- Banned
- #41
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Gay Rights Gestapo Targets Small Christian College: Any Liberals Here Find This Troubling?
- Thread starter mikegriffith1
- Start date
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,518
- 2,165
- Banned
- #42
Hippie photographer: if he offers services and goods to the public, he would have to serve the gay wedding.
The Muslim baker in Europe has no standing in American law, so it’s a non issue.
The Orthodox Jewish florist, if he offers services and goods to the public, would have to deliver the flowers to the pre-service good times banquet.
A gay printer: if he offers services and goods to the public, cannot object to printing a booklet for a Christian seminar on the health risks of homosexuality?
A secular baker who believes in traditional values, if he offers services and goods to the public, cannot object to serving a gay wedding
The Muslim in Europe is a non issue, so he can be ignored.
Mikegriffiths is to be congratulate for getting five of the six above right. Mikegriffiths is right that the five vendors must serve the customers. He is learning.
The Muslim baker in Europe has no standing in American law, so it’s a non issue.
The Orthodox Jewish florist, if he offers services and goods to the public, would have to deliver the flowers to the pre-service good times banquet.
A gay printer: if he offers services and goods to the public, cannot object to printing a booklet for a Christian seminar on the health risks of homosexuality?
A secular baker who believes in traditional values, if he offers services and goods to the public, cannot object to serving a gay wedding
The Muslim in Europe is a non issue, so he can be ignored.
Mikegriffiths is to be congratulate for getting five of the six above right. Mikegriffiths is right that the five vendors must serve the customers. He is learning.
NYcarbineer
Diamond Member
The neasc isn't government. They are an independent regional accrediting body, and they set their own standards for accreditation. If they say Gordon College doesn't meet those standards, that's that.They're objecting to losing state accreditation. Problem is, if you want such accreditation, FROM A GOVERNMENT,
then you're becoming part of the government. You're asking for a government benefit. Therefore you've obligated yourself to comply with the government requirements for qualifying for such a government benefit.
The People are the governments boss, it does whatever the hell we tell it to do. And since when is keeping your own damn money a government "benefit" you liberals have some pretty creepy ideas.
School accreditation is a government benefit.
If it's so important for this school to persecute gay people then they can continue as a non-accredited school.
There many such schools around.
Okay I will tentatively stand corrected on that. In a way that makes it even better. A private organization reading the Riot Act to another private organization. lol
Unless it is Islam. Then women must wear a veil.... Islamic colleges are alloyed to "discriminate" and have the right tomexcercise their religion anywhere they want. Christians do not. Even though I believe in equality I only mean it economically not with respect to ones own government. This way GOVERNMENT can discriminate against anyone it wants. I hope you understand my position perfectly.
Oh, I do. You are one of these twits who pisses himself twice a day over the fear Muslims are hiding under your bed.
* If a photographer who happens to be a 70s-era hippie who views marriage as an archaic, oppressive institution objects to servicing a gay wedding, even though his objection has no religious basis and even though his policy is not to photograph any weddings whatsoever? (Of course, we all know that no gay couple would even consider suing the hippie or getting him prosecuted. They reserve their hateful revenge for religious vendors.)
If the photographer doesn't do any weddings, he's not discriminating. He doesn't do weddings. That's not a service he performs.
The rest of your examples are equally silly.
Ted Cruz was right, the Gays are fighting a Jihad against Christians.
By the way, does this mean black colleges will lose their accreditation as well?
Not at all. You'll also hear nary a peep from the media or any gay groups when the muslims discriminate against them in deerborn.
In a move that even gay rights advocate Andrew Sullivan finds unacceptable, for the last several months the gay rights gestapo e
I find your use of the term 'gestapo' to label those you disagree with.
I also disagree with the actions of those who want to shun this college.
But of the two- yours is the more gestapo like.
Ted Cruz was right, the Gays are fighting a Jihad against Christians.
How many Christians have been killed by homosexuals in this 'Jihad'?
Did the Christian Jihad against homosexuals for the last 2000 years ever bother you?
Ted Cruz was right, the Gays are fighting a Jihad against Christians.
How many Christians have been killed by homosexuals in this 'Jihad'?
Did the Christian Jihad against homosexuals for the last 2000 years ever bother you?
