Skip to comments.Gay rights vs. faithful
Posted on 08/01/2008 8:05:17 AM PDT by Publius804
Gay rights vs. faithful
Christians' suits cite bias on job
Pete Vere, THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Thursday, July 31, 2008
The clash between gay rights laws and religious freedom has acquired two new fronts in recent weeks, both involving Christians who say they were punished on their jobs for actions that reflect religious disapproval of homosexuality.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Gay rights vs. the faithful.
May they forever hold each other in a death embrace—
and leave me the hell alone.
What does that mean?
They can argue all they want. They are both annoying (people in the story). If they are arguing with each other they can’t bother me. I would like them to do just that.
The perversions and superstitions of others do not concern me.
Freedom of religion is recognized in the Constitution
Freedom from the judgments of others based on their religious beliefs is not.
Won’t happen. Sooner or later you will have to choose.
So it’s OK for the government to use force in order to prevent someone from expressing their religious beliefs because you find it uncomfortable to hear?
This type of legal battle is only going to increase as more states adopt gay marriage. The Dems and gays want to take away the free speech and freedom of religion rights of Christians, so that the gays can be more comfortable in their perversions.
“The perversions and superstitions of others do not concern me.”
Lord save us from the Libertarians...
“Lord save us from the libertarians...”
Don’t worry the libertarians won’t harm you, and in the US we usually don’t address each other by titles ;^=)***|
A mere sample of what we can expect if homosexual marriage becomes legal. America has an annoying habit of stepping on the majorities to suck up the minorities.
That is not gay rights, that is Gay fascism.
This is the problem.
You MUST believe as these people do, or you will be punished. It is not enough that you quietly tolerate their behavior, you must accept it. You must believe in it, or you will be silenced, fined, excluded from public places or put in jail.
The gay groups have made an America where the choice is, gay marriage, or free speech. That is the choice. One excludes the other.
Nothing interests me more than the tension between nondiscrimination and religious freedom.
In the New Mexico case, the photographer was in the wrong. She ought to have merely said she could not take on the photographic assignment. Instead she gave the women a sermon and long explanation of her religious beliefs. The women were seeking a photographer, not a sermon demonizing their relationship. The photographer was out of line.
The police officer in LA is clearly within his rights. He was off duty, in a private setting. There is no way his religious speech should affect his job at all. The police men who are uncomfortable at what he said at his colleagues funeral should get over themselves. I go to funerals to support friends of different faiths and hear things that make me very uncomfortable. And I get over myself right away. They are my friends and I am there for them, not to raise Cain. That policeman should win his case.
The counselor is in the middle of the road. Certainly on a case by case basis, there are sometimes occasions when a counselor or therapist needs to be excused from a certain case. But she says she needs to be excused from all gay and lesbian relationship cases as a matter of faith.
The problem is she is an EEO counselor as I understand the story. Her job is to counsel the employees of a large employer, many of who are gay or lesbian. The primary problem for employees, I believe, concern their relationships. For an EEO employee to automatically excuse themselves from counseling a significant part of the workforce is problematic. For an EEO counselor to hold a therapeutic viewpoint that is significantly at odds with the employer is somewhat problematic.
The case of the EEO counselor is more problematic to me. What if she was of the ULC faith and believed ONLY in gay and lesbian marriage ... she was unable to counsel heterosexual employees regarding their relationships based on her religious belief. Should she keep her job in those circumstances? As an EEO employee, I would say definitely “No” - she would be pretty useless in that instance. So what is different in this case? You see how this case puts me on the fence?