Uh. Uh. It's hard to talk when your jaw hits the floor.
July 25, 2001 9:57 AM Subscribe
Uh. Uh. It's hard to talk when your jaw hits the floor. So, gay rights are 'special' rights that no one really has to pay any attention to because you'll get your Federal money, anyway. Just claim your priviledge is more important than some one else's priviledge. (Found via CubicleGirl
)
its complicated...especially since so many with a "faith" lead a "lifestyle" that doesn't exactly fit with what they say they believe. The manner in which her employers found out--and assumed, i mean, it was just a t-shirt, right?--makes it even more messed up.
posted by th3ph17 at 10:10 AM on July 25, 2001
posted by th3ph17 at 10:10 AM on July 25, 2001
What makes you "special?"
You could be next!
I say we go after the SUV drivers! :)
posted by nofundy at 10:10 AM on July 25, 2001
You could be next!
I say we go after the SUV drivers! :)
posted by nofundy at 10:10 AM on July 25, 2001
I'm disgusted. How can people be so ignorant and hateful?
That's an unfortunate, rhetorical question.
posted by Marquis at 10:11 AM on July 25, 2001
That's an unfortunate, rhetorical question.
posted by Marquis at 10:11 AM on July 25, 2001
I thought this was an appropriate quote:
First They Came for the Jews
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
Pastor Martin Niemöller
posted by nofundy at 10:14 AM on July 25, 2001
First They Came for the Jews
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
Pastor Martin Niemöller
posted by nofundy at 10:14 AM on July 25, 2001
I know it's not the point, but why would a lesbian wanna work for crazy-ass baptists anyway?
(not that all baptists are crazy-asses, just the crazy-assed ones)
posted by techgnollogic at 10:16 AM on July 25, 2001
(not that all baptists are crazy-asses, just the crazy-assed ones)
posted by techgnollogic at 10:16 AM on July 25, 2001
I still don't believe in "special" legislation, so isn't it possible that:
a. the judge was wrong (Kentucky and all)
b. there is no legal precedent for homosexuality not being called a "choice"
?
posted by owillis at 10:19 AM on July 25, 2001
a. the judge was wrong (Kentucky and all)
b. there is no legal precedent for homosexuality not being called a "choice"
?
posted by owillis at 10:19 AM on July 25, 2001
I think the Reverend has it all backwards. Religions can be changed like socks while homosexuality is just the way one was born. Seems to me that the religious are the ones with a lifestyle choice, and not gays and lesbians. I sure hope the ACLU takes this one to appeals.
posted by terrapin at 10:24 AM on July 25, 2001
posted by terrapin at 10:24 AM on July 25, 2001
Last year, the Kentucky Baptist Homes, which runs eight residential centers for almost 800 children, threatened not to renew its contract if the state imposed anti-bias rules on hiring and firing. State officials left the agency alone.
This sounds like a great organization. When threatened in the past, they pulled a "Fine, we'll release all the starving, homeless children in the streets and blame the state, you want that PR disaster on your hands, Mr. state official? Huh? Leave us the hell alone to spread our word as we see fit, whether or not it is legal."
I wonder what those 800 children are like, having to be subjected to the "traditional family values" of the organization.
posted by mathowie at 10:24 AM on July 25, 2001
This sounds like a great organization. When threatened in the past, they pulled a "Fine, we'll release all the starving, homeless children in the streets and blame the state, you want that PR disaster on your hands, Mr. state official? Huh? Leave us the hell alone to spread our word as we see fit, whether or not it is legal."
I wonder what those 800 children are like, having to be subjected to the "traditional family values" of the organization.
posted by mathowie at 10:24 AM on July 25, 2001
What's the state doing funding a religiously-affiliated organization anyway? Oh yeah, right, that's ok now, you guys don't have to separate church and state anymore. Sigh, as Bugs would say, can't tell a knight from a day without a programme anymore...
posted by DiplomaticImmunity at 10:28 AM on July 25, 2001
posted by DiplomaticImmunity at 10:28 AM on July 25, 2001
I wonder what those 800 children are like, having to be subjected to the "traditional family values" of the organization.
