Virginia Forces Christian Ministries to Adopt 'Government Ideology' or Pay $100K

[Lysistrata]

Would you have the same response if someone refused to hire a Southern Baptist based on the chosen lifestyle of members of this "Christian" denomination, their love of discrimination, and their attacks on the rights of others, or refused to bake a cake for them?

So you think Planned Parenthood should have to hire anit-abortionist to be counselors in their clinics? Really?????????????

.

No. An anti-abortion person would, by definition, not be neutral on the abortion issue, and therefore, would not be able to meet the requirements of the job.

 

[OKTexas]

Discrimination is not part of our American values. Discrimination against LGBTs is part of the "Christian values" only of certain varieties of the Christian faith. Not all. Nor are people of various religions entitled to more or superior rights to those to which other citizens are entitled, regardless of who they are. Every member of every religion must come to terms with how to observe the tenets of their faith and the requirements of the law simultaneously. There is no reason to allow anyone to transfer this burden onto other people. People forget that in cases such as these, LGBTs would bear the burden of a "government ideology," even though they are not responsible for what someone else believes.

Lots of words for forcing your beliefs on a religious organization despite their beliefs to the contrary.

Compromise is not possible with SJW morons like you, if it were we would all be better off.

How do you "compromise" when all it means is that everybody has to bow down to you? These shit-for-brains types are trying to force their beliefs on the rest of us. Sorry, we don't scapegoat a whole group of people or try to exclude them from general society just because some cults don't like them. LGBTs are NOT RESPONSIBLE for whatever beliefs someone else chooses to have. Beliefs are a choice. They should not become a government ideology. BTW: I'm proud to be an "SJW." It sure beats the alternative of being a warrior for social injustice.

How is forcing a church or religious school to hire say a secretary who lives a lifestyle that doesn't agree with said church or schools teachings making everyone "bow down"

This is the same bullshit as forcing the bakers to bake for Same sex weddings, it's not about fairness, it's about forced acceptance.

The force here is on the government, not on the school or church.

SJW's are today's fascists, really something to be proud of. You are just as bad as those Moral Majority assholes back in the 80's going after rock music.

Would you have the same response if someone refused to hire a Southern Baptist based on the chosen lifestyle of members of this "Christian" denomination, their love of discrimination, and their attacks on the rights of others, or refused to bake a cake for them?

If said organization had as one of it's religious tenets that southern baptism was sinful?

Yes.

Why is it such a requirement that SJW's have to have everyone not just tolerate others, but accept others OR ELSE.

Free exercise is a thing in this country, despite your ignorance of it.

Should the Catholic Church be forced to accept women priests, or gay priests, or Lutherans as priests?

One does not have to be a member of an organized religion to have a sincerely held belief. I personally find the southern baptist lifestyle and many of this religion's teachings unacceptable and reprehensible, but I would still have to serve them under the public accommodation laws and tolerate them if they served along with me in some public/governmental capacity. In other words, I would have to "tolerate" them. Accepting them would mean that I was being forced to mingle with them socially.
.
Every religious group is free to choose their officers and exclude others, as you mentioned with the Catholic Church. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 has a ministerial exemption. But is person who disapproves of a religious group's exclusionary policies or is a member of an excluded group allowed to discriminate against this religious group, refuse to "tolerate" or "accept" members of this group, refuse to hire them or refuse to serve them? This also would be "free exercise."

Do you tolerate or accept every sincerely held belief of every individual and religion?

This is an awkward and confusing situation. Some of these religions make blanket statements about women and about LGBTs, not just women or LGBTs who are members of their congregations. In these circumstances, how are women and LGBTs to protect themselves and their own freedom?

Stop asking questions if you're not going to answer any.

.

 

[martybegan]

Discrimination is not part of our American values. Discrimination against LGBTs is part of the "Christian values" only of certain varieties of the Christian faith. Not all. Nor are people of various religions entitled to more or superior rights to those to which other citizens are entitled, regardless of who they are. Every member of every religion must come to terms with how to observe the tenets of their faith and the requirements of the law simultaneously. There is no reason to allow anyone to transfer this burden onto other people. People forget that in cases such as these, LGBTs would bear the burden of a "government ideology," even though they are not responsible for what someone else believes.

Lots of words for forcing your beliefs on a religious organization despite their beliefs to the contrary.

Compromise is not possible with SJW morons like you, if it were we would all be better off.

How do you "compromise" when all it means is that everybody has to bow down to you? These shit-for-brains types are trying to force their beliefs on the rest of us. Sorry, we don't scapegoat a whole group of people or try to exclude them from general society just because some cults don't like them. LGBTs are NOT RESPONSIBLE for whatever beliefs someone else chooses to have. Beliefs are a choice. They should not become a government ideology. BTW: I'm proud to be an "SJW." It sure beats the alternative of being a warrior for social injustice.

How is forcing a church or religious school to hire say a secretary who lives a lifestyle that doesn't agree with said church or schools teachings making everyone "bow down"

This is the same bullshit as forcing the bakers to bake for Same sex weddings, it's not about fairness, it's about forced acceptance.

The force here is on the government, not on the school or church.

SJW's are today's fascists, really something to be proud of. You are just as bad as those Moral Majority assholes back in the 80's going after rock music.

Would you have the same response if someone refused to hire a Southern Baptist based on the chosen lifestyle of members of this "Christian" denomination, their love of discrimination, and their attacks on the rights of others, or refused to bake a cake for them?

If said organization had as one of it's religious tenets that southern baptism was sinful?

Yes.

Why is it such a requirement that SJW's have to have everyone not just tolerate others, but accept others OR ELSE.

Free exercise is a thing in this country, despite your ignorance of it.

Should the Catholic Church be forced to accept women priests, or gay priests, or Lutherans as priests?

