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 Business Journals)   Mass Christian college to Obama Administration: We want an exemption from your proposed law so we can discriminate against hiring gays and lesbians. New England Association of School and College: So, about that accreditation of yours   (bizjournals.com) divider line 253
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

8946 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Jul 2014 at 3:25 PM (18 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-07-15 04:59:33 PM  

Danger Avoid Death: Gunny Highway: Magorn: Boerne SHOULD have been controlling in the Hobby Lobby case but wasn't so where we are now is anybody's guess

The backside of another dune.  Who knows what is on the other side.

[img.tfd.com image 600x338]

Sandworms. Lots and lots of sandworms. Wormsign even the likes of which even God has never seen.


"It is by derp alone I set my mind in motion."
 
2014-07-15 05:00:32 PM  

Nix Nightbird: Lordserb: Meh homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible. At least they are standing up for their beliefs.

No they aren't.

If they were standing up for the beliefs they're allegedly supposed to divine from Leviticus, then they wouldn't be hiring or admitting anyone who:

* Trims his beard
* Eats shellfish
* Eats blood (yes, even in a rare steak)
* Burns honey
* Touches unclean animals
* Has messy hair
* Tears their clothes
* Drinks alcohol in holy places
* Eats pork or rabbit
* Eats owl, bat, crow, raven, hawk, or kite.
* Goes to church within 33 days of giving birth to a boy
* Goes to church within 66 days of giving birth to a girl
* Has sex with someone during her menstrual cycle
* Reaps the very edges of a field
* Lies
* Steals
* Picks up grapes that have fallen to the ground
* Commits fraud against other people
* Bears a grudge
* Mixes fabrics in their clothing
* Cross-breeds animals
* Plants different seeds in the same field
* Eating the fruit of a tree within four years of planting it
* Reads their horoscope
* Uses a Magic 8-ball
* Cuts their hair at the sides
* Gets tattoos
* Mistreats foreigners
* Marries a widow or divorcee IF they seek to enter the clergy
* Works on Sunday
* Sells land permanently
* Doesn't stand in the presence of the elderly

Yet somehow, the only one of these rules from Leviticus that the Christian assholes get their panties in a twist about is the one about not laying with another man. It doesn't even mention lesbianism, specifically, and the line about laying with another man is mixed in with all the above garbage in Old Testament B.S. rules about what is and is not an "abomination".

If they're going to press one of those rules and say it's "fundamental to their faith" then they can't be picking and choosing from Leviticus-- the WHOLE THING has to be fundamental to their faith, and they just do not act like it is... It's only the parts they personally deem "icky" that causes them to embrace their hatred and wave it like a flag.


I'm too lazy to go look for it, but Jed Bartlet's speech on homosexuality being a sin seems appropriate for this thread.
 
2014-07-15 05:02:15 PM  

flondrix: Callous: Hint, Christ changed A LOT of the rules. Homosexuality isn't one of them though. Actually Christ never addressed the topic, but Paul did. That has left a lot of room for debate among Christians but the prevailing opinion is that it's a sin.

Has there ever been a breakaway sect of Christianity that regards St. Paul as some jerk who came along after Jesus had died, resurrected, and ascended and hijacked the religion?  If not, someone needs to start one.


Yes.

Apostle Paul Antichrist
 
2014-07-15 05:03:38 PM  

Bawdy George: Callous: Bawdy George: Callous: I May Be Crazy But...: Not all Very few Christians hate gays.

But many believe that homosexuality is a sin.  Some don't.  There are many many different Christian sects with different beliefs.

And stop throwing the "hate" word around.  For 99.9% of the people that believe that homosexuality is a sin there is no hate or malice involved.  All you do is drive a wedge in further by calling them names.  All it does is demonstrate to them how little you understand them while you scream and cry that they don't understand you.

[media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com image 236x460]
Au contraire

Thank you for demonstrating my point.

Callous: Hint, Christ changed A LOT of the rules. Homosexuality isn't one of them though. Actually Christ never addressed the topic, but Paul did. That has left a lot of room for debate among Christians but the prevailing opinion is that it's a sin.

Thank you for demonstrating my point.


If you have a point I have no idea what it is.  A cartoon from a politically slanted source is hardly a point.
 
2014-07-15 05:06:02 PM  

Callous: Do you hate alcoholics?  How about drug addicts?  Any of your friends or relatives have a criminal record?

You can object to the behavior and not hate the person.  Love doesn't require accepting everything about someone.  Why is it so black or white with you?


Let me see if I can try to explain why we say hate.

I don't hate alcoholics, drug addicts or felons. (Mind you, I also don't believe they're sinners, since I don't believe in sin, but that's getting off topic.) I also don't say that they shouldn't love the person they love. I don't say they shouldn't be allowed to marry the person they love.

When they're family or friends, I try to help them reduce the (secular) damage to their own lives. If they want to change, I support them in that. (How to change being a felon doesn't make sense, but it does on the first two.) Their souls aren't mine to judge.

