Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in '2006 Archive' started by Enoch, Jan 18, 2006.
Why only this one sin?
It works like this, Daisy. If politicians or advocacy groups mention the words "homosexuality" or "abortion" there is a Pavlovian response that garners votes for certain politicians and garners donations for certain advocacy groups.
Also, I reckon anyone serious about supporting this boycott won't be posting in this thread since they may be using some of these companies' products when they turn on their computers. Thus, the computers will have to lie dormant to support this
For the record, I am opposed to adding the language to the bill because I am opposed to the government being overly involved in employment decisions and the legal business practices of non-governmental entities.
We all choose our battles effectively. No human is capable of taking on the world.
How about pigs in the pulpits. Some are as big around as a barrel and need some exercise and a diet. My insurance went to 50% of what it was when I quit pastoring. I have always been in excellent health and exercise regularly.
And we fought a war over five years because one Hitler decided that Jews were less than human in his country and the world.
Will we also deny the human rights of a people with whom we disagree?
I don't endorse homosexuality, but I do endorse their right to existence in this world.
How about pigs in the pulpits. Some are as big around as a barrel and need some exercise and a diet. My insurance went to 50% of what it was when I quit pastoring. I have always been in excellent health and exercise regularly. </font>[/QUOTE]What are you even talking about?
This has nothing to do with my topic. Earth to Jim! And for you to compare homosexuality with the persecution of millions of people because of their race is despicable. By the way Hitler also killed homosexuals. Homosexuals are not a race but people who live a life of perversion.
Homosexuals are not a race. Just because they want their perversion to become law does not mean we are denying their human rights because we do not.
Nowhere is this mentioned that they should not exist in the world. You have gone beyond exaggeration in your simplicity to justify your unawareness.
If it isn't discrimination, what do you call it?
And yes, there is a comparison to what happened to the Jews in WWII and this society's attempt to discriminate against a people who choose to follow homosexuality as a lifestyle THEY feel is not a choice. IN a pluralistic society equal rights must prevail if anyone is to enjoy rights and freedom.
Despicable Jim, flat-out despicable. Surely you are smarter than this…
As a private business owner, it should be none of the government's business if I discriminate against anyone, for whatever reason I so desire.
If I want to refuse you service because you're black, as wrong as that may be, it should not be any business of the government.
If a business wants to extend benefits (not rights) to any group they so desire, then they should be permitted to do so. By the same token, a business should not be required to endorse any group they should choose not to.
Please note: This is not an endorsement of any particular position, only the observation that the government does not have the right to demand such of private companies, but most especially for groups that are living a destructive lifestyle by choice.
If I don't want to rent an apartment out to an unmarried couple that is simply shacking up, that should be my right. If I want to refuse to rent to someone with children, pets, or anything else that I find morally offensive, that should be my right.
When the government legislates morality, they are going to aim for the lowest common denominator.
Do they, or do they not, "exist in this world," with or without the legislation in question?
Sodomites ought to be hired by any company if they are more quealified than the 'straights'.
This issue should not have been an issue at all in the first place if these perverts had not insisted that their lifestyles be accepted as 'normal' because they are not 'normal', they are perverts, and God calls their lifestyle worthy of death.
The fight intensified because the government, in wishing to kiss the very ground these perverts' feet walked on, decided that school children should be taught that this nauseating lifestyle should be taught as normal during sex education.
Thst is where the battleground ought to be, the schools.
I am opposed to the boycott, for the reasons Ken said. It is hilarious to boycott Microsoft and have Word or Excel in my computer, and receive the updates for my operating system regularly.
Hewlett Packard ? My printer is HP.
I remember when I was 'in the hills', many moons ago, fighting the dictatorship in my country.
Our unit's political officer used to harangue us about the evils of the US-Marcos Dictatorship, while he was wearing a Levis and Adidas shoes, and lit up a Camel in between lectures.
Schools - yes - why do you all send your kids to govt schools?
I disagree in principle with boycotts. Prime example, Disney's still in business, and still running "Gay Days". "Married with Children" ran many years after Don Wildmon called for his boycott. Target stores still have a booming business.
If we want to honestly say we believe in the US Constitution, then we need to keep the government out of company policy. Irregardless if their lifestyle is immoral, they still are protected in free speech, assembly, and unwarranted intrusion.
Here's a thought, instead of punishing them for who they (think) they are, why not pray for them, and witness to them? I can't seem to remember Christ petitioning the Roman authorities to pass any laws.