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 106
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

8955 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Jul 2014 at 3:25 PM (23 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-07-15 01:12:42 PM  
19 votes:
They should lose their accreditation for even suggesting that they would do this. The college itself has demonstrated a complete lack of higher-level critical and analytic thinking; how can it now be expected to pass on these traits to students?
2014-07-15 03:56:03 PM  
15 votes:

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.
2014-07-15 01:30:15 PM  
11 votes:
He took his 30 pieces of silver, and now he doesn't want the Pharisees telling him what to do?

That's not how it works.
2014-07-15 01:55:42 PM  
9 votes:

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

If the law has to be written in a manner to exclude you based on your religion... that's the same damn thing!


Problem is you have to read the back end of that sentence "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof "

what gets sticky is what constitutes an "exercise" of a religion?

Is making the Amish participate in Social Security violating their religious belief that any form of insurance is immoral as it indicates a lack of trust in god? (or to make that example more up to date, How will the individual mandate fare against Christian Scientists claiming they have a right NOT to have insurance since they don't believe in modern medicine)

How about a requirement that kids attend school until they are 16 (again Amish and some Mennonites believe that any schooling beyond the 6th grade level is immoral because it will make the person vain and proud of what they know)


What about using a drug in a religious ceremony that the federal government has banned?

Animal sacrifice in contravention of local animal cruelty laws?

Human sacrifice?

Up until recently the Supreme Court had been severely limiting "free exercise" challenges to "laws of general jurisdiction" which is to say a law passed for a general and non-discriminatory purpose that just happened to infringe on a person's religious freedom.  This started in the  Smith case where the court ruled that a guy could be fired for failing a drug test even when he was authentically native American and the drug was taken during a religious ceremony.

In response Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, essentially reversing the Supreme Court and overturning   Smith

Whereupon the court heard   city of Boerne V. Flores in which the SCOTUS eesentially told Congress to blow it out their assholes, and overturn RFRA saying it was the COURT and not Congress who had the power to define what an infringement of religious freedom looked like, and since the court had already said in Smith that Free exercise had not been violated, Congress had no intrinsic power under the 14th amendment to pass RFRA

Boerne SHOULD have been controlling in the   Hobby Lobby case but wasn't so where we are now is anybody's guess
2014-07-15 03:55:22 PM  
8 votes:
The bible has VERY little to say about homosexuality. It has far more to say about pre-marital heterosexual activity.

I'd argue that if Christian colleges don't want to hire homosexuals, then they should not hire unmarried non-virgins either.

The bible does teach that homosexuality is a sin. It also teaches that everyone is a sinner. So why make a special case against teh gheys?
2014-07-15 02:03:19 PM  
8 votes:
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.
2014-07-15 03:37:12 PM  
7 votes:
Do I understand this correctly? They want to be able to discriminate based on orientation but still receive federal funding?
2014-07-15 03:45:04 PM  
5 votes:

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?
2014-07-15 03:30:15 PM  
5 votes:

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.
2014-07-15 03:54:34 PM  
4 votes:
Wife went to college near there.  Gordon kids used to come to athletic events at wife's college to tell everyone they were going to hell. Good times.  I also work with people who went there, and once (while discussion how to teach the age of the universe with one of our other science guys, since that's the type of stuff we do) offended one of them by joking about the devil burring dinosaur bones to fool us.  So aside from the general issue of them being homophobes, I'm also rooting against them for personal reasons.

Best thing an accreditation organization could do is stop pretending a place of ignorance and hate is actually a place of higher learning.
2014-07-15 03:52:06 PM  
4 votes:

rjakobi: I think the question we should be asking is if a gay and/or lesbian individual would have been considering putting an application into a Christian college for anything other than masochistic reasons.


You do realize there are GLBT christians and teaching jobs aren't plentiful.
2014-07-15 03:37:13 PM  
4 votes:

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


If discriminating against gays is essential to your religion, what does that say about your religion?
2014-07-15 03:31:05 PM  
4 votes:
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.
2014-07-15 05:41:29 PM  
3 votes:

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 05:06:02 PM  
3 votes:

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 04:27:47 PM  
3 votes:

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?


Funny thing is, if you want to be accredited, there's a list of rules you have to agree to follow.  Let's take a look at rule 11.5, shall we?

11.5  The institution adheres to non-discriminatory policies and practices in recruitment, admissions, employment, evaluation, disciplinary action, and advancement. It fosters an atmosphere within the institutional community that respects and supports people of diverse characteristics and backgrounds.
2014-07-15 03:41:09 PM  
3 votes:

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.