One does not have to be a member of an organized religion to have a sincerely held belief. I personally find the southern baptist lifestyle and many of this religion's teachings unacceptable and reprehensible, but I would still have to serve them under the public accommodation laws and tolerate them if they served along with me in some public/governmental capacity. In other words, I would have to "tolerate" them. Accepting them would mean that I was being forced to mingle with them socially.
.
Every religious group is free to choose their officers and exclude others, as you mentioned with the Catholic Church. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 has a ministerial exemption. But is person who disapproves of a religious group's exclusionary policies or is a member of an excluded group allowed to discriminate against this religious group, refuse to "tolerate" or "accept" members of this group, refuse to hire them or refuse to serve them? This also would be "free exercise."

Do you tolerate or accept every sincerely held belief of every individual and religion?

This is an awkward and confusing situation. Some of these religions make blanket statements about women and about LGBTs, not just women or LGBTs who are members of their congregations. In these circumstances, how are women and LGBTs to protect themselves and their own freedom?

That's a hollow statement because they aren't forcing you to do anything with them. Why should a Church be forced to hire a cross dressing Satanist gay secretary?

Sorry, but free exercise isn't limited to the clergy or just Churches.

What is the good of that?

The issue boils down to you being a fucking busybody asshole who wants to force everyone to be JUST LIKE YOU.

 

[martybegan]

Discrimination is not part of our American values. Discrimination against LGBTs is part of the "Christian values" only of certain varieties of the Christian faith. Not all. Nor are people of various religions entitled to more or superior rights to those to which other citizens are entitled, regardless of who they are. Every member of every religion must come to terms with how to observe the tenets of their faith and the requirements of the law simultaneously. There is no reason to allow anyone to transfer this burden onto other people. People forget that in cases such as these, LGBTs would bear the burden of a "government ideology," even though they are not responsible for what someone else believes.

Lots of words for forcing your beliefs on a religious organization despite their beliefs to the contrary.

Compromise is not possible with SJW morons like you, if it were we would all be better off.

How do you "compromise" when all it means is that everybody has to bow down to you? These shit-for-brains types are trying to force their beliefs on the rest of us. Sorry, we don't scapegoat a whole group of people or try to exclude them from general society just because some cults don't like them. LGBTs are NOT RESPONSIBLE for whatever beliefs someone else chooses to have. Beliefs are a choice. They should not become a government ideology. BTW: I'm proud to be an "SJW." It sure beats the alternative of being a warrior for social injustice.

How is forcing a church or religious school to hire say a secretary who lives a lifestyle that doesn't agree with said church or schools teachings making everyone "bow down"

This is the same bullshit as forcing the bakers to bake for Same sex weddings, it's not about fairness, it's about forced acceptance.

The force here is on the government, not on the school or church.

SJW's are today's fascists, really something to be proud of. You are just as bad as those Moral Majority assholes back in the 80's going after rock music.

Would you have the same response if someone refused to hire a Southern Baptist based on the chosen lifestyle of members of this "Christian" denomination, their love of discrimination, and their attacks on the rights of others, or refused to bake a cake for them?

If said organization had as one of it's religious tenets that southern baptism was sinful?

Yes.

Why is it such a requirement that SJW's have to have everyone not just tolerate others, but accept others OR ELSE.

Free exercise is a thing in this country, despite your ignorance of it.

Should the Catholic Church be forced to accept women priests, or gay priests, or Lutherans as priests?

One does not have to be a member of an organized religion to have a sincerely held belief. I personally find the southern baptist lifestyle and many of this religion's teachings unacceptable and reprehensible, but I would still have to serve them under the public accommodation laws and tolerate them if they served along with me in some public/governmental capacity. In other words, I would have to "tolerate" them. Accepting them would mean that I was being forced to mingle with them socially.
.
Every religious group is free to choose their officers and exclude others, as you mentioned with the Catholic Church. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 has a ministerial exemption. But is person who disapproves of a religious group's exclusionary policies or is a member of an excluded group allowed to discriminate against this religious group, refuse to "tolerate" or "accept" members of this group, refuse to hire them or refuse to serve them? This also would be "free exercise."

Do you tolerate or accept every sincerely held belief of every individual and religion?

This is an awkward and confusing situation. Some of these religions make blanket statements about women and about LGBTs, not just women or LGBTs who are members of their congregations. In these circumstances, how are women and LGBTs to protect themselves and their own freedom?

Stop asking questions if you're not going to answer any.

.

She's a religion hating twat, nothing more.

 

[Theowl32]

Discrimination is not part of our American values. Discrimination against LGBTs is part of the "Christian values" only of certain varieties of the Christian faith. Not all. Nor are people of various religions entitled to more or superior rights to those to which other citizens are entitled, regardless of who they are. Every member of every religion must come to terms with how to observe the tenets of their faith and the requirements of the law simultaneously. There is no reason to allow anyone to transfer this burden onto other people. People forget that in cases such as these, LGBTs would bear the burden of a "government ideology," even though they are not responsible for what someone else believes.

Lots of words for forcing your beliefs on a religious organization despite their beliefs to the contrary.

Compromise is not possible with SJW morons like you, if it were we would all be better off.

How do you "compromise" when all it means is that everybody has to bow down to you? These shit-for-brains types are trying to force their beliefs on the rest of us. Sorry, we don't scapegoat a whole group of people or try to exclude them from general society just because some cults don't like them. LGBTs are NOT RESPONSIBLE for whatever beliefs someone else chooses to have. Beliefs are a choice. They should not become a government ideology. BTW: I'm proud to be an "SJW." It sure beats the alternative of being a warrior for social injustice.

How is forcing a church or religious school to hire say a secretary who lives a lifestyle that doesn't agree with said church or schools teachings making everyone "bow down"

This is the same bullshit as forcing the bakers to bake for Same sex weddings, it's not about fairness, it's about forced acceptance.

The force here is on the government, not on the school or church.

SJW's are today's fascists, really something to be proud of. You are just as bad as those Moral Majority assholes back in the 80's going after rock music.

Would you have the same response if someone refused to hire a Southern Baptist based on the chosen lifestyle of members of this "Christian" denomination, their love of discrimination, and their attacks on the rights of others, or refused to bake a cake for them?

