Christians Sue for Right Not to Tolerate Policies

Discussion in '2006 Archive' started by Vasco, Apr 11, 2006.

  1. Vasco

    Vasco
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2002
    Messages:
    131
    Likes Received:
    0
    not exactly sure what to make of this,
    Christians Sue for Right Not to Tolerate Policies

    Free Speech and Right of Religious expression vs the right to one live free of discrimination.. i lived in the us for years, and now im back in brasil, and sometimes, people really like to complicate things back in the states..
     
  2. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    They're suing for the "right" to harrass other people? Like that wouldn't come back to bite them in the derriere.
     
  3. rbell

    rbell
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ah yes...the freedom to not be offended. That was in what amendment to the US Constitution?

    It's called "freedom of religion" and "freedom of speech."

    This person cannot incite violence. But they CAN express their views. That is legally protected behavior.

    Realize, if you will, that there are already cases in the US court system that could FORCE Christian organizations on campuses to accept practicing homosexuals for membership.

    And I love how the gays of 2006 ride the coattails of the legitimate civil rights movement. We have decided that sexual behavior is tantamount to race. What's next...will it be wrong to "offend" pedophiles?
     
  4. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    No. They are suing for the right to exercise their rights without having them limited by those who think the particular "orientation" affords them the right to privileges offered by another and the right to not be offended.

    Real tolerance would be if everyone had free speech rights, if no one had the "right" to demand access to a "privilege" from another, no one got shot, and at the end of the day no one went to jail or trial for exercising their rights.

    There is no such thing as a "right to live free from discrimination". It is more accurate to say that people have an inherent and constitutional right to discriminate concerning who they associate with. Gov't is rightly limited as to who it can discriminate against if it offers some benefit or privilege... but individuals are not.

    GT is no more correct in attempting to ban one person's supposedly offensive speech than it would be if it sought to ban all forms of homosexual expression.

    From another angle, since when is the homosexual's "right" to not be offended more important than that of someone (not Christians per se) who hates homosexuals not to be offended?

    BTW, who mentioned harrassment? Is that to be found anywhere in this girl's complaint?
     
  5. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh, my irony meter!
    So you think this girl should go to a nice Christian college where her bigotry will be welcomed?

    That's pretty darned funny...

    Ok!

    It's in the subtitle of article the OP linked to as well as littered about in the body....

    Got it?
     
  6. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree with overturning it in state colleges. As for Private Workplaces, it is private and therefore, not the government nor the court's business to overturn it.

    Joseph Botwinick
     
  7. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    You're in favor of students harassing students in state colleges? I disagree.
     
  8. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
  9. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nope. I am in favor of freedom of speech in the public square. Aren't you?

    Joseph Botwinick
     
  10. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    I read the complaint. Not only do I agree with the plaintive, I hope she wins the case and puts these fascists in their place. :D

    If they want to squelch free speech and discriminate against certain POV's because they find them offensive, let them stop taking public money and become a private school.

    Joseph Botwinick
     
  11. ASLANSPAL

    ASLANSPAL
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    2,318
    Likes Received:
    0
    The track record of right wing religion in the area of marriage is abysmal but they just conveniently make up new rules or get out of jail free cards ..amazing this article is biased but does speak of a double standard and yet they are going to lead in the harassment of others who imho are born the way they are and the evidence just getting more and more into the area of having mercy on these people that are born the way they are.

    LINK


    Christians Sue to Discriminate Against Gays, When They're Not Too Busy Suing for Divorce

    The ever-inventive Christian right has unveiled a new tactic in their hate campaign against lesbians and gays.

    In a brilliant piece of twisted logic, they're now filing lawsuits against universities and workplaces that protect gays from discrimination, claiming that anti-discrimination policies discriminate against their own Christian right to...er...discriminate. Got it?

    You may be appalled by their grim determination.

    But you gotta love how they use Christianity to attack gay people, and then expect us to ignore their own gross violations of scripture. Especially in the matter of divorce and remarriage.

    After all, Jesus never said a word about homosexuality, which was widespread in the Hellenistic world. But he was crystal clear on divorce and remarriage.

    Matthew 5: 32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.

    Luke 16: 18 Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

    That's Jesus talking. Seems pretty clear to me.

    And yet most modern denominations - including lots of Christian conservatives and people who claim to be born again - allow both divorce and remarriage. In fact, the highest divorce rates in America are in the Bible Belt.

    A few years back I interviewed a high-ranking Christian conservative who was leading some typically misguided campaign against gays. I couldn't resist asking him about the divorce discrepancy.

