Should discrimination against gays be allowed?

[McCulloch]

Should landlords, employers, educators, government agencies and persons conducting business be allowed, by law, to discriminate against homosexual persons solely on the basis of the person's sexual orientation?

Should churches be allowed to discriminate against homosexual persons?

[Bugmaster]

Should landlords, employers, educators, government agencies and persons conducting business be allowed, by law, to discriminate against homosexual persons solely on the basis of the person's sexual orientation?

Yes, no, no, yes.

Should churches be allowed to discriminate against homosexual persons?

Yes.

Basically, private individuals (and churches are private) should be free to discriminate however they want. Government organizations, however, are bound by the Constitution to be inclusive.

A better question might be, "should discriminating churches be allowed to keep their tax-exempt status ?"

[Teresa472001]

A better question might be, "should discriminating churches be allowed to keep their tax-exempt status ?"

No. Churches who discriminate against gays and lesbians should not be able to keep their tax-exempt status.

Yes, it is the right of any private organization to discriminate against a minority, sexual, racial, etc. But you don't see the Ku Klux Klan being given tax exempt status despite the fact that they purport to promote Protestant Christian values. There are other "churches," such as the World Church of the Creator that don't get tax-exempt status either because of their racist views.

In time, I fully expect that churches who encourage discrimination against gays and lesbians will be met with the same level of comtempt now reserved for the Klan. When that happens, politicians will find a way to revoke their tax-exempt status as well.

~<a href="http://teresacentric.typepad.com">Teresa</a>

[McCulloch]

Should landlords, employers, educators, government agencies and persons conducting business be allowed, by law, to discriminate against homosexual persons solely on the basis of the person's sexual orientation?

Yes, no, no, yes.

Should churches be allowed to discriminate against homosexual persons?

Yes.
Basically, private individuals (and churches are private) should be free to discriminate however they want. Government organizations, however, are bound by the Constitution to be inclusive.
A better question might be, "should discriminating churches be allowed to keep their tax-exempt status ?"

So if I get you correctly, Landlords, churches and persons conducting business should be allowed to discriminate against homosexual persons and employers, educators and government agencies should not.
This is because private individuals should be free to discriminate however they want. I have two problems with this point-of-view:

• I cannot determine how you distinguish between private and public individuals. Sometimes a landlord is a single person who is letting out his basement. Sometimes a landlord is a large corporation which owns many buildings. Sometimes a person conducting business is a private contractor and sometimes a person conducting business is a large multinational corporation. Yet, Bugmaster seems to indicate that all of these are private and should be allowed to discriminate. I do not believe that prejudicial discrimination should be allowed under law for business transactions.
• Bugmaster has provided no reason or rational to justify why private individuals and organizations should be allowed to discriminate and public organizations should not.

The reason that I believe that churches should be exempt is that churches exist for the purpose of promoting their faith and that faith has constitutional protection.
Bugmaster's question is a good one. Should discriminating churches be allowed to retain their tax exempt status? Interesting concept. Should the Roman Catholic Church and other churches which discriminate against women by banning them from positions of authority lose their tax exempt status? If a particular church in a mixed race neighbourhood is composed entirely of one race, would that be evidence of racial discrimination? It is, in some cases, for employers.

[McCulloch]

Christians certainly have the right to discriminate for any faith based reason. The first ammendment grants this. They should realize however that they would be completely disregarding these verses:
Rom 15:7 Therefore, accept each other in the same way that Christ accepted you. He did this to bring glory to God.
Eph 4:2 Be humble and gentle in every way. Be patient with each other and lovingly accept each other.

Do you believe that Christian employers or that Christian government employees or Christian public educators have the constitutional right to discriminate for any faith based reason? Should they?

[Bugmaster]

I cannot determine how you distinguish between private and public individuals...Bugmaster has provided no reason or rational to justify why private individuals and organizations should be allowed to discriminate and public organizations should not.

You're right, so let me elaborate.

I value individual liberties very highly. If I happen to hate some class or race or denominaion of people, then I'm a bigot, but it's not the government's job to tell me whom to like and whom to hate.