Good on him. Sometimes, when honey doesn't work, a dash of vinegar in your opponent's mouth does, in fact, cause him to stop grinning in denial.
2014-07-15 08:33:21 PM  
2 votes:

Bawdy George: Callous:  Please demonstrate where I tried to defend it.

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.

Nope, totally not defending Christian bigotry. At least you didn't try to deny your utter failure.


Defining how their beliefs work is not defending it.  I was merely trying to give people the facts about how Christian beliefs are formed, right wrong or indifferent.  You apparently can't handle that and had an emotional meltdown and started calling me names.
2014-07-15 05:49:06 PM  
2 votes:

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 05:40:32 PM  
2 votes:
Jesus christ someone give Thunderpipes the attention he's clearly desperate for.
2014-07-15 05:37:55 PM  
2 votes:

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 04:48:28 PM  
2 votes:

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


if we're gonna play that card, then we have to play the what-about-all-the-other-stuff-the-old-testament-calls-a-sin card.

to be consistent, if homosexuality is a no go, they need to also not hire anybody who:
wears mixed blended fibers
trims their beard
works on the sabbath
eats swine

you see where I'm going with this. Either you respect ALL the laws of the bible w/o interpretation or you admit that secular modern life trumps the more antiquated rules & it should be treated as a living document w/ the overall thought of "don't be a dick" being the prevailing message.


Yes, you're demonstrating how you are stuck in the Old Testament and don't understand the difference between Christians and Jews.

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.
2014-07-15 04:44:00 PM  
2 votes:

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
Au contraire
2014-07-15 04:34:18 PM  
2 votes:

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.


Very well, not all Christians believe that being gay is a sin (worse than any other that people do all the time at least). And then the rest of what I said.

The ones I've met who bother mentioning that being gay is a sin, they certainly talk like they hate them. Mind you, this is family I'm talking about here, and I'l bet that they don't talk the same around strangers. Made our wedding reception awkward when the worst of that crowd ended up sitting right next to my lesbian aunt and her wife.

Your experience obviously varies.
2014-07-15 04:19:40 PM  
2 votes:

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.
2014-07-15 04:15:11 PM  
2 votes:

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.
2014-07-15 04:07:03 PM  
2 votes:

Nix Nightbird: TheOtherMisterP: The bible has VERY little to say about homosexuality. It has far more to say about pre-marital heterosexual activity.

I'd argue that if Christian colleges don't want to hire homosexuals, then they should not hire unmarried non-virgins either.

The bible does teach that homosexuality is a sin. It also teaches that everyone is a sinner. So why make a special case against teh gheys?

Because, quite honestly, they are hung up on gay sex. They either think it's "icky" or they want it. They're sick in the head when it comes to their sexual upbringing. They seem to have to impose their sexual desires and fears on everyone else. It's twisted.


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.
2014-07-15 04:04:42 PM  
2 votes:

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.


And it doesn't affect you then either.  Unless you're an asshole who wants to force their beliefs down others' throats and up their vaginas.
2014-07-15 04:00:02 PM  
2 votes:

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

Sandworms. Lots and lots of sandworms. Wormsign even the likes of which even God has never seen.
2014-07-15 03:56:56 PM  
2 votes:

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 were quicker. I was more thorough. Still, the point stands: They're picking and choosing.
2014-07-15 03:51:46 PM  
2 votes:

Marcus Aurelius: He took his 30 pieces of silver, and now he doesn't want the Pharisees telling him what to do?

That's not how it works.


moviecitynews.com

/This is why I love FARK
2014-07-15 03:38:56 PM  
2 votes:

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

If discriminating against gays is essential to your religion, what does that say about your religion?


Everything.
2014-07-15 03:34:28 PM  
2 votes:

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?


Education - even at the higher levels - involves some measure of socialization. You're going to meet people of every other stripe, and you're going to have to learn how to do that as well as whatever the subject matter involves.

At work, you won't be able to get Gary fired because he doesn't go to church. You won't be able to get Steinberg fired for refusing to take off his hat. You won't be able to get Lizzie the Lezzie fired for her short hair or flannel shirts (only in some states). You won't be able to get Nancy fired for her mark of Cain.

If a state accreditation board has any sense, they'll decide that social engineering (to borrow a conservative buzzword), to the point where you refuse to admit even a single student from the specified group, is a bad thing educationally speaking.

The kids'll get over it.

// or the college will skip "heathen" accreditation altogether to pay off whoever gives Liberty theirs
2014-07-15 03:29:07 PM  
2 votes:

Marcus Aurelius: He took his 30 pieces of silver, and now he doesn't want the Pharisees telling him what to do?

That's not how it works.