I have a suggestion.
posted by dong_resin at 10:35 AM on July 25, 2001
I have a suggestion.
posted by dong_resin at 10:35 AM on July 25, 2001
Heh. Children of the Corn was on a few nights ago. Scifi Channel, I believe. First time I've seen it in years. I love that movie, corny as it is. I must've watched it a hundred times when I was a wee, little bastard.
posted by ratbastard at 10:52 AM on July 25, 2001
posted by ratbastard at 10:52 AM on July 25, 2001
</topicdrift>
posted by ratbastard at 10:53 AM on July 25, 2001
posted by ratbastard at 10:53 AM on July 25, 2001
So that's the plot of Children of the Corn.
Hmmm.
Sounds like a Double Post to me.
posted by Grangousier at 10:54 AM on July 25, 2001
Hmmm.
Sounds like a Double Post to me.
posted by Grangousier at 10:54 AM on July 25, 2001
''If there was ever a time when we had to choose between our standards for role models for children and public dollars, we will stick by our values,'' said Dannah Prather, a spokeswoman for the Baptist Homes.
Apparently their idea of "values" is intolerance....and bad grammar.
posted by witchstone at 10:58 AM on July 25, 2001
Apparently their idea of "values" is intolerance....and bad grammar.
posted by witchstone at 10:58 AM on July 25, 2001
the thing, i guess, that scares me the most is that when it comes down to it, america is just becoming another hostile little nation. (oops! too late!) people emmigrate here by the thousands under the promise of a life without persecution, without tyrannical domination by the churches...and what do they find? this. there's a german postdoc that i share an office with, and everyday there's a new item that just blows his mind. how bad will it have to get before american citizens realize something is going horribly wrong? how many times are we going to have to be mauled by zealots before we say, enough is enough, who gives a damn what your frucking orientation is? who gives a damn where you're from and what your skin tone is and what you believe about god or gods or whatever?
posted by chemicalpilate at 11:09 AM on July 25, 2001
posted by chemicalpilate at 11:09 AM on July 25, 2001
why would a lesbian wanna work for crazy-ass baptists anyway
because those crazy asses often seem like really nice people at first. they smile a lot and talk about God and love and fellowship and other things that Nice Baptists are wont to talk of. when the sun goes down, though, be careful. that's when their little fangs grow and they gather together to feast on blood and flesh. or is that on Sunday mornings? i forget.
posted by tolkhan at 11:12 AM on July 25, 2001
because those crazy asses often seem like really nice people at first. they smile a lot and talk about God and love and fellowship and other things that Nice Baptists are wont to talk of. when the sun goes down, though, be careful. that's when their little fangs grow and they gather together to feast on blood and flesh. or is that on Sunday mornings? i forget.
posted by tolkhan at 11:12 AM on July 25, 2001
I heard this article about the case (or very similar) on NPR the other day - according to that report, Pedreira had told them during the interview process, and was assured that her orientation was ok so long as she kept it "discreet."
posted by mimi at 11:26 AM on July 25, 2001
posted by mimi at 11:26 AM on July 25, 2001
Looks like I'm going to be the dissenting voice here... but bully for the judge. Religious organizations should be allowed a certain deference in their employment practices. Refusing such, would in my opinion, be tantamount to infringing upon the Church/State relationship. Of course, I don't know all the details (the article was fairly scant), so take this with a grain of salt.
This organization appears to provide a valuable service to the community... a service that would probably otherwise be handled by foster care. Good for them!
They're a religious organization, but that doesn't necessarily mean that their services are necessarily proselyting in nature or dogmatic. There are plenty of religious organizations that fulfill what they consider to be their duty to the community without being particularly overt. So I'm not sure where the mindless vitriol is coming from.
Also, I'm not sure how they get state and/or federal funds, but it would seem from the article that it's been an ongoing situation -- and not at all related to Bush's nascent plan (which I have serious reservations about).
Finally... failure condone homosexual conduct is not paramount to being "ignorant and hateful". There is plenty of room for bright, articulate, and (yes) loving individuals to disagree on the subject. And name calling pretty much kills the opportunity to discuss the matter intelligently.
So anyway, there it is.
posted by silusGROK at 11:29 AM on July 25, 2001
This organization appears to provide a valuable service to the community... a service that would probably otherwise be handled by foster care. Good for them!
They're a religious organization, but that doesn't necessarily mean that their services are necessarily proselyting in nature or dogmatic. There are plenty of religious organizations that fulfill what they consider to be their duty to the community without being particularly overt. So I'm not sure where the mindless vitriol is coming from.
