News: Wal-Mart goes sodomy friendly

Maybe if general respect for the sexual minority were expressed, and the rights deserved by the sexual minority were not kept from them, no one would be "ramming" anything down anyone's throats, which is not even done. The sexual minority only wants their rights recognized. The concept of being vocal in the pursuit of having one's rights recognized is valid. Christians do it all the time. But I guess that's okay.

Who declared war on whom? The sexual minority (in all its forms) has declared no war.

 

...hyperfundamentalist (read Biblically sound, God fearing) circles.
Hyperfundamentalists are hardly biblically sound. God fearing and faithful, yes. Biblically sound, far from. Fundamentalist views frequently have the ring of biblical soundness about them. Hyperfundamentalist views do not.

It's because YOU all keep trying to ram it down our throats !!
Please explain to me how Wal-Mart's policy is ramming anything down anyone's throat. I generally don't depend of a company's employee handbook to preach the Gospel.

We will no longer let you and we will stand in the gap against this.
While you'te at it, make sure you go after all the heterosexual fornicators, tax return cheaters, and violaters of the speed limit. These are much more rampant that homosexuality, yet the Christian world turns a deaf ear to them. It would, after all, make the most sense to combat the biggest transgrtessors first, don't you think?

 

This is all very sad. And to see professing Christians standing up for sinners is even worse.

 

HCL, I stand for the rights of the people to live in liberty. If that means they live in sin, then they live in sin.

I Corinthians 10:23 seems to be applicable.

 

I think you have taken that verse way out of context. Are you implying that Christians ought to stand up for those who are committing abominations because Paul said all things are lawful?

Did you read the entire sentence? He also said, "Not all things edify."

And if you read a few verse up you will find, "You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of the demons."

 

Not at all. Certainly we must stand up to immorality, in the only manner we say that works - Christ. The law is not the way to effect moral change.

The fact that not all things edify is exactly my point. It doesn't change the fact that we have the right to do such things. Just that we should not.

 

Your comparison of "hyper" fundementalist to fundamentalist is a red-herring and just "I think I'm better than you" name-calling. Those who adhere to the fundamentals are Biblically sound, God fearing Christians as opposed to those who choose to ignore clear doctrine.

The vast majority of "christians" on this BB and around the world try to tell those of us who adhere to the fundamentals that we should accept homosexuality as normal and if we don't do that we are somehow evil and wrong (we are neither).

Yep, while I'm at it, I look in the (spiritual) mirror. See MY sin. Declare it before God. Ask for forgiveness, Receive it. Then go and repeat the same thing that Jesus said, "REPENT !!". It's the world that turns a deaf ear to the message that we who adhere to the fundamentals preach every chance we get. It's the world that gets confused and ignores the message when other "christians" just wink and nod at sin. No wonder they don't listen.

Thanks a lot...

 

Per this forum's 3 page limit this thread will close no sooner than 9pm EST.
Gina

 

Yes, it is more disgusting than many other sins. Yes, it is analogous to rape. The sentence given for homosexual acts in the bible was death. It was equated with bestiality, and the sentence equal to a murder conviction.
Gina

 

Um, where did I disagree that sin has a penalty? We were talking about discrimination, not penalty for sin. The context of this thread is Walmart's stand not to show partiality against homosexual employees.

Diane, do you believe it is a sin to show partiality? Yes or no. Before you answer, consider that it was *you* who posted James 2:9.

No, we are not. No one here is talking about endorsing sin. We are talking about not showing partiality.

That was *exactly* the Pharisees' objection with Christ for eating with publicans. Christ was not conding, let alone encouraging, sinful behavior. He was, however, not being partial just because they were guilty of sinful behavior.

Then they were in the wrong. They should not show partiality, just as you shouldn't. That's all we're saying.

You claim to speak for God? Diane, HIV/AIDS kills more heterosexuals than homosexuals. Innocent children get it. Devout Christians get it. HIV is God's punishment??? Was leprosy God's punishment in the time of Jesus? How did Jesus treat sinful lepers? How do you treat sinful HIV patients?

Yeah, I know what you mean. Remember that time the Pharisees caught that woman committing adultery? And then they brought her to Jesus, and said she should be stoned? It was very sad for Jesus to stand up for her. How dare he!

 

And after wards, Jesus told her to "GO AND SIN NO MORE".

We must call sin sin instead of winking at it. If is was good enough for Jesus to call sin sin, how can it not be good for us to do the same?

How dare we?

 

Stoning might be appropriate. (Oops, wrong dispensation.)

 

So, is it the concensus of this board that you would favor the firing of an employee of it was discovered that he/she was homosexual?

 

THAT is what I was referring to about this being shoved down our throats.

Thanks for saying it clearly my brother.

 

No, it is NOT. The thread is about a corporate policy that prohibits discrimination. There is a HUGE HUGE difference, don't equate the two.

 

But if someone lies OUTSIDE OF THE WORKPLACE, then it should have no bearing on one's employment. If they lie within the worlklace, that's different. Likewise, if someone is having homosexual sex outside the workplace, or getting drunk outside the workplace, or speeding outside the workplace, then it should have no bearing on one's employment.

So yes, you must show respect for liars, homosexuals, chauvanists, atheists, chronic gamblers, and alcoholics, so long as those actions don't affect their work performance.

 

So, how will this change the way you do your work?

 

It doeesn't say you must respect them. It says you can't use certain criteria in regards to hiring, firing, or advancement.