What do the loving Christians do to the people they just think are sinning? They try to force their ideas on the homosexual people. They say, no matter if the person is a stranger with completely different ideas about sin, that the person can't be allowed to marry the one they love. They tell complete strangers not to love their lover. They tell them that they can't be a good person if they act on it.

The general treatment they get from the Christians, hate or not, is being treated as subhuman. I can only imagine what I'd feel if someone told me that I was an abomination for loving my wife. Whatever the inner feelings of the Christians in question, they don't act like they love gay folks.
 
2014-07-15 05:06:31 PM  
Poetic justice.
 
2014-07-15 05:08:04 PM  

ciberido: DubtodaIll: Dusk-You-n-Me: If discriminating against gays is essential to your religion, what does that say about your religion?

If you assume humanity has always had homosexuality as part of it's fabric why do you think it was forbidden in the first place?

First off, unlike some religious extremists, I prefer to let science explore and endeavor to reveal how and when things came to be rather than ASSUME that the just-so stories my distant ancestors told around their campfires explain things.

Second, to answer your question, I rather believe (to the extent it's as you say) it's for the same reason why it was forbidden to treat people with odd skin tones like equal human begins.  Fearing and disliking the other seems to be one of those things which we "assume" has always been part of humanity's fabric, as you call it.  It is to our shame that many religions codified these prejudices into divine edicts.

Third, homosexuality wasn't really forbidden by religion (not Christianity and certainly not all religions) "in the first place."  Homosexuality predates Christianity and probably all religions practiced today.  Most likely it predates humanity itself.  Nor did every religion which now condemns it always do so.  Specifically, Christianity did not always prohibit homosexuality.  That is, to put it broadly, a myth that is propagated party through ignorance and also because it is very embarrassing to admit that your religion has not always been as it is now.


Ok, so when did discrimation against himosexuality ever occur and why has it been a popular cultural aspect among so many cultures?
Don't get me wrong I'm all about love and treating others as you wish to be treated. However, I do enjoy playing devil advocate, especially if the primary force behind the argument is that "it's the right thing to do." Negative aspects of any successful culture still contribute to the success of that culture. If you're going to tear up a tradition it is best to replace it with something worthy of tradition.
 
2014-07-15 05:08:26 PM  

Callous: flondrix: Callous: Hint, Christ changed A LOT of the rules. Homosexuality isn't one of them though. Actually Christ never addressed the topic, but Paul did. That has left a lot of room for debate among Christians but the prevailing opinion is that it's a sin.

Has there ever been a breakaway sect of Christianity that regards St. Paul as some jerk who came along after Jesus had died, resurrected, and ascended and hijacked the religion?  If not, someone needs to start one.

Yes.

Apostle Paul Antichrist


I haven't read the book but I have seen a couple interviews with the author and he, and those that agree with him, believe that Paul was a plant by Rome to condition Christians to accept a centrally controlled Christian Church(The Catholic Church) as some of his teachings appear to be in opposition to Christ's teachings.  They believe that Christ preferred small local churches that weren't beholden to anyone else.

Having not read the book or dug into it deeply I have no opinion on it accept that he did seem to have some valid points.
 
2014-07-15 05:08:31 PM  

Boojum2k: Cyclometh: serial_crusher: Shouldn't an accreditation board make their decisions based on the actual quality of the education students get, not the assholeness of the assholes running the place?

Nope. They should take all relevant factors into account and discriminatory hiring policies are very much relevant.

This. The only concern anyone should have in hiring is "can this person do the job reliably and well?" What consenting adults do on their own time isn't anyone else's business, even if they talk about it at work.


So, "does this person have an accredited degree" is no longer a valid check to answer that question?
 
2014-07-15 05:09:30 PM  

kbronsito: My brother went a similar route in law school. The farking law school library (of all places) was not accessible to wheelchairs. He didn't want to sue them, only for them to correct the problem. Their attempt at reasonable accommodation was to have library staff run in and out to get him the books he needed, instead of spending money for the upgrades. They figured he'd graduate before the lawsuit could be completed and he'd lose interest. Several professors even offered to represent him but he felt they were just looking to fark over the dean to settle old scores rather than actually sincere about accessibility. So he saw an announcement about visitors to the University from the American Bar association and sent a nice note to the Dean explaining that he wasn't going to waste his time suing the university, when it was easier to tell the ABA what they were doing. If they lost their accreditation it would harm him because he'd have to switch schools... but it would hurt the school a lot more. Magically, the money to add a ramp and replace the elevator that was always broken appeared.


Your brother must be a fine lawyer- most law students wouldn't have his practical savvy, you generally learn that in practice (and sometimes the hard way.)  Cheers.
 