Niiiiice.
2014-07-15 01:57:39 PM  
2 votes:
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?
2014-07-15 01:36:58 PM  
2 votes:
good.  This is the only thing that will shut some of these jesus freaks up.
2014-07-16 10:35:29 AM  
1 votes:

Callous: highwayrun: Would someone please explain how "Don't hate the sinner, hate the sin" is in any way different from "Don't hate the ni&&er, hate his black skin?"

They believe that homosexuality is an elective behavior and not an unchangeable facet of one's personality.


Their lack of touch with reality is not anyone else's problem but their own... And, it doesn't change the fact that what they're doing still amounts to hate, even if they're delusional enough to believe otherwise... Not being self-aware enough to recognize the hate within oneself just makes it all the worse, not better in any way...
2014-07-16 03:36:23 AM  
1 votes:

Callous: highwayrun: Would someone please explain how "Don't hate the sinner, hate the sin" is in any way different from "Don't hate the ni&&er, hate his black skin?"

They believe that homosexuality is an elective behavior and not an unchangeable facet of one's personality.


I asked for an explanation and I got a clear and succinct one. Thank you.

Their willful ignorance does not obligate me to tolerate their actively hateful behavior.
2014-07-16 03:27:25 AM  
1 votes:

Callous: highwayrun: 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.

Nope. They justify their bigotry by claiming that I am an abomination before their God. That's me. You think I am an abomination before the God you claim is all love, then you hate me. It's okay. I am in good company.

Explained it before, it's the behavior, not the people.  And I'm not going to go around again about how they don't get that it's not chosen behavior.

You should really endeavor to understand what you are accusing them of before you do it.  They don't hate you.  They don't understand you.


By this logic, being savagely beaten by a retarded man shouldn't hurt at all since he does it from a place of ignorance and not hate.

I have been on the receiving end of that cudgel and from the ground it is indistinguishable from hate, done under the auspices of an all-loving God.
2014-07-16 02:54:36 AM  
1 votes:
Would someone please explain how "Don't hate the sinner, hate the sin" is in any way different from "Don't hate the ni&&er, hate his black skin?"
2014-07-16 02:35:37 AM  
1 votes:

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.


Nope. They justify their bigotry by claiming that I am an abomination before their God. That's me. You think I am an abomination before the God you claim is all love, then you hate me. It's okay. I am in good company.
2014-07-16 01:43:43 AM  
1 votes:

Pattuq: Perhaps it would be better for America to identify as an atheist country, because it is not believers who are guiding its choices.  Drop the facade.


"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion ...."


How about YOU assholes drop the façade.
2014-07-16 12:38:21 AM  
1 votes:

Callous: Not a cop out.  To them it's merely a behavior and not a facet of one's personality.  So not engaging in homosexual behavior is no different than not taking another drink.


And as pointed out, this is objectively incorrect.  So it's not an excuse for anything.
2014-07-15 11:56:19 PM  
1 votes:

patrick767: 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.

Hate may be too strong of a word for many people. On the other hand I call bullshiat on most of the anti-gay Christians who claim to love gay people. They love to spout "hate the sin, love the sinner", but in many Christians' attitudes toward and treatment of gay people, I don't see anything resembling love. Actions count a hell of a lot more than words. Besides, who can love someone without accepting them? Who we choose to love is an integral part of who we are as a person. If we can't accept that aspect of someone's life, then I think it's bullshiat to claim we love them.


To be, "love the sinner but not the sin" would mean to actually hire them. Hiring them doesn't mean you condone what they do in the bedroom.

These assholes really make it hard for me to be a Christian.
2014-07-15 11:55:40 PM  
1 votes:

Callous: Telling someone that wrong behavior is wrong does not imply that someone is less human.  Most Christians do not believe that homosexuality is a facet of one's personality and therefore is merely another wrong behavior to be discontinued.


From a scientific point of view, this is demonstrably wrong, much like belief that the world was literally created in six days only a few thousand years ago.

You are free to believe that God made Adam from dust and Eve from his rib.  I respect your religious beliefs, whether or not I share all of them.  You are also more than welcome to teach about Adam and Eve in Sunday school.  When you try to influence what public schools teach about evolution, however, then we have a problem, because you're trying to base public policy on your unscientific beliefs.

The same applies to homosexuality.  You can BELIEVE whatever you like about it.  But when it comes to public policy, such as hiring or firing professors at a university which accepts public funds, then you trying to set policy by unscientific religious beliefs is a problem.

Basing public policy on the fallacy (again, from a scientific standpoint) that homosexuality is a choice is just as wrong (and contrary to participating in a pluralistic civil society) as trying to force public schools to teach Biblical creation.