Similarly, if I run a private corporation of some sort, or renting out apartments or whatever, I should be free to choose my customers however I see fit. The people I hate can go ahead and give their money to someone else... In the end, I'll lose revenue and will probably go out of business.

The government, however, doesn't have this luxury, because the government sets policy for everyone. We have a constitution that protects us against discrimination, and thus government-sponsored institutions have no choice but implement its policy.

[palmera]

I agree. Though discrimination is in no way morally acceptable, the government cannot prevent churches from accepting or denying persons as members. What churches should realize, specifically Christian churches involved in the anit-homosexual movement, is that they are complicit in destroying the fabric of humanity and morality. The problem with discrimination of homosexuals with the church is a matter of hateful hypocrisy. Churches will turn away a person who celebrates and thanks God for making her/him who she/he is (homosexuals in this case) into their doors because they are unrepentant sinners; while, on the other hand allow through their doors the 99% of the congregation that stumbles through wrote memorization of confession of sins and then goes out into the world committing the same sins over and over again. For the church to discriminate solely on the basis of sexuality is perverse, wrong, hateful and hypocritical- not to mention the EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT JESUS WOULD DO!!!!!!! Then again, their enacted rights of free speech only strengthen the cause of movements like the LGBT which promote tolerance, peace and love. In the end, the churches only hurt themselves by creating an exclusive environment of arrogance, fear, and spite.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Do you believe that Christian employers or that Christian government employees or Christian public educators have the constitutional right to discriminate for any faith based reason? Should they?

Should they? Of course not.

Can they? A bit more difficult. The question is really a matter of whether the first amendment extends beyond worship services. Everyone is entitled to free practice of religion, however, practices that hurt others are generally not permitted. I am going to say no.

[AlAyeti]

In time, I fully expect that churches who encourage discrimination against gays and lesbians will be met with the same level of comtempt now reserved for the Klan. When that happens, politicians will find a way to revoke their tax-exempt status as well.

///

Ahh. The Homosexual Agenda in plain sight. For once.

Guess the Christians aren't so paranoid after all.

Homosexuals are free to start their own tax exempt Churches, but of course that would limit the recruitment of new youngsters into their particular fold. It is better to dismantle the Churches that have stood for hundreds of years.

And let's look at this convoluted logic:

"Churches will turn away a person who celebrates and thanks God for making her/him who she/he is (homosexuals in this case) into their doors because they are unrepentant sinners; while, on the other hand allow through their doors the 99% of the congregation that stumbles through wrote memorization of confession of sins and then goes out into the world committing the same sins over and over again."

///

Unrepentant siners refuse Christ. Anyone that "celebrates" sin and sinners is not supported by anything Jesus said. And anyway, I thought the idea of "original sin" was a Christian concept? And didn't Jesus tell the adulteress to "Go and sin no more?" What if she was born to whore around?

"For the church to discriminate solely on the basis of sexuality is perverse,"

///

No, what is perverse is to describe yourself by your sex acts as a member of a culture that defines itself by sex acts.

"wrong, hateful and hypocritical- not to mention the EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT JESUS WOULD DO!!!!!!!"

Marriage to Jesus and to every other Jewish person in history, was a man leaving his parents and marrying a woman. The "exact opposite of what Jesus said, is same-sex marriage. The intolerance is coming from people that are forcing Christians to HAVE TO change or face the consequences. Maybe Christians should claim that religion is a sexual orientation decided before birth. Then would the agenda look elsewhere?

///

Then again, their enacted rights of free speech only strengthen the cause of movements like the LGBT which promote tolerance, peace and love. In the end, the churches only hurt themselves by creating an exclusive environment of arrogance, fear, and spite.

///


It seems "Questioning Youth" was omitted from the new homosexual LGBT organizations new self-title. Why I wonder?

Is not sexual orientation of homosexuality a declaration of exclusivity? Well, not according to victims of Pedophilia that claim they are pedophiles because of the actions meted out on them when they were children.

In the end, the Churches will not be tolerated by the homosexual agenda. Where have we seen this before I wonder?

Nero comes to mind.

Another man who married a man.

[palmera]

Unrepentant siners refuse Christ. Anyone that "celebrates" sin and sinners is not supported by anything Jesus said. And anyway, I thought the idea of "original sin" was a Christian concept? And didn't Jesus tell the adulteress to "Go and sin no more?" What if she was born to whore around?