2014-07-15 05:09:56 PM  
Nix Nightbird:
If they're going to press one of those rules and say it's "fundamental to their faith" then they can't be picking and choosing from Leviticus-- the WHOLE THING has to be fundamental to their faith, and they just do not act like it is... It's only the parts they personally deem "icky" that causes them to embrace their hatred and wave it like a flag.

Well, they have an easy out on that one. If you look at the Bible as a whole, the law of the New Testament replaces the law of the Old. So we are no longer bound by all of those old rules.

If we're going to criticize bible-thumpers for cherry-picking verses to believe in, then bible-bashers shouldn't do the same.
 
2014-07-15 05:15:50 PM  

Lordserb: Meh homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible. At least they are standing up for their beliefs.


No, if they were standing up for their beliefs they would be willing to lose that sweet,sweet federal money they receive. These folds want the federal money but not to follow the rules associated with it.
 
2014-07-15 05:16:25 PM  
er.... fools not folds.
 
2014-07-15 05:17:44 PM  

Callous: No, it's the unrepentant part of it.  If you are living as an open homosexual or continue to engage in the behavior you're an unrepentant sinner.  An alcoholic who continues to drink is an unrepentant sinner as well.  While a recovering alcoholic who no longer drinks is a repentant sinner.  Therefore a homosexual who renounces homosexuality and no longer engages in the behavior would be a repentant sinner.

You can replace homosexuality or alcoholism with just about any sin.  The line is drawn at whether or not you are actively engaging in that sin without any intention of stopping or remorse.


That would be logical (however horrible) if indeed homosexuality were a behavior, as it was once thought to be.  But we now understand that homosexuality is part of who a person IS, it's an innate and unalterable characteristic like skin color.

The twist is, when I say "we now understand," I'm actually talking about something that happened thousands of years ago, since  Jesus Himself acknowledged that some men are born gay (as the term "'natural or non-castrated' eunuch" at that time could refer to a gay man).

In short, suggesting that a homosexual should repent of being gay is quite as asinine as suggesting that a black person should repent of their skin.

However, since you do bring the matter up, don't you think God disapproves of those who judge and condemn others, in defiance of His laws, and do so over and over again, unrepentantly?
 
2014-07-15 05:18:33 PM  

Arumat: Copper Spork: netizencain: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

Establishment means they can't start their own religion. It does not mean they can't enforce someone else's religion. All it means is that you are free to choose how to worship Jesus Christ, whether you are a Catholic, Protestant or Evangelical.

I really wish there weren't so many people eagerly and genuinely dishing up this Poeslaw.


Edgar Allen's Poe Slawtm to be offered on Fishtastic Friday's at The Pit and the Pendulum
 
2014-07-15 05:21:32 PM  

NotARocketScientist: er.... fools not folds.


I was half wondering if that was some sort of new slang the kids are using these days.
 
2014-07-15 05:22:23 PM  
I May Be Crazy But...: Callous: Do you hate alcoholics?  How about drug addicts?  Any of your friends or relatives have a criminal record?

You can object to the behavior and not hate the person.  Love doesn't require accepting everything about someone.  Why is it so black or white with you?

Let me see if I can try to explain why we say hate.

I don't hate alcoholics, drug addicts or felons. (Mind you, I also don't believe they're sinners, since I don't believe in sin, but that's getting off topic.) I also don't say that they shouldn't love the person they love. I don't say they shouldn't be allowed to marry the person they love.


If you don't believe in any behavior being wrong I can't even have an intelligent conversation with you.

When they're family or friends, I try to help them reduce the (secular) damage to their own lives. If they want to change, I support them in that. (How to change being a felon doesn't make sense, but it does on the first two.) Their souls aren't mine to judge.

So if they wish to continue being a serial killer or child rapist you are okay with that because who are you to judge?

What do the loving Christians do to the people they just think are sinning? They try to force their ideas on the homosexual people. They say, no matter if the person is a stranger with completely different ideas about sin, that the person can't be allowed to marry the one they love. They tell complete strangers not to love their lover. They tell them that they can't be a good person if they act on it.

Yes people who believe that someone is engaging in wrong behavior often try to stop that from occurring.

The general treatment they get from the Christians, hate or not, is being treated as subhuman. I can only imagine what I'd feel if someone told me that I was an abomination for loving my wife. Whatever the inner feelings of the Christians in question, they don't act like they love gay folks.

So you've never seen it happen but because you have heard stories of it happening to someone else it must be true of all Christians?

Stop painting with such a wide brush or don't be surprised when someone says that all homosexuals behave like the worst examples they can find.
 
2014-07-15 05:22:23 PM  

Nix Nightbird: If they were standing up for the beliefs they're allegedly supposed to divine from Leviticus, then they wouldn't be hiring or admitting anyone who:


[list deleted]

You left out "loans money at interest".  It is prohibited several times in the OT, yet people forget to bring it up in lists like this.  Since a lot of conservatives work with money, this is a stronger arguing point than the usual cotton-polyester blends and lobster.

The "selling land permanently" think is new on me.  I'll have to look that one up.
 