/And all of this is merely by-the-by because homosexuality isn't something that should be punished or discriminated against, even if it WERE a choice.
2014-07-15 11:31:00 PM  
1 votes:

Callous: ciberido: 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.

Then why is "NO H8TE!!!!!!" the rallying cry to oppose any anti-gay laws?  If you don't care, why is it the cornerstone of your whole argument against those laws?


Because "hate" is a convenient shorthand for the crap you guys do.  All of your actions are consistent with hatred, regardless of whether or not that's what you really feel in your hearts.  Whether or not they are actually motivated by hatred, your words and actions are hateful in nature.
2014-07-15 11:21:51 PM  
1 votes:

Callous: I can tell you that even if there was some kind of indesputable proof that it's not a choice many would not accept it and many more would still say "God says it's bad so you still shouldn't do it".


Some Christians have said that if homosexuality really were genetic, and there were a test for it, that would be the only case in which abortion should be permitted.
2014-07-15 10:56:22 PM  
1 votes:

serial_crusher: Boojum2k: 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.

Well, the connection really shouldn't need to be spelled out.
You said that "all relevant factors" should be taken into account.  If a school's accreditation can be rejected based on their hiring policies rather than the quality of the education they provide, the accreditatedness of an applicant's degree stops being relevant.  People who are perfectly qualified to do a particular job aren't being properly labeled because of a political debate.  The whole accreditation board becomes moot with this kind of behavior.

In the long run it would put pressure on the school to change their policies, so that's good.  But I would hate to be a Junior there right now.

/ Maybe the health inspector should shut down their dorm cafeterias over this.  Police and fire department should refuse to operate on their campus as well.  Then they'll learn not to be bigots!


A central element of higher education in a pluralistic society like the USA has been (often in fact but always at least in theory) that it should include exposure to a wider world of ideas, people and values than what the student brings to the institution and to promote the student's ability to respect, learn from, and collaborate with, people whose ideas, culture and values may differ from theirs. Faculty must have those skills to be qualified to teach in higher education founded on that central element irrespective of their knowledge and skills concerning their subject matter. That's not a matter of partisan political debate, or religious debate etc., nor do you have to adopt or even approve of everyone of those people, cultures or ideas you are expected to be exposed to, but it is fair and appropriate to demand that your students aren't ignorant of those things if your institution desires accreditation.
2014-07-15 09:45:26 PM  
1 votes:

Callous: I was merely trying to give people the facts


What DO you believe?
2014-07-15 09:26:21 PM  
1 votes:
Liberals are racists, news at 11:00
2014-07-15 08:47:23 PM  
1 votes:

Callous: Bawdy George: Callous:  Please demonstrate where I tried to defend it.

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.

Nope, totally not defending Christian bigotry. At least you didn't try to deny your utter failure.

Defining how their beliefs work is not defending it.  I was merely trying to give people the facts about how Christian beliefs are formed, right wrong or indifferent.  You apparently can't handle that and had an emotional meltdown and started calling me names.


AKA the "some people say..." technique
2014-07-15 08:04:25 PM  
1 votes:
Callous:  Please demonstrate where I tried to defend it.

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.


Nope, totally not defending Christian bigotry. At least you didn't try to deny your utter failure.
2014-07-15 07:51:42 PM  
1 votes:
I didn't know the point of accrediting a school was to push a political/moral point. I thought it was to ensure a certain academic threshold was met. I could be wrong, but it feels right, and that's all that matters.
2014-07-15 07:50:19 PM  
1 votes:

Callous: Bawdy George: Callous: Bawdy George: Dusk-You-n-Me: Callous: No it's a demonstration of their belief that behaviors don't define the person

Right, a cop out. "Gay people are cool with us as long as they don't, you know, do anything gay."

Gee golly, what a deal for gays! How generous of the religious to allow gays to exist in our modern society as long as they conform to the rules that please the religious. See gays, what's the problem? Be gay, just don't, be gay. See, we're not bigots! We good? We good.

The vacuous arguments Christian apologists come up with to justify their homophobic bigotry would be kind of amusing if they weren't so sad.

Where have I apologized for anything or assigned right or wrong to their beliefs?  I have merely tried to relay them as accurately as I understand them.

Although I do find it amusing that you cannot engage in the conversation with out screaming "H8ter!!!!".  And homophobic implies fear, I have never seen that.  It's another accusation that is intended to stifle conversation and force conformity of opinion.  Either that or it's another demonstration of the point I made above about you not understanding them while screaming and crying that they don't understand you.