I guess you didn't catch the facetious nature of my comment. Also, who mentioned original sin? What relevance does the adulteress hold here? Are you trying to equate adulterers and homosexuals? Really nice.

No, what is perverse is to describe yourself by your sex acts as a member of a culture that defines itself by sex acts.

Part of the message of the LGBT movement is that humans SHOULD NOT be defined by one aspect of their lives. Part of the response has also been to throw gay pride parades which are a reactionary form of protest that maintain the stance: 'if you're going to limit our humanity by defining us by our sexuality, then we shall counteract it through embracing your limitation and gaining strength from it." What you have to realize Al is that heterosexuals first marginalized homosexuals by calling them homosexuals, by defining them by one aspect of their complex being. The same thing happened with african americans. The ignorance of the whites in persecuting african americans, by defining them based on the color of their skin, led to the reactionary stance in which african americans embraced their color, their heritage and used the very words which denigrated them to give them strength. What you fail to understand in your arguments is that the emphasis on homosexual sexuality started with heterosexuals and was used as a basis for persecution. Homosexuals do not define themselves by their sexuality, heterosexuals do, and because of that, this severely limiting definition has become a means by which the LGBT has used the very words which initially mocked them to gain strength and support for their movement.

Marriage to Jesus and to every other Jewish person in history, was a man leaving his parents and marrying a woman. The "exact opposite of what Jesus said, is same-sex marriage. The intolerance is coming from people that are forcing Christians to HAVE TO change or face the consequences. Maybe Christians should claim that religion is a sexual orientation decided before birth. Then would the agenda look elsewhere?

First of all, I wasn't simply talking about marriage, but about excluding and marginalizing homosexuals- which Jesus would not have done, and yet which is supported today as in Jesus's name. The bible and Jesus are being used to perpetuate the biases of those with close minds and hearts.

Is not sexual orientation of homosexuality a declaration of exclusivity? Well, not according to victims of Pedophilia that claim they are pedophiles because of the actions meted out on them when they were children.

Wow. It's really interesting, and quite surprising that you mention pedophilia again. Did you not read a post of mine in a different thread which gave reference to a clinical study which found that over 80% of all pedophiles are heterosexuals??? Those victims to which you refer represent a very small percent of people who are homosexual. Their choice to be homosexual is not a reflection of their orientation at birth, which most homosexuals are, but rather a reactionary gesture precipitated by a violent incidence, perpetrated, more than likely by a heterosexual.

[AlAyeti]

Let's see? "lesbian" "gay" "bisexual" and "transgendered."

Of course it wasn't surpising you left off ... "Questioning Youth."

They - the youth questioning sexuality I presume - are the new members of that "community." Which of course is pretty much every child on earth. I don't know your age but I had a lot of "questions" going through puberty.

I'm glad my "dad" was heterosexual.

But I'm sorry help me out?

I don't see "homosexual" anywhere in those proud monikers up above?

How many pedophiles hide among the innocent? A "heterosexual" adult that has sex with a same sex boys is having what kind of sex?

L or G or B or T?

Definately sex with questioning youth but also "homosexual sex."

Do the math.

And yes, homosexuality and adultery are comparable. Again, do the math.

But, adulterers do not claim they were born to "adulterate."

But you do hear that from the L's and the G's and B's and the T's.

The "Questioning Youth" don't know all that much until they go through an orientation. Hopefully the right kinds of adults are there when needed the most.

"Orientation." It's just creepy when that word is applied to sexual civil rights movement. And especially when "Psychology" expunged homosexuality from the mental disorders manual.

o-ri-en-ta-tion (r-n-tshn, -n-, r-)
n.
The act of orienting or the state of being oriented.

Location or position relative to the points of the compass.

An adjustment or adaptation to a new environment, situation, custom, or set of ideas.

Introductory instruction concerning a new situation: orientation for incoming students.

It can even mean building a church to point a certain way.

Uhh, yeah.

I don't know about you but I'm a discriminating shopper.

Should we pass laws that everyone has to buy the same car or shop at only the Gap? Or will we be assigned our spending orientation in shopping class in school?