2014-07-15 05:23:46 PM  
Is the NEASC also de-accrediting Saint Joseph, Mount Holyoke, Wellesley, or Smith?

Is discrimination against a class what's banned, or just when it's their ox being gored?
 
2014-07-15 05:25:41 PM  

qorkfiend: This can't be true. I was informed that the HL decision would never, ever, under any circumstances, be cited in an attempt to justify discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.


You were told no such thing. You were told those lawsuits would not win.

\you can indict a ham sandwich
 
2014-07-15 05:26:26 PM  

Callous: Bawdy George: Callous: Bawdy George: Callous: I May Be Crazy But...: Not all Very few Christians hate gays.

But many believe that homosexuality is a sin.  Some don't.  There are many many different Christian sects with different beliefs.

And stop throwing the "hate" word around.  For 99.9% of the people that believe that homosexuality is a sin there is no hate or malice involved.  All you do is drive a wedge in further by calling them names.  All it does is demonstrate to them how little you understand them while you scream and cry that they don't understand you.

[media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com image 236x460]
Au contraire

Thank you for demonstrating my point.

Callous: Hint, Christ changed A LOT of the rules. Homosexuality isn't one of them though. Actually Christ never addressed the topic, but Paul did. That has left a lot of room for debate among Christians but the prevailing opinion is that it's a sin.

Thank you for demonstrating my point.

If you have a point I have no idea what it is.  A cartoon from a politically slanted source is hardly a point.


Here's the point...

Panel 2 of the cartoon: "I accept you as you are, so every night I go home and pray that you'll reject one of the most fundamental aspects of your identity"
You: "You don't understaaaaand Christians"
You, 5 minutes later: "the prevailing opinion is that it's a sin"

Hope that clears things up.
 
2014-07-15 05:27:12 PM  

TheOtherMisterP: Well, they have an easy out on that one. If you look at the Bible as a whole, the law of the New Testament replaces the law of the Old. So we are no longer bound by all of those old rules.


Then they should be quoting Leviticus in such an in-your-face manner.  (Literally--sometimes they shove a sign marked with the relevant passage from Leviticus into people's faces.)

So far as I recall, Jesus only mentioned sexual sins on three occasions--and one of those was to condemn divorce.  (Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the USA, while the Bible Belt is way up there.)
 
2014-07-15 05:28:08 PM  

ciberido: Callous: No, it's the unrepentant part of it.  If you are living as an open homosexual or continue to engage in the behavior you're an unrepentant sinner.  An alcoholic who continues to drink is an unrepentant sinner as well.  While a recovering alcoholic who no longer drinks is a repentant sinner.  Therefore a homosexual who renounces homosexuality and no longer engages in the behavior would be a repentant sinner.

You can replace homosexuality or alcoholism with just about any sin.  The line is drawn at whether or not you are actively engaging in that sin without any intention of stopping or remorse.

That would be logical (however horrible) if indeed homosexuality were a behavior, as it was once thought to be.  But we now understand that homosexuality is part of who a person IS, it's an innate and unalterable characteristic like skin color.

The twist is, when I say "we now understand," I'm actually talking about something that happened thousands of years ago, since  Jesus Himself acknowledged that some men are born gay (as the term "'natural or non-castrated' eunuch" at that time could refer to a gay man).

In short, suggesting that a homosexual should repent of being gay is quite as asinine as suggesting that a black person should repent of their skin.

However, since you do bring the matter up, don't you think God disapproves of those who judge and condemn others, in defiance of His laws, and do so over and over again, unrepentantly?


And you just hit the nail on the head as to the debate among Christians that I mentioned earlier.  And a eunuch was someone that was asexual/impotent as a result of castration or birth, not homosexual, as I've always understood them.
 
2014-07-15 05:28:33 PM  

Magorn: So you'd be totally okay with say Bob Jones Universality being fully accredited, even though they forbid interracial dating, for example, just so long as they have a good English department?


Yes?

If the concept is that accreditation determines whether your piece of paper actually conveys some manner of sufficient education, then yes. If the accreditation determines whether your institution upholds some social cause in a popularly acceptable manner, then no.

But whether or not your English degree is worthwhile shouldn't depend on whether you learned it in a LEED-certified building.
 
2014-07-15 05:28:44 PM  
This any different than Obama making government agencies hire people based on race?
 
2014-07-15 05:29:51 PM  

dwrash: Why do people hate freedom of association so much and insist on forcing their beliefs on those that just wish to be left alone?


You can associate with whoever you want - on your own dime.
On my dime, there are rules.
 
2014-07-15 05:30:02 PM  

DubtodaIll: Ok, so when did discrimation against himosexuality ever occur and why has it been a popular cultural aspect among so many cultures?


I already said "Fearing and disliking The Other seems to be one of those things which we "assume" has always been part of humanity's fabric, as you call it" in my last post.   I'm sorry if my failure to capitalize and link "The Other" made my point unclear.