If said organization had as one of it's religious tenets that southern baptism was sinful?

Yes.

Why is it such a requirement that SJW's have to have everyone not just tolerate others, but accept others OR ELSE.

Free exercise is a thing in this country, despite your ignorance of it.

Should the Catholic Church be forced to accept women priests, or gay priests, or Lutherans as priests?

With their communist globalist pope, yes they probably will. There will be another great schism like there always is. Remember reading when Saint Nicholas reportedly walked up to Arius and slapped him across his face for leading many to reject the notion of the Trinity.

 

[OKTexas]

Would you have the same response if someone refused to hire a Southern Baptist based on the chosen lifestyle of members of this "Christian" denomination, their love of discrimination, and their attacks on the rights of others, or refused to bake a cake for them?

So you think Planned Parenthood should have to hire anit-abortionist to be counselors in their clinics? Really?????????????

.

No. An anti-abortion person would, by definition, not be neutral on the abortion issue, and therefore, would not be able to meet the requirements of the job.

The exact same circumstance applies to the OP, Christians can't be forced to hire people who don't share their values. And they damn sure can't be forced to pay for fake gender reassignment surgery.

.

 

[Picaro]

Too many Christian schools would try and weed out the faggots and their penchant for kiddie rape, so they need to be crushed and forced to let their children be molested and screwed by homos, to teach them a lesson about who will really run this country. Many Christians are too attached to their riding lawn mowers and Chevy Suburbans and the like to risk anything to fight for themselves, while faggots and theri fellow deviants have been buying special legal privileges and exemptions from both Parties; and we know Wall Street, the DNC, and the RNC all hate Xians anyway, so the pols were bought cheap.

When the low life scum and vermin break the churches down to nothing, they will have broken the whole system. Many thingk they already have, and yet still do nothing so it's just as well; any society that can't even manage protecting its own children from faggot rapists and deviants deserves to fall. At least we can enjoy watching the scum devour each other as they always do as well.

 

[martybegan]

Discrimination is not part of our American values. Discrimination against LGBTs is part of the "Christian values" only of certain varieties of the Christian faith. Not all. Nor are people of various religions entitled to more or superior rights to those to which other citizens are entitled, regardless of who they are. Every member of every religion must come to terms with how to observe the tenets of their faith and the requirements of the law simultaneously. There is no reason to allow anyone to transfer this burden onto other people. People forget that in cases such as these, LGBTs would bear the burden of a "government ideology," even though they are not responsible for what someone else believes.

Lots of words for forcing your beliefs on a religious organization despite their beliefs to the contrary.

Compromise is not possible with SJW morons like you, if it were we would all be better off.

How do you "compromise" when all it means is that everybody has to bow down to you? These shit-for-brains types are trying to force their beliefs on the rest of us. Sorry, we don't scapegoat a whole group of people or try to exclude them from general society just because some cults don't like them. LGBTs are NOT RESPONSIBLE for whatever beliefs someone else chooses to have. Beliefs are a choice. They should not become a government ideology. BTW: I'm proud to be an "SJW." It sure beats the alternative of being a warrior for social injustice.

How is forcing a church or religious school to hire say a secretary who lives a lifestyle that doesn't agree with said church or schools teachings making everyone "bow down"

This is the same bullshit as forcing the bakers to bake for Same sex weddings, it's not about fairness, it's about forced acceptance.

The force here is on the government, not on the school or church.

SJW's are today's fascists, really something to be proud of. You are just as bad as those Moral Majority assholes back in the 80's going after rock music.

Would you have the same response if someone refused to hire a Southern Baptist based on the chosen lifestyle of members of this "Christian" denomination, their love of discrimination, and their attacks on the rights of others, or refused to bake a cake for them?

If said organization had as one of it's religious tenets that southern baptism was sinful?

Yes.

Why is it such a requirement that SJW's have to have everyone not just tolerate others, but accept others OR ELSE.

Free exercise is a thing in this country, despite your ignorance of it.

Should the Catholic Church be forced to accept women priests, or gay priests, or Lutherans as priests?

With their communist globalist pope, yes they probably will. There will be another great schism like there always is. Remember reading when Saint Nicholas reportedly walked up to Arius and slapped him across his face for leading many to reject the notion of the Trinity.

Lets see priests be able to get married first.

 

[22lcidw]

What the Democrats have in store nationally.

Three Christian schools and a Christian network of pregnancy centers are suing Attorney General Mark Herring (D-Va.) in order to prevent Virginia from implementing two pro-LGBT laws that force “people of faith to adopt a particular government ideology under threat of punishment.” The two laws purport to prevent “discrimination” against LGBT people but, in reality, they force Christian ministries to choose between violating their sincerely held religious beliefs or paying hefty fines, as much as $100,000 per offense.

Virginia Forces Christian Ministries to Adopt 'Government Ideology' or Pay $100K

I don't remember Christ saying to treat people differently when it came to ministry.

Eventually Christians will be forced to go to services in underground or hidden areas for safety.

 

[Andylusion]

What the Democrats have in store nationally.

Three Christian schools and a Christian network of pregnancy centers are suing Attorney General Mark Herring (D-Va.) in order to prevent Virginia from implementing two pro-LGBT laws that force “people of faith to adopt a particular government ideology under threat of punishment.” The two laws purport to prevent “discrimination” against LGBT people but, in reality, they force Christian ministries to choose between violating their sincerely held religious beliefs or paying hefty fines, as much as $100,000 per offense.

Virginia Forces Christian Ministries to Adopt 'Government Ideology' or Pay $100K

Fight it! Or start meeting in unofficial churches, that skirt the law.

 

[Andylusion]

Would you have the same response if someone refused to hire a Southern Baptist based on the chosen lifestyle of members of this "Christian" denomination, their love of discrimination, and their attacks on the rights of others, or refused to bake a cake for them?

So you think Planned Parenthood should have to hire anit-abortionist to be counselors in their clinics? Really?????????????