    He admitted that he himself was divorced and remarried. But no problem - he repented and God forgave him.

    I asked him whether he ought to go back to his first wife if he really repented, since Jesus clearly says that he's still committing adultery with his second wife. He said no, to repent meant to promise God that he won't ever get divorced again.

    Hmmm. I asked where I could find this in the Bible. He patiently explained that in Jesus' day people only lived to around forty. Today we live much longer, so obviously Jesus would have taught differently today.

    Go ahead and snicker, but I actually have no problem with this, in itself. It seems like an enlightened example of how people can reinterpret religious injunctions to fit the times.

    My problem is with Christians - like him - who are perfectly willing to rewrite the Bible to cut themselves slack in their own lives, but then turn around, attack gays, and cry: The Bible made me do it! I think it's called hypocrisy, and Jesus took a rather dim view of that.

    Case in point is the Christian Legal Society, the organization of pious lawyers and judges that's spearheading the new campaign to overturn anti-discrimination laws.

    I did a Google search that combined the words "Christian Legal Society" and "divorce." Guess what? Google immediately burped up several members of the Christian Legal Society who are...you guessed it...divorce lawyers!

    This may seem surprising, given the very real damage divorce does to families, but I'm not surprised. Compassion is hard. Hypocrisy is easy.

    Jesus, however, may not be so forgiving.

    (disclaimer do not agree with article in total but agree on the hypocrisy within right wing religion on marriage and its abysmal performance.) Like Daisy said this is an area that bites and bites hard into the back side of
    political right wing religion.
     
  12. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    Being offended does not = being harrassed...except in the minds of liberals who want to stifle free speech. If the University wants to be able to discriminate against free speech, they should either move to Canada or some European nations which have thought crime laws, or they should stop taking public tax money and become a private school. That way, they can start ignoring the Constitution which protects all manner of free speech, but does not protect one's right not to be offended. BTW, Aslan, have you read the complaint? Read it. You might be surprised by some of the things you are trying to defend.

    Joseph Botwinick
     
  13. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    It really is quite an interesting read. Stalin would have been proud.

    Joseph Botwinick
     
  14. ASLANSPAL

    ASLANSPAL
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    2,318
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not trying to defend it Joseph but realize you need an honest broker in dealing with such matters and the political right wing religion is a very , very, bad messenger and open themselves up to bring down all of christendom with its bad performance in areas (marriage,divorce,re-marriage)

    They the religious right use such matters to fear monger their coffers to over flowing.

    NN honest brokers not hypocrites.

    If the rule of law allows a private institution to discriminate and show intolerance ..so be it
    but a democracy can bounce back and also change the rule of law to stop it...that is how it works and those who disagree with that can also bounce back to change that law.
     
  15. SpiritualMadMan

    SpiritualMadMan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2003
    Messages:
    2,734
    Likes Received:
    0
    If two Christians are overheard quietly discussing the Bible view against homosexuality this is considered blatant harrassment...

    Yet, a homosexual can get in the face of a Christian and taunt them... This is protected speech...

    I would never condone "Bible Thumping" and other in yer face tactics on Campus...

    But, in this case I believe the LA Times is intentionally slanting the presentation of the facts to show Christians in a bad light...

    Mike Sr.
     
  16. Vasco

    Vasco
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2002
    Messages:
    131
    Likes Received:
    0
    i cant say what their "intent" was, but the title of the article is what caught my attention
     
  17. gtbuzzarp

    gtbuzzarp
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2006
    Messages:
    316
    Likes Received:
    0
    I know Ruth from when I lived in Atlanta. I used to be a leader/teacher in the Sunday School she was (and probably still is) involved in. There is a big long history to all of this that is not being told in this story. Since Ruth was a Freshman she has had problems with left-wing professors. I think her Sophmore or Jr year a prof gave her an F essentially because she was a conservative Christian. Up until then she had been an A student. She fought back and was premitted to retake the required course from a different professor and got an A (I think). The first prof got reprimanded severely. I think they were no longer allowed to teach that course.
    (This all happened after I moved to TX)

    Ever since she started attending GT she has had problems there. This is not so much of a problem with the engineering staff, which is a much larger part of the overall campus.

    I served on the Graduate Student Senate back when I did Masters work at GT, and the undergrad Senate, which had more voting power than the GSS, was swayed much more by liberal ideology.
    The Graduate Student Senate was much more conservative. Things may have changed since then, though.
     

Share This Page

Loading...