If it helps, the somewhat-oversimplified version is "Because people are assholes,"

This is also, by the way, one reason why I think the radical "New" atheists are fooling themselves (quite apart from their certainty that all religion is false, which I do not share.)  Even if all religion were to die out (which I do not think will happen), humanity would still find ways to be dicks to each other.  Dickery is a part of who we are, and it will never go away.  All we can do is try to use our collective power (via tools such as laws and police and education) to counter that dickery as best we can.

Who exactly "The Other" is changes: this is human history.  But the basic story is the same.  Today it's "Transgendered people are vile and inferior."  Yesterday it was "Gay people are vile and inferior."  A year ago it was "People with dark skin are vile and inferior."   A few centuries ago it was "People with funny accents are vile and inferior."

In a month it will probably be "People with attached earlobes are vile and inferior."
 
2014-07-15 05:30:50 PM  

Bawdy George: Callous: Bawdy George: Callous: Bawdy George: Callous: I May Be Crazy But...: Not all Very few Christians hate gays.

But many believe that homosexuality is a sin.  Some don't.  There are many many different Christian sects with different beliefs.

And stop throwing the "hate" word around.  For 99.9% of the people that believe that homosexuality is a sin there is no hate or malice involved.  All you do is drive a wedge in further by calling them names.  All it does is demonstrate to them how little you understand them while you scream and cry that they don't understand you.

[media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com image 236x460]
Au contraire

Thank you for demonstrating my point.

Callous: Hint, Christ changed A LOT of the rules. Homosexuality isn't one of them though. Actually Christ never addressed the topic, but Paul did. That has left a lot of room for debate among Christians but the prevailing opinion is that it's a sin.

Thank you for demonstrating my point.

If you have a point I have no idea what it is.  A cartoon from a politically slanted source is hardly a point.

Here's the point...

Panel 2 of the cartoon: "I accept you as you are, so every night I go home and pray that you'll reject one of the most fundamental aspects of your identity"
You: "You don't understaaaaand Christians"
You, 5 minutes later: "the prevailing opinion is that it's a sin"

Hope that clears things up.


So misunderstanding = hate?
 
2014-07-15 05:31:14 PM  

ciberido: That liquid that comes from a rare steak is not blood. It's myoglobin. Of course, since this is religion you're talking about, you can always say "well, it COUNTS as blood" the same way electricity counts as fire for some Jews.


Is this why Passover contains a ban on new-world foodstuffs, like corn and potatoes?
 
2014-07-15 05:32:20 PM  

flondrix: Has there ever been a breakaway sect of Christianity that regards St. Paul as some jerk who came along after Jesus had died, resurrected, and ascended and hijacked the religion?


The gnostics.
 
2014-07-15 05:33:19 PM  

with great power comes great insanity: Lordserb: Meh homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible. At least they are standing up for their beliefs.

There's a lot of other sins that I bet they aren't worrying about in their hiring decisions.

Do all their employees keep the Sabbath holy, honour their parents, reject wearing clothing of differing fabrics, and stop people with eye defects from going to church?


You are mixing up religious practices that are not relevant for the Christian. No, I would not expect them to reject wearing different fabric clothing, but I would expect them to not hire those practicing adultery or alcoholics or any number of people currently engaged in a sinful lifestyle.

No Christian should hate a gay individual, but they don't have to support or encourage their sin.
 
2014-07-15 05:36:20 PM  

Magorn: Human sacrifice?


Tourist season in D.C..  No bag limit, no slot.
 
2014-07-15 05:36:24 PM  

Lordserb: with great power comes great insanity: Lordserb: Meh homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible. At least they are standing up for their beliefs.

There's a lot of other sins that I bet they aren't worrying about in their hiring decisions.

Do all their employees keep the Sabbath holy, honour their parents, reject wearing clothing of differing fabrics, and stop people with eye defects from going to church?

You are mixing up religious practices that are not relevant for the Christian. No, I would not expect them to reject wearing different fabric clothing, but I would expect them to not hire those practicing adultery or alcoholics or any number of people currently engaged in a sinful lifestyle.

No Christian should hate a gay individual, but they don't have to support or encourage their sin.


Nobody said they did. If they want Federal Money or state accreditation, they have to follow certain rules - but that applies to everybody -- not just Christians.
 
2014-07-15 05:37:19 PM  

ciberido: DubtodaIll: Ok, so when did discrimation against himosexuality ever occur and why has it been a popular cultural aspect among so many cultures?

I already said "Fearing and disliking The Other seems to be one of those things which we "assume" has always been part of humanity's fabric, as you call it" in my last post.   I'm sorry if my failure to capitalize and link "The Other" made my point unclear.

If it helps, the somewhat-oversimplified version is "Because people are assholes,"

This is also, by the way, one reason why I think the radical "New" atheists are fooling themselves (quite apart from their certainty that all religion is false, which I do not share.)  Even if all religion were to die out (which I do not think will happen), humanity would still find ways to be dicks to each other.  Dickery is a part of who we are, and it will never go away.  All we can do is try to use our collective power (via tools such as laws and police and education) to counter that dickery as best we can.