.

No. An anti-abortion person would, by definition, not be neutral on the abortion issue, and therefore, would not be able to meet the requirements of the job.

Really? So an anti-abortion person, could not possible sit at the entrance desk, and conduct the position effectively? Sure they could. Of course they could.

But of course, if every time a lady came in, she wept for the child whose head was about to be torn off by a 'doctor', I wager that would cause some people to rethinking murdering their child, and that would be a problem for the pro-murder left-wingers at the clinic.

We have something in this country called "Freedom of Association". Which is part of Article 11 of the Bill of Rights.

What is freedom of association?

To give a simple definition....

Freedom of association - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Freedom of association encompasses both an individual's right to join or leave groups voluntarily, the right of the group to take collective action to pursue the interests of its members, and the right of an association to accept or decline membership based on certain criteria.

Simply put, it is unconstitutional, and evil, for you to dictate who I must associate with, whether I am an individual choose to, or not to, involve myself with a group of other people, or if I'm the owner of an organization, and telling me who I must hire, and allow into my organization.

The problem with left-wingers is, they never put themselves in the position they demand others be in.

If in the name of tolerance the most racist and evil person in the country (I don't know who that would be) David Duke or someone, was required by law for the DNC to allow him to speak at the convention... suddenly you would be a big fan of Freedom of Association.

But because you can live in a hypocritical world, where the rules of tolerance only apply to others, you can therefore pretend that other people don't have to the rights to choose who they associate with.

 

[danielpalos]

Would the alleged Religious have any problems if they actually followed the example of Jesus the Christ? Original sinners should not be "casting any stones".

 

[JustAGuy1]

Would the alleged Religious have any problems if they actually followed the example of Jesus the Christ? Original sinners should not be "casting any stones".

What would you know about Jesus?

 

[Lysistrata]

Discrimination is not part of our American values. Discrimination against LGBTs is part of the "Christian values" only of certain varieties of the Christian faith. Not all. Nor are people of various religions entitled to more or superior rights to those to which other citizens are entitled, regardless of who they are. Every member of every religion must come to terms with how to observe the tenets of their faith and the requirements of the law simultaneously. There is no reason to allow anyone to transfer this burden onto other people. People forget that in cases such as these, LGBTs would bear the burden of a "government ideology," even though they are not responsible for what someone else believes.

Lots of words for forcing your beliefs on a religious organization despite their beliefs to the contrary.

Compromise is not possible with SJW morons like you, if it were we would all be better off.

How do you "compromise" when all it means is that everybody has to bow down to you? These shit-for-brains types are trying to force their beliefs on the rest of us. Sorry, we don't scapegoat a whole group of people or try to exclude them from general society just because some cults don't like them. LGBTs are NOT RESPONSIBLE for whatever beliefs someone else chooses to have. Beliefs are a choice. They should not become a government ideology. BTW: I'm proud to be an "SJW." It sure beats the alternative of being a warrior for social injustice.

How is forcing a church or religious school to hire say a secretary who lives a lifestyle that doesn't agree with said church or schools teachings making everyone "bow down"

This is the same bullshit as forcing the bakers to bake for Same sex weddings, it's not about fairness, it's about forced acceptance.

The force here is on the government, not on the school or church.

SJW's are today's fascists, really something to be proud of. You are just as bad as those Moral Majority assholes back in the 80's going after rock music.

Would you have the same response if someone refused to hire a Southern Baptist based on the chosen lifestyle of members of this "Christian" denomination, their love of discrimination, and their attacks on the rights of others, or refused to bake a cake for them?

If said organization had as one of it's religious tenets that southern baptism was sinful?

Yes.

Why is it such a requirement that SJW's have to have everyone not just tolerate others, but accept others OR ELSE.

Free exercise is a thing in this country, despite your ignorance of it.

Should the Catholic Church be forced to accept women priests, or gay priests, or Lutherans as priests?

One does not have to be a member of an organized religion to have a sincerely held belief. I personally find the southern baptist lifestyle and many of this religion's teachings unacceptable and reprehensible, but I would still have to serve them under the public accommodation laws and tolerate them if they served along with me in some public/governmental capacity. In other words, I would have to "tolerate" them. Accepting them would mean that I was being forced to mingle with them socially.
.
Every religious group is free to choose their officers and exclude others, as you mentioned with the Catholic Church. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 has a ministerial exemption. But is person who disapproves of a religious group's exclusionary policies or is a member of an excluded group allowed to discriminate against this religious group, refuse to "tolerate" or "accept" members of this group, refuse to hire them or refuse to serve them? This also would be "free exercise."

Do you tolerate or accept every sincerely held belief of every individual and religion?

This is an awkward and confusing situation. Some of these religions make blanket statements about women and about LGBTs, not just women or LGBTs who are members of their congregations. In these circumstances, how are women and LGBTs to protect themselves and their own freedom?

That's a hollow statement because they aren't forcing you to do anything with them. Why should a Church be forced to hire a cross dressing Satanist gay secretary?

Sorry, but free exercise isn't limited to the clergy or just Churches.

What is the good of that?

The issue boils down to you being a fucking busybody asshole who wants to force everyone to be JUST LIKE YOU.

I just SAID that free exercise isn't limited to the clergy or just Churches. I also said that the 1964 CRA has a ministerial exception.

The standard that applies in public-accommodation laws is not whether someone is being forced to do anything with them. It is a matter of providing the goods and services that the person advertises to the public as being available. If you don't, it's false advertising.

Would you have the same response if someone refused to hire a Southern Baptist based on the chosen lifestyle of members of this "Christian" denomination, their love of discrimination, and their attacks on the rights of others, or refused to bake a cake for them?

So you think Planned Parenthood should have to hire anit-abortionist to be counselors in their clinics? Really?????????????

.

No. An anti-abortion person would, by definition, not be neutral on the abortion issue, and therefore, would not be able to meet the requirements of the job.