They don't need to do the fighting themselves, they have their Muslim allies to do that for them. Ever wonder why progressives are so supportive of Islam, when they are the ones that literally execute people for being gay?
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,518
- 2,165
- Banned
- #51
Sorry, theHawk, it is over for the socon far right.
Retreat to your secret chambers and pray.
Retreat to your secret chambers and pray.
- Thread starter
- #52
Damon Linker, a pro-gay marriage centrist who writes for The Week and who is also a consulting editor for the University of Pennsylvania Press, has expressed deep concern about the attack on Gordon College:
Gordon College, a small Christian school north of Boston, is facing the possibility of having its accreditation revoked by the higher education commission of the New England Association of Schools and Colleges. Since accreditation determines a school's eligibility to participate in federal and state financial aid programs, and the eligibility of its students to be accepted into graduate programs and to meet requirements for professional licensure, revoking a school's accreditation is a big deal — and can even be a death sentence.
What has Gordon College done to jeopardize its accreditation? It has chosen to enforce a "life and conduct statement" that forbids "homosexual practice" on campus.
Now, one could imagine a situation in which such a statement might legitimately run afoul of an accreditation board or even anti-discrimination statutes and regulations — if, for example, it stated that being gay is a sign of innate depravity and that students who feel same-sex attraction should be subject to punishment for having such desires.
But that isn't the case here. At all. In accordance with traditional Christian teaching, Gordon College bans all sexual relationships outside of marriage, gay or straight, and it goes out of its way to say that its structures against homosexual acts apply only to behavior and not to same-sex desires or orientation.
The accreditation board is not so much objecting to the college's treatment of gays as it is rejecting the legitimacy of its devoutly Christian sexual beliefs.
The anti-missionary article and the story of Gordon College's troubles are both examples (among many others) of contemporary liberalism's irrational animus against religion in general and traditional forms of Christianity in particular.
My use of the term "irrational animus" isn't arbitrary. The Supreme Court has made "irrational animus" a cornerstone of its jurisprudence on gay rights. A law cannot stand if it can be shown to be motivated by rationally unjustifiable hostility to homosexuals, and on several occasions the court has declared that traditional religious objections to homosexuality are reducible to just such a motive.
But the urge to eliminate Christianity's influence on and legacy within our world can be its own form of irrational animus. The problem is not just the cavalier dismissal of people's long-established beliefs and the ways of life and traditions based on them. The problem is also the dogmatic denial of the beauty and wisdom contained within those beliefs, ways of life, and traditions. (You know, the kind of thing that leads a doctor to risk his life and forego a comfortable stateside livelihood in favor of treating deadly illness in dangerous, impoverished African cities and villages, all out of a love for Jesus Christ.)
Contemporary liberals increasingly think and talk like a class of self-satisfied commissars enforcing a comprehensive, uniformly secular vision of the human good. The idea that someone, somewhere might devote her life to an alternative vision of the good — one that clashes in some respects with liberalism's moral creed — is increasingly intolerable.
That is a betrayal of what's best in the liberal tradition.
Liberals should be pleased and express gratitude when people do good deeds, whether or not those deeds are motivated by faith. They should also be content to give voluntary associations (like religious colleges) wide latitude to orient themselves to visions of the human good rooted in traditions and experiences that transcend liberal modernity — provided they don't clash in a fundamental way with liberal ideals and institutions.
In the end, what we're seeing is an effort to greatly expand the list of beliefs, traditions, and ways of life that fundamentally clash with liberalism. That is an effort that no genuine liberal should want to succeed.
What happened to a liberalism of skepticism, modesty, humility, and openness to conflicting notions of the highest good? What happened to a liberalism of pluralism that recognizes that when people are allowed to search for truth in freedom, they are liable to seek and find it in a multitude of values, beliefs, and traditions? What happened to a liberalism that sees this diversity as one of the finest flowers of a free society rather than a threat to the liberal democratic order?
I don't have answers to these questions — and frankly, not a lot hinges on figuring out how we got here. What matters is that we acknowledge that something in the liberal mind has changed, and that we act to recover what has been lost. ( Why do so many liberals despise Christianity )
What has Gordon College done to jeopardize its accreditation? It has chosen to enforce a "life and conduct statement" that forbids "homosexual practice" on campus.
