Posted on 06/16/2006 9:58:51 AM PDT by khnyny
If that's the case, then it looks like he's got a great wrongful termination suit. The only impediment would be, IMO, if he ever uses his radio appearance and ties it to his job position. Sometimes it can be a sticky situation when the employer tries to say the person is shedding a 'controversial' light on them.
and from Romans chapter 1: 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
[The gay agenda is the wedge the left will use to try to end free speech and free exercise of religion for conservatives.]
I am afraid that you're right. Priests in Europe are having to defend themselves against "hate speech" charges regarding their sermons on moral values. It is an insidious way to damage free exercise of religion and the traditional family.
Just more "Christian Bashing" from the sodomite-secularists in society; its no wonder that this country has stood the test of time as long as it has, but these kind of incidents only lead to further fracturing, not to mention the anti-Christian bias in some elected officals that are 'offended' :(.
Smith's right to express his religious views is protected by law.
Graham, another member of the board attacked him based on those religious beliefs.
Homosexuality is not protected. Nor is Smith's characterization of it as sexually deviant, an inaccurate statement. Graham is welcome to consider it hurtful, that doesn't make it inaccurate, nor does it give him the right to violate the law.
Smith should be reinstated. Graham should be fired. Ehrlich and Graham should be sued.
Smith doesn't appear to have violated the law, and his comments are protected by the law.
Graham and Ehrlich appear to have violated the law. This one needs to be taken to the courts.
Someone asked him the question. He was supposed to lie or equivocate?
Being pregnant and unwed is the same as being gay? There are degrees of deviancy. Being gay is not as bad as having sex with animals.
Ehrlich= RINO
I thought Erlich behaved rather badly over the MD4BUSH business. This confirms my contempt for him.
Maybe he's a better choice than the alternative, so conservative voters have littlel choice but to vote for him, but he's nothing to be proud of.
I had to clarify that ifthe article had been more clear on the situation I would not have questioned his giving an opinion on the issue.
http://www.eeoc.gov/types/religion.html
You mean this Title VII:
http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/vii.html
In MD you can't get fired from a state job unless you call your boss a (n word).
You can sleep on the job, drink, do drugs, never show up and be fine.
Right now there is a case in California, which includes gays in their civil rights statute, hauling a doctor up on charges for refusing to do artificial insemination on a lezzy on religious and moral grounds. If they win that one it won't be long before they take on churches directly.
Does this state not have a statute preventing discrimination on the basis of religious belief?
[I thought Erlich behaved rather badly over the MD4BUSH business. This confirms my contempt for him.
Maybe he's a better choice than the alternative, so conservative voters have littlel choice but to vote for him, but he's nothing to be proud of.]
That about sums up a pathetic situation.
If Smith were your average pencil-pushing state employee you'd have a colorable argument (under the 14th amendment as it's recently been interpreted). He's not. He was appointed by the Governor to be an extension of the Governor. The Governor's right to fire his appointees is absolute, checked only by the people come next election.
FYI -more on the Ehrlich dismissal of Washington Suburban Transit Commissioner Robert Smith for making supposed derogatory remarks against individuals who identify themselves by the homosexual activity they think about or engage in...
Two things:
(1). The Governor does not have the power or the right to fire an appointee for his personal religious beliefs, that's blatantly un-Constitutional and leaves him wide open to a lawsuit. If he chooses to let him go for some other, contrived reason then that's his prerogative, but he'd still be open to a lawsuit because the real reason for his firing would be quite clear.
(2). The governor hasn't fired him, yet; it's his homosexual pervert boss that wants him fired.
[I've seen reports of the same thing happening in Canada.
Right now there is a case in California, which includes gays in their civil rights statute, hauling a doctor up on charges for refusing to do artificial insemination on a lezzy on religious and moral grounds. If they win that one it won't be long before they take on churches directly.]
Great. Well, at least there are some people who understand what's really happening. The pro-abortion crowd want pharmacists, doctors, etc. to be forced to go against their religious/moral beliefs also in administering "the morning after pill", "RU-486", etc.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.