Who exactly "The Other" is changes: this is human history.  But the basic story is the same.  Today it's "Transgendered people are vile and inferior."  Yesterday it was "Gay people are vile and inferior."  A year ago it was "People with dark skin are vile and inferior."   A few centuries ago it was "People with funny accents are vile and inferior."

In a month it will probably be "People with attached earlobes are vile and inferior."


I'm more of the school that traditions arise independenty due to the success of the individuals practicing that tradition. While people are dicks, there's no doubting that, I don't think all discriminatory action is done out of hatred. Religion, for all it's faults, has the lofty goal of appealing to our better halves in order to promote a successful and stable civilization. On the whole I do agree with your statements.
 
2014-07-15 05:37:55 PM  

TheOtherMisterP: Nix Nightbird:
If they're going to press one of those rules and say it's "fundamental to their faith" then they can't be picking and choosing from Leviticus-- the WHOLE THING has to be fundamental to their faith, and they just do not act like it is... It's only the parts they personally deem "icky" that causes them to embrace their hatred and wave it like a flag.

Well, they have an easy out on that one. If you look at the Bible as a whole, the law of the New Testament replaces the law of the Old. So we are no longer bound by all of those old rules.

If we're going to criticize bible-thumpers for cherry-picking verses to believe in, then bible-bashers shouldn't do the same.


Except that liberal Christians like me FREELY AND CHEERFULLY ADMIT that we pick-and-choose when it comes to the Bible.  The fundamentalist types DENY that they are cherry-picking even when it's repeatedly pointed out exactly which parts they're choosing to ignore.  And it's that hypocrisy and lack of self-awareness that makes this whole issue so frustrating.  If they could at least admit that they're doing the exact same thing, we'd have a much more productive dialog.

Or, of course, they could choose to go all in and actually follow the Bible in its littlest detail.  The result would be that they'd end up a small, quirky, and mostly impotent group like that Amish.   Which would be fine because they'd lose the power to screw with the rest of us.
 
2014-07-15 05:38:25 PM  

serial_crusher: Boojum2k: Cyclometh: serial_crusher: Shouldn't an accreditation board make their decisions based on the actual quality of the education students get, not the assholeness of the assholes running the place?

Nope. They should take all relevant factors into account and discriminatory hiring policies are very much relevant.

This. The only concern anyone should have in hiring is "can this person do the job reliably and well?" What consenting adults do on their own time isn't anyone else's business, even if they talk about it at work.

So, "does this person have an accredited degree" is no longer a valid check to answer that question?


An accredited degree is a way of identifying someone as being able to do certain jobs, so in those cases it certainly still is a valid check. Not sure what this has to do with discrimination against LGBT people though.
 
2014-07-15 05:38:41 PM  
Federal appeals court just ruled that a Texas (of all places) college can use race in admissions.

So, which classes are protected, which are not again?
 
2014-07-15 05:40:20 PM  

This text is now purple: ciberido: That liquid that comes from a rare steak is not blood. It's myoglobin. Of course, since this is religion you're talking about, you can always say "well, it COUNTS as blood" the same way electricity counts as fire for some Jews.

Is this why Passover contains a ban on new-world foodstuffs, like corn and potatoes?


The Passover rules were, essentially, "don't let bread rise", which got reduced to "grain + water + 18 minutes' time" (by tradition; there's no 'science' behind that formula). "Grain" referred to the Main 5 - barley, rye, oats, wheat, spelt - but there's something about the "grain" form (kernels) as well.

So corn, as a "grain", isn't on the same level of prohibition as wheat - it's in a group called kitniyot ("small ones") that includes peanuts as well. Sephardi Jews (those from Western Europe, North Africa, and the ME) don't follow that custom, and those farkers eat peanut butter on matza like they own the place.

// and potatoes are A-OK on Passover - don't know where you heard that one
 
2014-07-15 05:40:32 PM  
Jesus christ someone give Thunderpipes the attention he's clearly desperate for.
 
2014-07-15 05:41:29 PM  

Callous: I May Be Crazy But...:  When they're family or friends, I try to help them reduce the (secular) damage to their own lives. If they want to change, I support them in that. (How to change being a felon doesn't make sense, but it does on the first two.) Their souls aren't mine to judge.

So if they wish to continue being a serial killer or child rapist you are okay with that because who are you to judge?


If you cannot grasp the difference between something two consenting adults do together and something a criminal inflicts upon an unwilling victim, then you are not fit to participate in this conversation.
 
2014-07-15 05:43:40 PM  
Callous

Isn't there something in there (Deuteronomy, IIRC) that says that only god knows the hierarchy of which sins are "worse" than others?