Guess what, champ? Not all ideas/opinions have equal grounding in reality, which you've demonstrated amply. And mockery != screaming and crying.

And "apologetics" doesn't mean apologizing. Not entirely surprising that you get that wrong as well

I'm sorry where did I assign any credibility or grounding in reality to their beliefs?  Oh I didn't, you're just having an emotional reaction to something you disagree with and attacked the messenger.


i41.photobucket.com

I suppose when you utterly fail in defense of a deeply flawed viewpoint, it's convenient to bail and claim you're just the messenger.
2014-07-15 07:43:28 PM  
1 votes:

Son of Thunder: So UK academics and an Australian judge are bigots?


So quick with the pedophilia research! Equating what two consenting ADULTS do to what an adult and a child who is unable to consent do is in fact a disgusting tactic used by bigots, yes.
2014-07-15 07:13:42 PM  
1 votes:

Callous: Bawdy George: Dusk-You-n-Me: Callous: No it's a demonstration of their belief that behaviors don't define the person

Right, a cop out. "Gay people are cool with us as long as they don't, you know, do anything gay."

Gee golly, what a deal for gays! How generous of the religious to allow gays to exist in our modern society as long as they conform to the rules that please the religious. See gays, what's the problem? Be gay, just don't, be gay. See, we're not bigots! We good? We good.

The vacuous arguments Christian apologists come up with to justify their homophobic bigotry would be kind of amusing if they weren't so sad.

Where have I apologized for anything or assigned right or wrong to their beliefs?  I have merely tried to relay them as accurately as I understand them.

Although I do find it amusing that you cannot engage in the conversation with out screaming "H8ter!!!!".  And homophobic implies fear, I have never seen that.  It's another accusation that is intended to stifle conversation and force conformity of opinion.  Either that or it's another demonstration of the point I made above about you not understanding them while screaming and crying that they don't understand you.


Guess what, champ? Not all ideas/opinions have equal grounding in reality, which you've demonstrated amply. And mockery != screaming and crying.

And "apologetics" doesn't mean apologizing. Not entirely surprising that you get that wrong as well
2014-07-15 07:10:54 PM  
1 votes:

Callous: Is bigot the primary word in your vocabulary or is it just your go to when you got nothing?


I go to it when it's accurate.
2014-07-15 06:54:27 PM  
1 votes:

Callous: To them it's merely a behavior and not a facet of one's personality.


Sure, but they're wrong. And, you know, bigots.
2014-07-15 06:53:16 PM  
1 votes:

Callous: I have heard pedophiles make that same argument


Ah, there it is. Bigot go-to #48. Let that bigot flag fly!
2014-07-15 06:51:55 PM  
1 votes:

Dusk-You-n-Me: Callous: No it's a demonstration of their belief that behaviors don't define the person

Right, a cop out. "Gay people are cool with us as long as they don't, you know, do anything gay."

Gee golly, what a deal for gays! How generous of the religious to allow gays to exist in our modern society as long as they conform to the rules that please the religious. See gays, what's the problem? Be gay, just don't, be gay. See, we're not bigots! We good? We good.


The vacuous arguments Christian apologists come up with to justify their homophobic bigotry would be kind of amusing if they weren't so sad.
2014-07-15 06:50:21 PM  
1 votes:

patrick767: Callous: patrick767: 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.

Hate may be too strong of a word for many people. On the other hand I call bullshiat on most of the anti-gay Christians who claim to love gay people. They love to spout "hate the sin, love the sinner", but in many Christians' attitudes toward and treatment of gay people, I don't see anything resembling love. Actions count a hell of a lot more than words. Besides, who can love someone without accepting them? Who we choose to love is an integral part of who we are as a person. If we can't accept that aspect of someone's life, then I think it's bullshiat to claim we love them.

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?

Why would you or anyone else equate homosexuality with alcoholism, drug addiction, and criminal actions? It's a piss poor comparison. Homosexuality is not an addiction or something harmful, and it's a fundamental part of a person's identity. Alcoholism, drug addiction, and most criminal acts are self-destructive and frequently harmful to others.


Christians view homosexuality the same way as they believe it destroys/damages one spiritually just like every other sin.

You don't have to accept absolutely everything someone does, but I'd argue that you do have to accept who they are as a person in order to love them. Sexuality is an incredibly important aspect of our lives.

I have heard pedophiles make that same argument but I'm at work so I'm not going to look up or link to an example.
2014-07-15 06:47:50 PM  
1 votes:

Callous: No it's a demonstration of their belief that behaviors don't define the person


Right, a cop out. "Gay people are cool with us as long as they don't, you know, do anything gay."