Really? So an anti-abortion person, could not possible sit at the entrance desk, and conduct the position effectively? Sure they could. Of course they could.

But of course, if every time a lady came in, she wept for the child whose head was about to be torn off by a 'doctor', I wager that would cause some people to rethinking murdering their child, and that would be a problem for the pro-murder left-wingers at the clinic.

We have something in this country called "Freedom of Association". Which is part of Article 11 of the Bill of Rights.

What is freedom of association?

To give a simple definition....

Freedom of association - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Freedom of association encompasses both an individual's right to join or leave groups voluntarily, the right of the group to take collective action to pursue the interests of its members, and the right of an association to accept or decline membership based on certain criteria.

Simply put, it is unconstitutional, and evil, for you to dictate who I must associate with, whether I am an individual choose to, or not to, involve myself with a group of other people, or if I'm the owner of an organization, and telling me who I must hire, and allow into my organization.

The problem with left-wingers is, they never put themselves in the position they demand others be in.

If in the name of tolerance the most racist and evil person in the country (I don't know who that would be) David Duke or someone, was required by law for the DNC to allow him to speak at the convention... suddenly you would be a big fan of Freedom of Association.

But because you can live in a hypocritical world, where the rules of tolerance only apply to others, you can therefore pretend that other people don't have to the rights to choose who they associate with.

Commerce is regulated differently than social associations to serve the common good and preserve an open marketplace. A kosher deli, for instance, is not required to stock pork products. But if it does, it can't pick and choose whom to sell them to. If you don't want to associate with some people when you are out in public generally, do as other groups do, like the Amish and the ultra-orthodox Jews. They both seem to have been successful in establishing relatively insular communities and limiting their contacts with outsiders. I don't know of any law that would require any private organization to provide a forum for any outsider.

BTW: political views and affiliations are not covered by public-accommodation laws. Should they be?

It's ironic that you people claim freedom of association, even in a commercial context, and also scream about same-sex marriage, which clearly involves freedom of association.

I never claimed that anyone has to be just like me. The "fucking busybody asshole" who want to force everyone to be just like them are people like frankie graham and, it seems, you.

 

[danielpalos]

Would the alleged Religious have any problems if they actually followed the example of Jesus the Christ? Original sinners should not be "casting any stones".

What would you know about Jesus?

More than any right winger, apparently.

 

[JustAGuy1]

Would the alleged Religious have any problems if they actually followed the example of Jesus the Christ? Original sinners should not be "casting any stones".

What would you know about Jesus?

More than any right winger, apparently.

I don't think so son.

 

[martybegan]

Discrimination is not part of our American values. Discrimination against LGBTs is part of the "Christian values" only of certain varieties of the Christian faith. Not all. Nor are people of various religions entitled to more or superior rights to those to which other citizens are entitled, regardless of who they are. Every member of every religion must come to terms with how to observe the tenets of their faith and the requirements of the law simultaneously. There is no reason to allow anyone to transfer this burden onto other people. People forget that in cases such as these, LGBTs would bear the burden of a "government ideology," even though they are not responsible for what someone else believes.

Lots of words for forcing your beliefs on a religious organization despite their beliefs to the contrary.

Compromise is not possible with SJW morons like you, if it were we would all be better off.

How do you "compromise" when all it means is that everybody has to bow down to you? These shit-for-brains types are trying to force their beliefs on the rest of us. Sorry, we don't scapegoat a whole group of people or try to exclude them from general society just because some cults don't like them. LGBTs are NOT RESPONSIBLE for whatever beliefs someone else chooses to have. Beliefs are a choice. They should not become a government ideology. BTW: I'm proud to be an "SJW." It sure beats the alternative of being a warrior for social injustice.

How is forcing a church or religious school to hire say a secretary who lives a lifestyle that doesn't agree with said church or schools teachings making everyone "bow down"

This is the same bullshit as forcing the bakers to bake for Same sex weddings, it's not about fairness, it's about forced acceptance.

The force here is on the government, not on the school or church.

SJW's are today's fascists, really something to be proud of. You are just as bad as those Moral Majority assholes back in the 80's going after rock music.

Would you have the same response if someone refused to hire a Southern Baptist based on the chosen lifestyle of members of this "Christian" denomination, their love of discrimination, and their attacks on the rights of others, or refused to bake a cake for them?

If said organization had as one of it's religious tenets that southern baptism was sinful?

Yes.

Why is it such a requirement that SJW's have to have everyone not just tolerate others, but accept others OR ELSE.

Free exercise is a thing in this country, despite your ignorance of it.

Should the Catholic Church be forced to accept women priests, or gay priests, or Lutherans as priests?

One does not have to be a member of an organized religion to have a sincerely held belief. I personally find the southern baptist lifestyle and many of this religion's teachings unacceptable and reprehensible, but I would still have to serve them under the public accommodation laws and tolerate them if they served along with me in some public/governmental capacity. In other words, I would have to "tolerate" them. Accepting them would mean that I was being forced to mingle with them socially.
.
Every religious group is free to choose their officers and exclude others, as you mentioned with the Catholic Church. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 has a ministerial exemption. But is person who disapproves of a religious group's exclusionary policies or is a member of an excluded group allowed to discriminate against this religious group, refuse to "tolerate" or "accept" members of this group, refuse to hire them or refuse to serve them? This also would be "free exercise."

Do you tolerate or accept every sincerely held belief of every individual and religion?

This is an awkward and confusing situation. Some of these religions make blanket statements about women and about LGBTs, not just women or LGBTs who are members of their congregations. In these circumstances, how are women and LGBTs to protect themselves and their own freedom?

That's a hollow statement because they aren't forcing you to do anything with them. Why should a Church be forced to hire a cross dressing Satanist gay secretary?

Sorry, but free exercise isn't limited to the clergy or just Churches.

What is the good of that?

The issue boils down to you being a fucking busybody asshole who wants to force everyone to be JUST LIKE YOU.

I just SAID that free exercise isn't limited to the clergy or just Churches. I also said that the 1964 CRA has a ministerial exception.