So homosexuality might not be as bad as, say, theft or usury or adultery or wearing mixed fibers, etc. Odd that Christianity has chosen that hill to die on.
 
2014-07-15 05:47:33 PM  

Nix Nightbird: Lordserb: Meh homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible. At least they are standing up for their beliefs.

No they aren't.

If they were standing up for the beliefs they're allegedly supposed to divine from Leviticus, then they wouldn't be hiring or admitting anyone who:



Love that list.  Let's see what I can check off...

* Trims his beard

Yep

* Eats shellfish

Love shellfish!

* Eats blood (yes, even in a rare steak)

Pass that blood sausage, please!

* Burns honey

Only by accident while making mead one time...  Why waste honey?

* Touches unclean animals

They pretty much all are unclean, so yep.

* Has messy hair

Yeah, it's kinda ratty right now.  I'll get it cut when I get around to it.

* Tears their clothes

I did rip up some old t-shirts to make some rags recently...  Does ripping someone else's panties off count, I've done that before (with her permission, of course)?

* Drinks alcohol in holy places

Well, no such place, but I'll drink alcohol pretty much wherever.

* Eats pork or rabbit

Yummy!  I'll have the ribs and the hasenpfeffer, please!

* Eats owl, bat, crow, raven, hawk, or kite.

Hmm...  I've heard bat can be tasty, I'm sure I'll try it sometime.  I'm not eating a kite, though.  Plastic, paper, wood, and string just don't sound good to me.

* Goes to church within 33 days of giving birth to a boy
* Goes to church within 66 days of giving birth to a girl

Wouldn't dream of going to church.  Oh, and am male.

* Has sex with someone during her menstrual cycle

Oh yeah.  Hey, extra lube!

* Reaps the very edges of a field

No, and not likely to.  Farming has no appeal to me.

* Lies

Done it.

* Steals

Copying isn't theft.

* Picks up grapes that have fallen to the ground

5 second rule.

* Commits fraud against other people

That is kinda rude.

* Bears a grudge

A few.

* Mixes fabrics in their clothing

Technically, the kids in the sweatshops did it for me.

* Cross-breeds animals
* Plants different seeds in the same field

Farming.  Nope.

* Eating the fruit of a tree within four years of planting it

Yep.  Tiny little peach, but I had to taste it.  It was ok.

* Reads their horoscope

Only for occasional amusement.  But hey, it's as real as their god, so there's that.

* Uses a Magic 8-ball

There's an app for that.

* Cuts their hair at the sides

Done it.

* Gets tattoos

I hate needles.  So no.

* Mistreats foreigners

Only if they annoy me.

* Marries a widow or divorcee IF they seek to enter the clergy

Why would I marry a crazy woman?  I mean, really, I'm not marrying anybody who wants to go become clergy.  Well, unless it's ULC or the Humanist Jews, since they're good with atheists.

* Works on Sunday

Yep.  Hey, I get bored.

* Sells land permanently

Um, sure.

* Doesn't stand in the presence of the elderly

Only if I feel like being nice and there aren't any other seats - but I don't live in NYC, so it's a rare occasion.
 
2014-07-15 05:47:34 PM  

genner: The important thing to remember is that gay marriage doesn't affect you...... as long you don't run a bakery.....or a school.


How does it affect you if you run a bakery or a school?
 
2014-07-15 05:47:56 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Jesus christ someone give Thunderpipes the attention he's clearly desperate for.


i was hoping that was a figment of my imagination.  I mean, no one could be that dense an be real.
 
2014-07-15 05:48:34 PM  

Dr Dreidel: This text is now purple: ciberido: That liquid that comes from a rare steak is not blood. It's myoglobin. Of course, since this is religion you're talking about, you can always say "well, it COUNTS as blood" the same way electricity counts as fire for some Jews.

Is this why Passover contains a ban on new-world foodstuffs, like corn and potatoes?

The Passover rules were, essentially, "don't let bread rise", which got reduced to "grain + water + 18 minutes' time" (by tradition; there's no 'science' behind that formula). "Grain" referred to the Main 5 - barley, rye, oats, wheat, spelt - but there's something about the "grain" form (kernels) as well.

So corn, as a "grain", isn't on the same level of prohibition as wheat - it's in a group called kitniyot ("small ones") that includes peanuts as well. Sephardi Jews (those from Western Europe, North Africa, and the ME) don't follow that custom, and those farkers eat peanut butter on matza like they own the place.

// and potatoes are A-OK on Passover - don't know where you heard that one


lifewithcake.com

So these babies are kosher, then?
 
2014-07-15 05:48:51 PM  

Callous: Bawdy George: Callous: Bawdy George: Callous: Bawdy George: Callous: I May Be Crazy But...: Not all Very few Christians hate gays.

But many believe that homosexuality is a sin.  Some don't.  There are many many different Christian sects with different beliefs.