Gee golly, what a deal for gays! How generous of the religious to allow gays to exist in our modern society as long as they conform to the rules that please the religious. See gays, what's the problem? Be gay, just don't, be gay. See, we're not bigots! We good? We good.
2014-07-15 05:57:30 PM  
1 votes:

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.
2014-07-15 05:48:51 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:31:14 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:28:44 PM  
1 votes:
This any different than Obama making government agencies hire people based on race?
2014-07-15 05:27:12 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:22:23 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:22:23 PM  
1 votes:
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 05:17:44 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:09:30 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:08:26 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:03:38 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:02:15 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:59:28 PM  
1 votes:

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.
2014-07-15 04:58:08 PM  
1 votes:

Callous: mootmah: Callous: FTFA:   executive order barring organizations that take federal money from discrimination in hiring based on sexual orientation.

I think I found the solution.

Homosexuality clearly violates their religious beliefs.  Thus they should not be forced to hire them as a matter of law.  But if it's only a condition of accepting tax dollars they have a way to apply their religious beliefs free of government mandate.  Don't take the tax dollars.

But what about the endowment?

/that's what she said

If the endowment money comes from tax dollars then it's subject to the rules the government applies to it.

If you don't want to follow those rules don't accept the money.   It's not farking rocket surgery.Grand_Moff_Joseph: SilentStrider: Grand_Moff_Joseph: good.  This is the only thing that will shut some of these jesus freaks up.


No it won't. They'll just go on without accreditation.

and if employers were smart, they'd refuse to hire individuals from unaccredited "universities", since they can't be 100% sure that they received an adequate education.

Accreditation should be based solely on curriculum and not religious practices as I think that the 1A would explicitly preclude that.


A thousand times this.  Accreditation should only be withheld if a school is not providing a legitimate course of study in comparison to similar programs offered elsewhere.  Using something like accreditation for political means, and however right you might think LGBT issues are it IS a political issue in the end, is a misuse of power.  It's analogous to yanking someone's medical license because they are in the KKK.  The two things are not related.  It's why the Westboro Baptist people still have law licenses.  They are asshats, but they did actually pass a bar exam at some point.

Now, when a school teaches creation 'science' and other nonsense.  Well, then there are legitimate academic concerns.
2014-07-15 04:52:35 PM  
1 votes:
Why do people hate freedom of association so much and insist on forcing their beliefs on those that just wish to be left alone?
2014-07-15 04:42:09 PM  
1 votes:

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



if we're gonna play that card, then we have to play the what-about-all-the-other-stuff-the-old-testament-calls-a-sin card.

to be consistent, if homosexuality is a no go, they need to also not hire anybody who:
wears mixed blended fibers
trims their beard
works on the sabbath
eats swine

you see where I'm going with this. Either you respect ALL the laws of the bible w/o interpretation or you admit that secular modern life trumps the more antiquated rules & it should be treated as a living document w/ the overall thought of "don't be a dick" being the prevailing message.
2014-07-15 04:40:16 PM  
1 votes:

patrick767: 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.

Hate may be too strong of a word for many people. On the other hand I call bullshiat on most of the anti-gay Christians who claim to love gay people. They love to spout "hate the sin, love the sinner", but in many Christians' attitudes toward and treatment of gay people, I don't see anything resembling love. Actions count a hell of a lot more than words. Besides, who can love someone without accepting them? Who we choose to love is an integral part of who we are as a person. If we can't accept that aspect of someone's life, then I think it's bullshiat to claim we love them.


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?
2014-07-15 04:38:06 PM  
1 votes:

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


They are not.  The Bible also tells us that the Dean and all of the College's administrators are sinners.  But it doesn't keep them from paying themselves.
2014-07-15 04:35:25 PM  
1 votes:
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.

Hate may be too strong of a word for many people. On the other hand I call bullshiat on most of the anti-gay Christians who claim to love gay people. They love to spout "hate the sin, love the sinner", but in many Christians' attitudes toward and treatment of gay people, I don't see anything resembling love. Actions count a hell of a lot more than words. Besides, who can love someone without accepting them? Who we choose to love is an integral part of who we are as a person. If we can't accept that aspect of someone's life, then I think it's bullshiat to claim we love them.
2014-07-15 04:30:47 PM  
1 votes:

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


FTFY.
2014-07-15 04:29:10 PM  
1 votes:

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. aren't a bigoted asshole who tries to treat other human beings like crap.



FTFY.
2014-07-15 04:26:33 PM  
1 votes:

eagles95: Lordserb: Meh homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible. At least they are standing up for their beliefs.

So is eating shrimp. Yet i know a ton of catholics eating those tasty lil bastards every friday during lent.


