaged youth?
 
2014-03-11 05:41:39 PM  

Big_Fat_Liar: If an employee won't shut up about their gayness or their hetero exploits or sexuality, you should be able fire them.


Here's (one of) the actual lawsuits about this. (Waning: PDF, Start on Page 3's Statement of Facts.) The woman was hired in March of 1998. In August of 1998, a picture of her and her partner taken at an AIDS charity event was displayed at the Kentucky State Fair. She was questioned in September 1998 about the picture, and subsequently ordered to resign.

Apparently she couldn't shut up about her gayness so much that no one had any idea she was in a committed homosexual relationship the entire time she was employed there, and someone found out only because a picture of her and her partner was displayed someplace without her knowledge or consent.

Your post was silly, and this thread is now sillier for you having posted it.
 
2014-03-11 05:43:24 PM  

jpadc: Hey Farkers, how about instead of biatching about how all those bigots make decisions about when and where to donate their money, why don't you just show them how wrong they are...

https://sunriseorg.worldsecuresystems.com/donate

that's what I thought... carry on.


(1) That challenge would be better if the Home had made the policy change, and the Churches had carried through on their threat.  As it stands, you are asking us to be an additional source of revenue for an organization that steadfastly refuses to entertain a non-discrimination policy.

(2) As I wrote above, if you only pay attention the last act of withdrawing support, your argument makes some sense.  But if you follow from the beginning, a religious organization has offered to take care of kids in exchange for millions and millions of government money over the years, preventing appropriate non-discriminatory organizations from stepping in.  They aren't solely to blame, but I hope you agree that it is a mistake to create this type of entanglement in the future.
 
2014-03-11 05:43:45 PM  

Serious Black: Do I have to specifically donate to this one organization to adequately prove that I care about disadvantaged youth?


I would think putting effort into preventing religious organizations from instilling their particular flavor of beliefs into a child as a condition for a roof over his head and food in his belly might demonstrate some care for disadvantaged youth.
 
2014-03-11 05:44:33 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: Like miss diminutive, I'm not one little bit surprised that this was done by a Christian organization - be it Baptist, Catholic, Presbyterian or anything else.


I'm just not surprised that it was Baptist. I know plenty of Christians from other denominations who don't care whether or not someone is gay or straight and just want people to live out their lives and be happy.

I was simply commenting on a trend I've noticed. Whenever I read a story about some religious group in the US excelling in hyper-douchiness, 8 times out of 10 the group is Baptist.

/anecdotal evidence is anecdotey
 
2014-03-11 05:45:23 PM  

ox45tallboy: Jesus would not have behaved the way these churches have.


There's evidence that he would have: "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's; render unto God what is God's."

Exactly which owns what is what we're working out now. If "charity for abused children" is correctly to be usurped from the sacred world in favor of the secular, then the churches previously donating should find better use for their money fulfilling the mission they've chosen. The church members already pay taxes, which fulfills their obligation to the government.
 
Displayed 50 of 274 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report