The standard that applies in public-accommodation laws is not whether someone is being forced to do anything with them. It is a matter of providing the goods and services that the person advertises to the public as being available. If you don't, it's false advertising.

Would you have the same response if someone refused to hire a Southern Baptist based on the chosen lifestyle of members of this "Christian" denomination, their love of discrimination, and their attacks on the rights of others, or refused to bake a cake for them?

So you think Planned Parenthood should have to hire anit-abortionist to be counselors in their clinics? Really?????????????

.

No. An anti-abortion person would, by definition, not be neutral on the abortion issue, and therefore, would not be able to meet the requirements of the job.

Really? So an anti-abortion person, could not possible sit at the entrance desk, and conduct the position effectively? Sure they could. Of course they could.

But of course, if every time a lady came in, she wept for the child whose head was about to be torn off by a 'doctor', I wager that would cause some people to rethinking murdering their child, and that would be a problem for the pro-murder left-wingers at the clinic.

We have something in this country called "Freedom of Association". Which is part of Article 11 of the Bill of Rights.

What is freedom of association?

To give a simple definition....

Freedom of association - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Freedom of association encompasses both an individual's right to join or leave groups voluntarily, the right of the group to take collective action to pursue the interests of its members, and the right of an association to accept or decline membership based on certain criteria.

Simply put, it is unconstitutional, and evil, for you to dictate who I must associate with, whether I am an individual choose to, or not to, involve myself with a group of other people, or if I'm the owner of an organization, and telling me who I must hire, and allow into my organization.

The problem with left-wingers is, they never put themselves in the position they demand others be in.

If in the name of tolerance the most racist and evil person in the country (I don't know who that would be) David Duke or someone, was required by law for the DNC to allow him to speak at the convention... suddenly you would be a big fan of Freedom of Association.

But because you can live in a hypocritical world, where the rules of tolerance only apply to others, you can therefore pretend that other people don't have to the rights to choose who they associate with.

Commerce is regulated differently than social associations to serve the common good and preserve an open marketplace. A kosher deli, for instance, is not required to stock pork products. But if it does, it can't pick and choose whom to sell them to. If you don't want to associate with some people when you are out in public generally, do as other groups do, like the Amish and the ultra-orthodox Jews. They both seem to have been successful in establishing relatively insular communities and limiting their contacts with outsiders. I don't know of any law that would require any private organization to provide a forum for any outsider.

BTW: political views and affiliations are not covered by public-accommodation laws. Should they be?

It's ironic that you people claim freedom of association, even in a commercial context, and also scream about same-sex marriage, which clearly involves freedom of association.

I never claimed that anyone has to be just like me. The "fucking busybody asshole" who want to force everyone to be just like them are people like frankie graham and, it seems, you.

Again, you ignore free exercise.

What you are doing is forcing the jews to stock pork because to the Christians, same sex marriage isn't marriage, just as pork is unclean. You lack the ability and empathy to see anything except your own worldview, and the humility to not want to force it on others. You are a fascist asshole, who will make the world a better place when you are 6 feet under it.

Your narcissism cannot allow you to accept these small exceptions, and gives you the cowardly desire to use government to force your views on others.

You probably are the type of dried up old twat with a miserable life and 30 cats, that will probably eat you when you pass, cold and alone.

 

[justinacolmena]

… a Christian network of pregnancy centers … suing Attorney General Mark Herring (D-Va.) in order to prevent Virginia from implementing two pro-LGBT laws …

Remember that the same law of Moses that permits the circumcision of an infant's foreskin also requires the circumcision of the heart of anyone who performs such a vile deed in the flesh: that is, the heart must be literally "cut around" and removed from the chest still beating, blood spurting everywhere.

Genesis 9:6 KJV: Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

Once again, the Christian Democrat apologists and abortionists have shot up female fetuses with bovine testosterone or artificial anabolic steroids in the womb in order to force their labia minora to fuse together with their clitoris into a penis and prevent the embryonic testicles from undergoing apoptosis and disappearing as in normal female development.

 

[danielpalos]

Discrimination is not part of our American values. Discrimination against LGBTs is part of the "Christian values" only of certain varieties of the Christian faith. Not all. Nor are people of various religions entitled to more or superior rights to those to which other citizens are entitled, regardless of who they are. Every member of every religion must come to terms with how to observe the tenets of their faith and the requirements of the law simultaneously. There is no reason to allow anyone to transfer this burden onto other people. People forget that in cases such as these, LGBTs would bear the burden of a "government ideology," even though they are not responsible for what someone else believes.

Lots of words for forcing your beliefs on a religious organization despite their beliefs to the contrary.

Compromise is not possible with SJW morons like you, if it were we would all be better off.

How do you "compromise" when all it means is that everybody has to bow down to you? These shit-for-brains types are trying to force their beliefs on the rest of us. Sorry, we don't scapegoat a whole group of people or try to exclude them from general society just because some cults don't like them. LGBTs are NOT RESPONSIBLE for whatever beliefs someone else chooses to have. Beliefs are a choice. They should not become a government ideology. BTW: I'm proud to be an "SJW." It sure beats the alternative of being a warrior for social injustice.

How is forcing a church or religious school to hire say a secretary who lives a lifestyle that doesn't agree with said church or schools teachings making everyone "bow down"

This is the same bullshit as forcing the bakers to bake for Same sex weddings, it's not about fairness, it's about forced acceptance.

The force here is on the government, not on the school or church.

SJW's are today's fascists, really something to be proud of. You are just as bad as those Moral Majority assholes back in the 80's going after rock music.

Would you have the same response if someone refused to hire a Southern Baptist based on the chosen lifestyle of members of this "Christian" denomination, their love of discrimination, and their attacks on the rights of others, or refused to bake a cake for them?

If said organization had as one of it's religious tenets that southern baptism was sinful?

Yes.

Why is it such a requirement that SJW's have to have everyone not just tolerate others, but accept others OR ELSE.