You need to reread the New Testament.
2014-07-15 04:25:17 PM  
1 votes:

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


So is eating shrimp. Yet i know a ton of catholics eating those tasty lil bastards every friday during lent.
2014-07-15 04:21:41 PM  
1 votes:

I May Be Crazy But...: 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?

I just looked, and they do, in fact, require a statement about students being Christian in addition to the usual statement about academic fitness. So they do, in fact check if you go to church on Sundays, among other things.

And if you think that's a bit much, you should see what it takes to apply for a faculty position. A friend of mine was asked to sign that she has a whole host of very conservative Christian beliefs for one place. Including, oddly, that women are to be subservient to their husbands. I'm not really clear why they bothered to accept applications from women at all. I encouraged her to sign it, since it explicitly said I'm going to Hell. She didn't finish that application.


Sorry, I should have emphasized in the first paragraph that that's for potential students.
2014-07-15 04:15:18 PM  
1 votes:

TheOtherMisterP: The bible has VERY little to say about homosexuality. It has far more to say about pre-marital heterosexual activity.

I'd argue that if Christian colleges don't want to hire homosexuals, then they should not hire unmarried non-virgins either.

The bible does teach that homosexuality is a sin. It also teaches that everyone is a sinner. So why make a special case against teh gheys?


Because Jesus was totally clear when he said "that which you do to the least of you, you do to me...except for the gays.  Do unto them all you want.  Seriously, I hate the queers.  Why do I hang out with 12 dudes?  Um..."
2014-07-15 04:14:00 PM  
1 votes:

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?


I just looked, and they do, in fact, require a statement about students being Christian in addition to the usual statement about academic fitness. So they do, in fact check if you go to church on Sundays, among other things.

And if you think that's a bit much, you should see what it takes to apply for a faculty position. A friend of mine was asked to sign that she has a whole host of very conservative Christian beliefs for one place. Including, oddly, that women are to be subservient to their husbands. I'm not really clear why they bothered to accept applications from women at all. I encouraged her to sign it, since it explicitly said I'm going to Hell. She didn't finish that application.
2014-07-15 04:10:45 PM  
1 votes:
FTFA: "It does not represent a policy for Gordon. It represents support for the larger underlying issue," the college spokescritter said.

So... in addition to being homophobic bigots, they're Liars for Jesustm
2014-07-15 04:10:25 PM  
1 votes:

DubtodaIll: Dusk-You-n-Me: Lordserb: Meh homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible. At least they are standing up for their beliefs.

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?


because what was forbidden is something VERY different than what we define as "homosexuality".   For example Homosexuality in Roman culture, especially after Augustine's reforms was severely sanction by the state.  But the term they used did not define a man farking another man.  THAT  they were totally okay with.   The problem was when you had an EXCLUSIVE romantic relationship with a man of basically equal social status.   And the reason they had a problem wih that was simply because it made it less likely that you would do your duty to the state and pop out a few kids.    Once you had done that and they survived to adulthood, roman law didn;t really give a fark who you farked or how
2014-07-15 04:10:13 PM  
1 votes:

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


FTFY.
2014-07-15 04:04:30 PM  
1 votes:

WanPhat: 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?

No.  Accreditation blackmail for non-academic reasons is okay if it's for currently popular social causes.


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?


Seems to me the accreditation process is essentially the issuing body's imprimatur, on the degrees issued by the receiving body,   the acredditors saying they have examined the quality of the educational experience imparted by the school and you can trust them that the degree holder is ready and able to work in their field for which they hold a degree.  If those social environment in which the degree is issued is too warped this may not be true.

This has become a pretty big Issue for Patrick Henry College(aka "Harvard for the Homeschooled", just up the road from me.   Their education  is top notch as long as it is not biology (young earth creationists ya see)    and they focus on things like political science, so during the bush years they placed as many interns at the White House as the real Harvard, and Their graduates were prized as staffers for GOP congressman because of their "ideological purity"

The problem was these young men (it was almost invariably men)  came from an environment where women were expected to work only until they got married (and or paid off student loans), where men were expected to rebuke women for things like "immodest dress" or otherwise "Stumbling" the men (causing them to think sinful things) and men wer expected to take the lead in most discussions or conferences.


You can imagine that went over like a wet fart in crowded elevator when these people got onto the hill and had to try to make nice with lobbyists , other staffers, even female members of Congress from their own party
2014-07-15 04:04:13 PM  
1 votes:

rjakobi: I think the question we should be asking is if a gay and/or lesbian individual would have been considering putting an application into a Christian college for anything other than masochistic reasons.