Now, one could imagine a situation in which such a statement might legitimately run afoul of an accreditation board or even anti-discrimination statutes and regulations — if, for example, it stated that being gay is a sign of innate depravity and that students who feel same-sex attraction should be subject to punishment for having such desires.
But that isn't the case here. At all. In accordance with traditional Christian teaching, Gordon College bans all sexual relationships outside of marriage, gay or straight, and it goes out of its way to say that its structures against homosexual acts apply only to behavior and not to same-sex desires or orientation.
The accreditation board is not so much objecting to the college's treatment of gays as it is rejecting the legitimacy of its devoutly Christian sexual beliefs.
The anti-missionary article and the story of Gordon College's troubles are both examples (among many others) of contemporary liberalism's irrational animus against religion in general and traditional forms of Christianity in particular.
My use of the term "irrational animus" isn't arbitrary. The Supreme Court has made "irrational animus" a cornerstone of its jurisprudence on gay rights. A law cannot stand if it can be shown to be motivated by rationally unjustifiable hostility to homosexuals, and on several occasions the court has declared that traditional religious objections to homosexuality are reducible to just such a motive.
But the urge to eliminate Christianity's influence on and legacy within our world can be its own form of irrational animus. The problem is not just the cavalier dismissal of people's long-established beliefs and the ways of life and traditions based on them. The problem is also the dogmatic denial of the beauty and wisdom contained within those beliefs, ways of life, and traditions. (You know, the kind of thing that leads a doctor to risk his life and forego a comfortable stateside livelihood in favor of treating deadly illness in dangerous, impoverished African cities and villages, all out of a love for Jesus Christ.)
Contemporary liberals increasingly think and talk like a class of self-satisfied commissars enforcing a comprehensive, uniformly secular vision of the human good. The idea that someone, somewhere might devote her life to an alternative vision of the good — one that clashes in some respects with liberalism's moral creed — is increasingly intolerable.
That is a betrayal of what's best in the liberal tradition.
Liberals should be pleased and express gratitude when people do good deeds, whether or not those deeds are motivated by faith. They should also be content to give voluntary associations (like religious colleges) wide latitude to orient themselves to visions of the human good rooted in traditions and experiences that transcend liberal modernity — provided they don't clash in a fundamental way with liberal ideals and institutions.
In the end, what we're seeing is an effort to greatly expand the list of beliefs, traditions, and ways of life that fundamentally clash with liberalism. That is an effort that no genuine liberal should want to succeed.
What happened to a liberalism of skepticism, modesty, humility, and openness to conflicting notions of the highest good? What happened to a liberalism of pluralism that recognizes that when people are allowed to search for truth in freedom, they are liable to seek and find it in a multitude of values, beliefs, and traditions? What happened to a liberalism that sees this diversity as one of the finest flowers of a free society rather than a threat to the liberal democratic order?
I don't have answers to these questions — and frankly, not a lot hinges on figuring out how we got here. What matters is that we acknowledge that something in the liberal mind has changed, and that we act to recover what has been lost. ( Why do so many liberals despise Christianity )
NYcarbineer
Diamond Member
Ted Cruz was right, the Gays are fighting a Jihad against Christians.
By the way, does this mean black colleges will lose their accreditation as well?
The neasc isn't government. They are an independent regional accrediting body, and they set their own standards for accreditation. If they say Gordon College doesn't meet those standards, that's that.They're objecting to losing state accreditation. Problem is, if you want such accreditation, FROM A GOVERNMENT,
then you're becoming part of the government. You're asking for a government benefit. Therefore you've obligated yourself to comply with the government requirements for qualifying for such a government benefit.
The People are the governments boss, it does whatever the hell we tell it to do. And since when is keeping your own damn money a government "benefit" you liberals have some pretty creepy ideas.
School accreditation is a government benefit.
If it's so important for this school to persecute gay people then they can continue as a non-accredited school.
There many such schools around.
From the OP's later post:
"Since accreditation determines a school's eligibility to participate in federal and state financial aid programs, and the eligibility of its students to be accepted into graduate programs and to meet requirements for professional licensure, revoking a school's accreditation is a big deal — and can even be a death sentence."