Free exercise is a thing in this country, despite your ignorance of it.

Should the Catholic Church be forced to accept women priests, or gay priests, or Lutherans as priests?

One does not have to be a member of an organized religion to have a sincerely held belief. I personally find the southern baptist lifestyle and many of this religion's teachings unacceptable and reprehensible, but I would still have to serve them under the public accommodation laws and tolerate them if they served along with me in some public/governmental capacity. In other words, I would have to "tolerate" them. Accepting them would mean that I was being forced to mingle with them socially.
.
Every religious group is free to choose their officers and exclude others, as you mentioned with the Catholic Church. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 has a ministerial exemption. But is person who disapproves of a religious group's exclusionary policies or is a member of an excluded group allowed to discriminate against this religious group, refuse to "tolerate" or "accept" members of this group, refuse to hire them or refuse to serve them? This also would be "free exercise."

Do you tolerate or accept every sincerely held belief of every individual and religion?

This is an awkward and confusing situation. Some of these religions make blanket statements about women and about LGBTs, not just women or LGBTs who are members of their congregations. In these circumstances, how are women and LGBTs to protect themselves and their own freedom?

That's a hollow statement because they aren't forcing you to do anything with them. Why should a Church be forced to hire a cross dressing Satanist gay secretary?

Sorry, but free exercise isn't limited to the clergy or just Churches.

What is the good of that?

The issue boils down to you being a fucking busybody asshole who wants to force everyone to be JUST LIKE YOU.

I just SAID that free exercise isn't limited to the clergy or just Churches. I also said that the 1964 CRA has a ministerial exception.

The standard that applies in public-accommodation laws is not whether someone is being forced to do anything with them. It is a matter of providing the goods and services that the person advertises to the public as being available. If you don't, it's false advertising.

Would you have the same response if someone refused to hire a Southern Baptist based on the chosen lifestyle of members of this "Christian" denomination, their love of discrimination, and their attacks on the rights of others, or refused to bake a cake for them?

So you think Planned Parenthood should have to hire anit-abortionist to be counselors in their clinics? Really?????????????

.

No. An anti-abortion person would, by definition, not be neutral on the abortion issue, and therefore, would not be able to meet the requirements of the job.

Really? So an anti-abortion person, could not possible sit at the entrance desk, and conduct the position effectively? Sure they could. Of course they could.

But of course, if every time a lady came in, she wept for the child whose head was about to be torn off by a 'doctor', I wager that would cause some people to rethinking murdering their child, and that would be a problem for the pro-murder left-wingers at the clinic.

We have something in this country called "Freedom of Association". Which is part of Article 11 of the Bill of Rights.

What is freedom of association?

To give a simple definition....

Freedom of association - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Freedom of association encompasses both an individual's right to join or leave groups voluntarily, the right of the group to take collective action to pursue the interests of its members, and the right of an association to accept or decline membership based on certain criteria.

Simply put, it is unconstitutional, and evil, for you to dictate who I must associate with, whether I am an individual choose to, or not to, involve myself with a group of other people, or if I'm the owner of an organization, and telling me who I must hire, and allow into my organization.

The problem with left-wingers is, they never put themselves in the position they demand others be in.

If in the name of tolerance the most racist and evil person in the country (I don't know who that would be) David Duke or someone, was required by law for the DNC to allow him to speak at the convention... suddenly you would be a big fan of Freedom of Association.

But because you can live in a hypocritical world, where the rules of tolerance only apply to others, you can therefore pretend that other people don't have to the rights to choose who they associate with.

Commerce is regulated differently than social associations to serve the common good and preserve an open marketplace. A kosher deli, for instance, is not required to stock pork products. But if it does, it can't pick and choose whom to sell them to. If you don't want to associate with some people when you are out in public generally, do as other groups do, like the Amish and the ultra-orthodox Jews. They both seem to have been successful in establishing relatively insular communities and limiting their contacts with outsiders. I don't know of any law that would require any private organization to provide a forum for any outsider.

BTW: political views and affiliations are not covered by public-accommodation laws. Should they be?

It's ironic that you people claim freedom of association, even in a commercial context, and also scream about same-sex marriage, which clearly involves freedom of association.

I never claimed that anyone has to be just like me. The "fucking busybody asshole" who want to force everyone to be just like them are people like frankie graham and, it seems, you.

Again, you ignore free exercise.

What you are doing is forcing the jews to stock pork because to the Christians, same sex marriage isn't marriage, just as pork is unclean. You lack the ability and empathy to see anything except your own worldview, and the humility to not want to force it on others. You are a fascist asshole, who will make the world a better place when you are 6 feet under it.

Your narcissism cannot allow you to accept these small exceptions, and gives you the cowardly desire to use government to force your views on others.

You probably are the type of dried up old twat with a miserable life and 30 cats, that will probably eat you when you pass, cold and alone.

No one is forcing alleged Christians to marry persons of the same sex. The problem is when the Laity want Religious authority to tell other people what to do. Show us by example not appeal to authority Original Sinners can never have.

 

[martybegan]

Discrimination is not part of our American values. Discrimination against LGBTs is part of the "Christian values" only of certain varieties of the Christian faith. Not all. Nor are people of various religions entitled to more or superior rights to those to which other citizens are entitled, regardless of who they are. Every member of every religion must come to terms with how to observe the tenets of their faith and the requirements of the law simultaneously. There is no reason to allow anyone to transfer this burden onto other people. People forget that in cases such as these, LGBTs would bear the burden of a "government ideology," even though they are not responsible for what someone else believes.

Lots of words for forcing your beliefs on a religious organization despite their beliefs to the contrary.

Compromise is not possible with SJW morons like you, if it were we would all be better off.

How do you "compromise" when all it means is that everybody has to bow down to you? These shit-for-brains types are trying to force their beliefs on the rest of us. Sorry, we don't scapegoat a whole group of people or try to exclude them from general society just because some cults don't like them. LGBTs are NOT RESPONSIBLE for whatever beliefs someone else chooses to have. Beliefs are a choice. They should not become a government ideology. BTW: I'm proud to be an "SJW." It sure beats the alternative of being a warrior for social injustice.