Not all Christians hate gays. Half the homosexuals I know are Christian. Hell, not all of them are even liberal Christians. I am from Texas, so the general population is more religious and conservative, of course.
2014-07-15 04:03:04 PM  
1 votes:

kbronsito: Nix Nightbird: * Picks up grapes that have fallen to the ground

No five second rule!


Well, more specifically it's grapes that have fallen to the ground in your vineyard, but the way they branch out to lesbianism with the "lay with another man" thing, I think we can branch out the grape thing to include any grapes that touch any ground, anywhere.
2014-07-15 04:02:11 PM  
1 votes:
"on behalf of private religious institutions like Gordon,"

Do anything you want as a PRIVATE institution.  Therefore, you get no PUBLIC monies.

so piss off and EABOD then DIAF
2014-07-15 03:59:47 PM  
1 votes:

TheOtherMisterP: The bible has VERY little to say about homosexuality. It has far more to say about pre-marital heterosexual activity.

I'd argue that if Christian colleges don't want to hire homosexuals, then they should not hire unmarried non-virgins either.

The bible does teach that homosexuality is a sin. It also teaches that everyone is a sinner. So why make a special case against teh gheys?


Because, quite honestly, they are hung up on gay sex. They either think it's "icky" or they want it. They're sick in the head when it comes to their sexual upbringing. They seem to have to impose their sexual desires and fears on everyone else. It's twisted.
2014-07-15 03:57:53 PM  
1 votes:

APO_Buddha: FTFY
Liberty is actually a regionally accredited (SCACS) university. Bob Jones are the people that give you a piece of paper that has the same value as a used Wendy's napkin.


Not for nothing, but SCACS is the "RANDPAUL License" of accreditation - The South Carolina Association of Christian Schools.

So while you're technically correct, it's not like a credential issued by Liberty is much better. if you're part of the crowd, the name of the institution matters more than any accreditation. If you're not hip to the jive, Liberty might as well have Klingon accreditation.

// last month, I learned Liberty U is not too far from Floyd, VA (hippieville)
2014-07-15 03:57:14 PM  
1 votes:
FTFA:   executive order barring organizations that take federal money from discrimination in hiring based on sexual orientation.

I think I found the solution.

Homosexuality clearly violates their religious beliefs.  Thus they should not be forced to hire them as a matter of law.  But if it's only a condition of accepting tax dollars they have a way to apply their religious beliefs free of government mandate.  Don't take the tax dollars.
2014-07-15 03:49:02 PM  
1 votes:
hulshofschmidt.files.wordpress.com
2014-07-15 03:43:47 PM  
1 votes:

Dr Dreidel: 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?

Education - even at the higher levels - involves some measure of socialization. You're going to meet people of every other stripe, and you're going to have to learn how to do that as well as whatever the subject matter involves.

At work, you won't be able to get Gary fired because he doesn't go to church. You won't be able to get Steinberg fired for refusing to take off his hat. You won't be able to get Lizzie the Lezzie fired for her short hair or flannel shirts (only in some states). You won't be able to get Nancy fired for her mark of Cain.

If a state accreditation board has any sense, they'll decide that social engineering (to borrow a conservative buzzword), to the point where you refuse to admit even a single student from the specified group, is a bad thing educationally speaking.

The kids'll get over it.

// or the college will skip "heathen" accreditation altogether to pay off whoever gives Liberty Bob Jones University theirs


FTFY
Liberty is actually a regionally accredited (SCACS) university.  Bob Jones are the people that give you a piece of paper that has the same value as a used Wendy's napkin.
2014-07-15 03:40:56 PM  
1 votes:
Let's see who's laughing when Islamic based organizations ask the same thing. I'm sure Subby and the Farkers want to deliver ObamaCare's demands ..
2014-07-15 03:35:02 PM  
1 votes:
I think the question we should be asking is if a gay and/or lesbian individual would have been considering putting an application into a Christian college for anything other than masochistic reasons.
2014-07-15 03:33:59 PM  
1 votes:
Meh homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible. At least they are standing up for their beliefs.
2014-07-15 03:31:14 PM  
1 votes:

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?


No.  Accreditation blackmail for non-academic reasons is okay if it's for currently popular social causes.
2014-07-15 03:30:07 PM  
1 votes:
The important thing to remember is that gay marriage doesn't affect you...... as long you don't run a bakery.....or a school.
2014-07-15 01:25:38 PM  
1 votes:

RexTalionis: "OMG, they are oppressing my free speech!"


very close.  needs more derp about the president being a sekrit mooslim imposing shariah law on 'merka.
 
Displayed 106 of 106 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is 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