I'd say it's a government benefit, in a roundabout way.
AvgGuyIA
Gold Member
You are one twisted motherfucker JoeB and your "act" is getting tiresome. Nobody wants to hear your opinions of God. You're a non-believer (hater of Jesus). Fine. Nobody is stopping you. Just don't think you can stop us.You insult 3 billion people with your post, but are offended when somebody refers to ****** as a ******.
Actually, not only you, but all of your ilk.
Probably only about 2 billion people who believe in Zombie on a Stick, but that wasn't my point.
My point is, why are we still clinging to Bronze Age superstitions?
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,518
- 2,165
- Banned
- #55
AvgGuyIA, JoeB is your equivalent on the far left to your far right.
You two might represent 4 to 5% of American together.
You two might represent 4 to 5% of American together.
Ted Cruz was right, the Gays are fighting a Jihad against Christians.
By the way, does this mean black colleges will lose their accreditation as well?
Well, no. But keep trying.
You are one twisted motherfucker JoeB and your "act" is getting tiresome. Nobody wants to hear your opinions of God. You're a non-believer (hater of Jesus). Fine. Nobody is stopping you. Just don't think you can stop us.
Guy, we are already stopping you, and you should be glad I am. I'm like the person who takes away the car keys from a drunk.
Because, frankly, right after you guys are done oppressing gays and women, you all start turning on each other over whether Zombie Jesus was made of stale wafers or not.
AvgGuyIA, JoeB is your equivalent on the far left to your far right.
You two might represent 4 to 5% of American together.
Jake the Fake, go troll somewhere else.
MIKEGRIFFITH1 SAID:
“If you liberals insist on using the term "discrimination" when a religious vendor merely declines to host or service a ceremony that they find offensive[.]”
You don't understand.
What constitutes discrimination is determined by law and the nature of the business subject to that law, having nothing to do with 'liberals.'
If a state's or local jurisdiction's public accommodations law affords protections based on sexual orientation, and a business that meets the criteria of a business subject to that law refuses to serve a gay patron, then that patron may seek injunctive relief concerning that discrimination.
That the business owner finds some aspect of the service he's contracted to provide 'offensive' is not 'justification' to ignore the law, where refusing to accommodate gay patrons because of their sexual orientation is in fact to discriminate as defined by law.
The mistake you and others on the right make is to attempt to propagate the canard that public accommodations laws are 'subjective' and 'capricious,' when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.
“If you liberals insist on using the term "discrimination" when a religious vendor merely declines to host or service a ceremony that they find offensive[.]”
You don't understand.
What constitutes discrimination is determined by law and the nature of the business subject to that law, having nothing to do with 'liberals.'
If a state's or local jurisdiction's public accommodations law affords protections based on sexual orientation, and a business that meets the criteria of a business subject to that law refuses to serve a gay patron, then that patron may seek injunctive relief concerning that discrimination.
That the business owner finds some aspect of the service he's contracted to provide 'offensive' is not 'justification' to ignore the law, where refusing to accommodate gay patrons because of their sexual orientation is in fact to discriminate as defined by law.
The mistake you and others on the right make is to attempt to propagate the canard that public accommodations laws are 'subjective' and 'capricious,' when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.
The short answer to the OP's question is, No, they really dont care.
This is because concepts like Justice and Fairness and Rights really dont have much play in liberals' minds. It's all about winning. It's all about destroying those who oppose you. So it doesnt matter how those occur, as long as they do. If it means doing illegal acts, sure why not. Using disgusting tactics to destroy people? Yup, bring it on. It's all about winning.
Libs are pathetic disgusting pieces of shit.
This is because concepts like Justice and Fairness and Rights really dont have much play in liberals' minds. It's all about winning. It's all about destroying those who oppose you. So it doesnt matter how those occur, as long as they do. If it means doing illegal acts, sure why not. Using disgusting tactics to destroy people? Yup, bring it on. It's all about winning.
Libs are pathetic disgusting pieces of shit.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 79
- Views
- 590
- Replies
- 17
- Views
- 178
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 75
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 10
- Views
- 61
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 1
- Replies
- 2
- Views
- 8
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8165
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 475
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-