And stop throwing the "hate" word around.  For 99.9% of the people that believe that homosexuality is a sin there is no hate or malice involved.  All you do is drive a wedge in further by calling them names.  All it does is demonstrate to them how little you understand them while you scream and cry that they don't understand you.

[media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com image 236x460]
Au contraire

Thank you for demonstrating my point.

Callous: Hint, Christ changed A LOT of the rules. Homosexuality isn't one of them though. Actually Christ never addressed the topic, but Paul did. That has left a lot of room for debate among Christians but the prevailing opinion is that it's a sin.

Thank you for demonstrating my point.

If you have a point I have no idea what it is.  A cartoon from a politically slanted source is hardly a point.

Here's the point...

Panel 2 of the cartoon: "I accept you as you are, so every night I go home and pray that you'll reject one of the most fundamental aspects of your identity"
You: "You don't understaaaaand Christians"
You, 5 minutes later: "the prevailing opinion is that it's a sin"

Hope that clears things up.

So misunderstanding = hate?


No, but telling someone that an innate, fundamental aspect of their identity is an offense against God = hate. As much as Christians would like to avoid admitting it. Oh, wait, I forgot - "love the sinner, hate the sin" makes it all better!

Right?
 
2014-07-15 05:49:06 PM  

Callous: And stop throwing the "hate" word around.  For 99.9% of the people that believe that homosexuality is a sin there is no hate or malice involved.  All you do is drive a wedge in further by calling them names.  All it does is demonstrate to them how little you understand them while you scream and cry that they don't understand you.


Here's the thing.  We don't really CARE whether you hate us or not.  We care what you do to us.  You can hate, hate, hate your neighbor across the street for his black skin, or love, love, love him because you think he's the bee's knees.  Doesn't matter.  What does matter is whether you burn a cross on his lawn, or slash his tires.  If you do, then you are an asshole and you need to be stopped.

And when the police come to arrest you for setting his house on fire, you crying, "There is no hate or malice involved!  Some of my best friends are black!" isn't going to matter.  You're still a farking arsonist, and you still are going to rot in jail.
 
2014-07-15 05:52:02 PM  

Lordserb: No Christian should hate a gay individual, but they don't have to support or encourage their sin.


They do if they want to keep their accreditation and federal money, it would seem.
 
2014-07-15 05:52:57 PM  

qorkfiend: This can't be true. I was informed that the HL decision would never, ever, under any circumstances, be cited in an attempt to justify discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.


You were assured that it wouldn't be used to justify racial discrimination which now SCOTUS considers to be evil.  Past supreme courts were not always certain about the evil of racism.

Homosexuals (and women to a large extent), however, are still OK targets for discrimination.  We still have a long way to go.
 
2014-07-15 05:57:30 PM  

MyRandomName: qorkfiend: This can't be true. I was informed that the HL decision would never, ever, under any circumstances, be cited in an attempt to justify discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

It still isnt. All HL didwas state the executive had to follow a congressionally passed law. It was a statutory case. There are still 3 steps to be met to allow the college to discriminate. HL changed no laws. None. Zero. It just told the administration to follow it.

Sorry you remain ignorant to reality.


Sorry, that might be the political spin placed on the majority opinion by political types who favored the outcome, but it's not true.  The RFRA is not a run of the mill statute based wholly upon legislative powers, but one that includes past First Amendment juridical thinking by reference.  The majority interpreted RFRA as restricting Congressional power to burden free exercise of religion beyond the scope of the right protected by the First Amendment, despite a contrary intent expressly included in the text of the act when it passed the act. Usual appellate court practice is to look to the text alone to interpret a given statute and to refuse to look to the legislative history to determine legislative intentif any ambiguity exists in the text. but here Alito refused to look to the text's express statement of intent and purpose to resolve what he saw as an ambiguity in the use of "person" in the act.  That makes the opinion unusual and almost unprecedented.

Alito further abandoned precedent in his effective reverse piercing of the corporate veil when he disregarded the separate identity of a for-profit business corporation from that of its owners and stated that there was no separate identity from the religious beliefs of the owners and those of the corporation.  No previous SCOTUS case had recognized a religious belief in a for profit business corporation. Until Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. clear distinctions had been drawn between the nature and purposes of non-profit charitable and religious corporate "persons" on one hand and those of for profit business corporations on the other and the body of law regarding each was correspondingly different.  With respect to business corporations, the separate identities of the natural person(s) who incorporated them and the corporation itself was rarely disregarded and when it was that refusal to recognize a separate identity was grounded in equitable principles (e.g. fraud) rather than law.

Only one previous SCOTUS case had been granted cert where one of the parties had attempted to claim such a religious belief in a for profit business corporation and in that case the Court issued an adverse ruling on the merits in favor of the challenged statutes finding that it wasn't necessary to address the claim of religious belief in the for profit business corporation.  It's silly to summarize this as "telling the administration to follow" a statue that had never been given this interpretation or the fundamental shift in precedent in American Corporate law.
 
Displayed 50 of 253 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