How is forcing a church or religious school to hire say a secretary who lives a lifestyle that doesn't agree with said church or schools teachings making everyone "bow down"

This is the same bullshit as forcing the bakers to bake for Same sex weddings, it's not about fairness, it's about forced acceptance.

The force here is on the government, not on the school or church.

SJW's are today's fascists, really something to be proud of. You are just as bad as those Moral Majority assholes back in the 80's going after rock music.

Would you have the same response if someone refused to hire a Southern Baptist based on the chosen lifestyle of members of this "Christian" denomination, their love of discrimination, and their attacks on the rights of others, or refused to bake a cake for them?

If said organization had as one of it's religious tenets that southern baptism was sinful?

Yes.

Why is it such a requirement that SJW's have to have everyone not just tolerate others, but accept others OR ELSE.

Free exercise is a thing in this country, despite your ignorance of it.

Should the Catholic Church be forced to accept women priests, or gay priests, or Lutherans as priests?

One does not have to be a member of an organized religion to have a sincerely held belief. I personally find the southern baptist lifestyle and many of this religion's teachings unacceptable and reprehensible, but I would still have to serve them under the public accommodation laws and tolerate them if they served along with me in some public/governmental capacity. In other words, I would have to "tolerate" them. Accepting them would mean that I was being forced to mingle with them socially.
.
Every religious group is free to choose their officers and exclude others, as you mentioned with the Catholic Church. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 has a ministerial exemption. But is person who disapproves of a religious group's exclusionary policies or is a member of an excluded group allowed to discriminate against this religious group, refuse to "tolerate" or "accept" members of this group, refuse to hire them or refuse to serve them? This also would be "free exercise."

Do you tolerate or accept every sincerely held belief of every individual and religion?

This is an awkward and confusing situation. Some of these religions make blanket statements about women and about LGBTs, not just women or LGBTs who are members of their congregations. In these circumstances, how are women and LGBTs to protect themselves and their own freedom?

That's a hollow statement because they aren't forcing you to do anything with them. Why should a Church be forced to hire a cross dressing Satanist gay secretary?

Sorry, but free exercise isn't limited to the clergy or just Churches.

What is the good of that?

The issue boils down to you being a fucking busybody asshole who wants to force everyone to be JUST LIKE YOU.

I just SAID that free exercise isn't limited to the clergy or just Churches. I also said that the 1964 CRA has a ministerial exception.

The standard that applies in public-accommodation laws is not whether someone is being forced to do anything with them. It is a matter of providing the goods and services that the person advertises to the public as being available. If you don't, it's false advertising.

Would you have the same response if someone refused to hire a Southern Baptist based on the chosen lifestyle of members of this "Christian" denomination, their love of discrimination, and their attacks on the rights of others, or refused to bake a cake for them?

So you think Planned Parenthood should have to hire anit-abortionist to be counselors in their clinics? Really?????????????

.

No. An anti-abortion person would, by definition, not be neutral on the abortion issue, and therefore, would not be able to meet the requirements of the job.

Really? So an anti-abortion person, could not possible sit at the entrance desk, and conduct the position effectively? Sure they could. Of course they could.

But of course, if every time a lady came in, she wept for the child whose head was about to be torn off by a 'doctor', I wager that would cause some people to rethinking murdering their child, and that would be a problem for the pro-murder left-wingers at the clinic.

We have something in this country called "Freedom of Association". Which is part of Article 11 of the Bill of Rights.

What is freedom of association?

To give a simple definition....

Freedom of association - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Freedom of association encompasses both an individual's right to join or leave groups voluntarily, the right of the group to take collective action to pursue the interests of its members, and the right of an association to accept or decline membership based on certain criteria.

Simply put, it is unconstitutional, and evil, for you to dictate who I must associate with, whether I am an individual choose to, or not to, involve myself with a group of other people, or if I'm the owner of an organization, and telling me who I must hire, and allow into my organization.

The problem with left-wingers is, they never put themselves in the position they demand others be in.

If in the name of tolerance the most racist and evil person in the country (I don't know who that would be) David Duke or someone, was required by law for the DNC to allow him to speak at the convention... suddenly you would be a big fan of Freedom of Association.

But because you can live in a hypocritical world, where the rules of tolerance only apply to others, you can therefore pretend that other people don't have to the rights to choose who they associate with.

Commerce is regulated differently than social associations to serve the common good and preserve an open marketplace. A kosher deli, for instance, is not required to stock pork products. But if it does, it can't pick and choose whom to sell them to. If you don't want to associate with some people when you are out in public generally, do as other groups do, like the Amish and the ultra-orthodox Jews. They both seem to have been successful in establishing relatively insular communities and limiting their contacts with outsiders. I don't know of any law that would require any private organization to provide a forum for any outsider.

BTW: political views and affiliations are not covered by public-accommodation laws. Should they be?

It's ironic that you people claim freedom of association, even in a commercial context, and also scream about same-sex marriage, which clearly involves freedom of association.

I never claimed that anyone has to be just like me. The "fucking busybody asshole" who want to force everyone to be just like them are people like frankie graham and, it seems, you.

Again, you ignore free exercise.

What you are doing is forcing the jews to stock pork because to the Christians, same sex marriage isn't marriage, just as pork is unclean. You lack the ability and empathy to see anything except your own worldview, and the humility to not want to force it on others. You are a fascist asshole, who will make the world a better place when you are 6 feet under it.

Your narcissism cannot allow you to accept these small exceptions, and gives you the cowardly desire to use government to force your views on others.

You probably are the type of dried up old twat with a miserable life and 30 cats, that will probably eat you when you pass, cold and alone.

No one is forcing alleged Christians to marry persons of the same sex. The problem is when the Laity want Religious authority to tell other people what to do. Show us by example not appeal to authority Original Sinners can never have.

Dude, ease up on the pot.