Posted on 12/21/2010 12:22:53 PM PST by Stourme
I have a question about the homosexual agenda for FR. I am not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV. But I am an employer.
So what I would like is the potential legal argument surrounding homosexual marriage based on these condition.
1. All sex is a choice.
2. Having the desire for another man does NOT mean someone has to engage in sexual acts with that person. Again it's a choice.
3. I do not accept homosexuality as normal. Engaging in homosexual acts shows a decided weakness in someone's character, morals, and judgment.
4. Allowing homosexuals the right to marry would force employers like myself to subsidize this behavior through having to provide benefits and other accommodations to their homosexual partner.
5. I am unwilling to do this.
What is the legal argument that supports my right to not accept homosexual marriage as legitimate?
I’m missing your point.
You need to speak to a lawyer, and word the question carefully. Unless, of course, you are willing to go down in flames for your beliefs.
“Protected” groups have enlisted every possible level of government in their cause. They have what amounts to “secret shoppers” looking to out the various -phobes they oppose. It’s a minefield and you need a like-thinking pro to navigate the waters.
IMHO, YMMV, etc.
I can assure you quite confidently it’s not a “choice” and I dislike being painted with the “turd-burglaring rump ranger” label. I didn’t just DECIDE one day “lol I wanna do this.” Hard to believe but yes there are conservative TBRRs out there who love God and guns as much as you guys do. Anyway, I have no answer to the question at hand but wanted to throw my 0,02 in because I’ve grown a little tired of the bashing that goes on around here.
I think it depends very much on the state.
But clearly the best answer is not to hire them. Unfortunately, that’s not simple, since it would be a major mistake to inquire about it, or to let it even be suspected.
I would say that there are at least THREE degrees of homosexuality.
1. The inclination. This is a disorder, but if the person resists acting on it, then he avoids blame.
2. Homosexual acts. According to traditional belief and Christian moral teaching, this is wrong. But if practiced privately and quietly, it hurts mainly the perpetrators.
3. Homosexual activism. This is much worse in an employee. Someone who is vocal about homosexual rights, who pushes to change the law and is eager to sue anyone for hate crimes. This leads to unjust laws, teaching of homosexuality in the public schools, degradation of marriage, and all sorts of cultural evils.
I agree totally. If you say publicly that you won't hire a homosexual, you might find your words being printed and used as evidence in a congressional hearing.I like your degrees. I couldn't have said it better.My wife had a relative that was mixed up in this for a while. I laid down the law and stuck to it. The relative could visit. But the partner could not. I won't allow it in my house, ever.I have kids and I want there to be no confusing this kind of behavior with a normal relationship. Thankfully this relative got out of that and is now legitimately married.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.
Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.
Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.
That is true. It depends on the number of employees.
If I can figure your question correctly, The US has the right to determine who is recognized as legally married. We have said that Mormons can only have one wife at a time. We have made laws against marrying animals. We can and should state that it is illegal for a man to marry a man or woman marry a woman. The government has the right to determine who is able to marry. I isn’t necessarily a moral judgment for the government. For me, it is absolutely moral judgment, but the government is representative of who the people are,.......supposedly.
It is most definitely a choice. Same sex Attraction Disorder (SAD) is a mental disease. It is your choice whether you want to remain sick or not. Both secular and religious organizations have had success with curing homosexuality for the motivated patient.
Additionally, if you really loved God you would not commit abomination nor identify yourself as your sin. (Once you state “I am gay” you are stating that you are allying yourself with the abomination instead of with God. Someone may have occasional or even recurrent homosexual desires but that does not make them a homosexual. A person is not a theif until they steal. A person is not a murderer until they murder. A person is not a moslem until they profess to be a moslem.)
oops too late. he got zotted.
Well put: the attraction to the opposite sex might be inherent in you, but the decision to act on that attraction is a choice that must be made. Homosexual activity is a choice.
Just like I might be attracted to any number of women but choose not to act on that attraction in order to remain faithful to my wife.
An Admin Mod solved your problem with FR. Bye.
Musicbymuzak has been escorted from the premises.
I tend to take the position of my Church(Catholic) and much of what you infer is true in some regards e.g. some may be predisposed cause unknown with an attraction to the same sex. I would suggest that some may love deeply another as well without having to engage in sex with them e.g. a family member...
Anyway, being predisposed to an activity may lessen or remove culpability (guilt); however, does not lessen the negative aspects of the act itself.
I would suggest that if one is predisposed to an activity and if they begin actually engaging in the activity that this reinforces its 'hold'. The longer it is practiced the more habitual and entrenched the attraction becomes. As well, the more one is told (conditioned) to believe that what they do is okay -the more it is as well entrenched and the more it takes 'hold'...
From my perspective, opposing the homosexual agenda entails primarily opposing those who use government --to promote state that homosexual sex is neutral, equivalent or good, opposing those who wish to use government to indoctrinate children into accepting the activity as good, opposing those who seek government mandated rights and privilege premised in the activity, and opposing those who promote suggest government funded and sponsored propaganda regarding homosexual sex e.g. it is "okay" or "it will get better" as was recently seen in a public campaign to fight bullying.
Opposing the homosexual agenda is not and should not be about judging whether or not one is legitimately predisposed and suffering a heavy burden -one can not judge anothers heart.
As well, opposing the homosexual agenda is about His love which is rightly displayed not only in loving the person but as well in rejecting the activity. Just as when one loves their children -this love not only encompasses acceptance it as well encompasses guidance -acceptance and guidance involve both encouragement and discipline...
U.S. Legal Code
TITLE 1 > CHAPTER 1 > § 7
§ 7. Definition of “marriage” and “spouse”
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.
Have a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy?
If you’re paying a good lawyer to save your ass from being sued to perdition then it’s their job to answer these questions for you.
Under some legal systems (the British one for instance) there’s a pretty simple rule of thumb which I think applies just as well States-side: if you fire an employee for conduct/misconduct, then ask yourself if the specific grounds for the specific instance of dismissal, amount to any or all of the following:
1. unlawful activity (e.g. committing a criminal offense)
2. explicitly against company policy (e.g. tardiness)
3. directly bad for business (e.g. being rude to customers)
4. bringing you into disrepute (e.g. shoddy workmanship)
5. disrupting the work environment (e.g. drunk, abusive)
If you cannot satisfy a single one of those general ideas then you really do need to check with your legal advisers that the specific reasons for firing the employee, aren’t a lawsuit waiting to happen.
Where it gets difficult for me to give a confident answer, is if the only reason you even suspect that an employee who earns his keep and does his job well, is homosexual, is because of an accusation from a colleague. Absent any explicit evidence that it’s affected their ability to do the job you pay them to do, it wouldn’t do you any harm to consider the possibility that the motives of the “whistle blower” may not be entirely innocent and their “evidence” might be gilding the lily.
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.