Also, I'm not sure how they get state and/or federal funds, but it would seem from the article that it's been an ongoing situation -- and not at all related to Bush's nascent plan (which I have serious reservations about).
Finally... failure condone homosexual conduct is not paramount to being "ignorant and hateful". There is plenty of room for bright, articulate, and (yes) loving individuals to disagree on the subject. And name calling pretty much kills the opportunity to discuss the matter intelligently.
So anyway, there it is.
posted by silusGROK at 11:29 AM on July 25, 2001
Vis10n: This all falls into place when you begin to discuss how Bush is allowing religious organiations to get federal financing.
If they can still get their government financing, yet discriminate, then your tax dollars at work are at work funding discrimination which is illegal on a federal level.
Besides, simply because it's a religious organization, they can say how their employees can lead thier lives, even if their choice is legal, but doesn't jive with the organization?
Ok, so a religious organization is founded saying heterosexuals are wrong. They can fire anyone practiving heterosexual sex.
Now, of course, you can begin to argue that your tax dollars are going to work for things you don't believe in.. but those things are legal, which is where the difference is.
posted by rich at 11:43 AM on July 25, 2001
If they can still get their government financing, yet discriminate, then your tax dollars at work are at work funding discrimination which is illegal on a federal level.
Besides, simply because it's a religious organization, they can say how their employees can lead thier lives, even if their choice is legal, but doesn't jive with the organization?
Ok, so a religious organization is founded saying heterosexuals are wrong. They can fire anyone practiving heterosexual sex.
Now, of course, you can begin to argue that your tax dollars are going to work for things you don't believe in.. but those things are legal, which is where the difference is.
posted by rich at 11:43 AM on July 25, 2001
Religious organizations should be allowed a certain deference in their employment practices. Refusing such, would in my opinion, be tantamount to infringing upon the Church/State relationship.
They are already infringing on church/state relationship with the funding they receive from the state. Fact is, they should be held accountable, and not free to discriminate, if they are receiving funds from the government, funds my tax dollars contribute to. A gay person has to pay for their services through taxes, but it is ok for them to discrimate against said person?
posted by benjh at 11:44 AM on July 25, 2001
They are already infringing on church/state relationship with the funding they receive from the state. Fact is, they should be held accountable, and not free to discriminate, if they are receiving funds from the government, funds my tax dollars contribute to. A gay person has to pay for their services through taxes, but it is ok for them to discrimate against said person?
posted by benjh at 11:44 AM on July 25, 2001
i wonder how many condoms and sex ed classes $14.5 mil a year would afford?
posted by techgnollogic at 11:49 AM on July 25, 2001
posted by techgnollogic at 11:49 AM on July 25, 2001
I have to agree that the religious institution should be able to hire and fire as they will. It is, after all, their facility and their rules.
And, homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. So is heterosexuality, and so is celebacy. The inclination is what you're born with, not the actions. I had to learn that from a good friend of mine in the AIDS prevention community, who explained in great depth that you CHOOSE to be sexual, or you are a slave to your own lust and a threat to society (because you're the one likely not to use condoms or good sense, and thus be the spreader of HIV).
Anyway, back to the real issue: It is not a violation of the Constitution for the church to hire and fire at will. People think that the "Seperation of Church and State" means that there is no interaction at all. This is not true. The Congress shall make no law that prohibits the free exercise of religion (which it does, anyway, by prohibiting some portions of religious practice like animal sacrifice and acquisition of some sacred plants for spirit trips, etc), nor make any law respecting a given religion. This is to prevent a State Religion from existing.
The state is making no law respecting the religion at all, but merely allowing an existing entity to execute a state task using tax dollars. It's weird, but that's how other organizations get their monies without strings, so either make all sides subject to the rules (and thus the Baptists, among others, will stop doing the work and force others to take it on), or eliminate the rules. It's not working.
The government thinks that controlling the pursestrings controls the organization, and is slowly finding out that some organizations won't play that game.
posted by dwivian at 11:54 AM on July 25, 2001
And, homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. So is heterosexuality, and so is celebacy. The inclination is what you're born with, not the actions. I had to learn that from a good friend of mine in the AIDS prevention community, who explained in great depth that you CHOOSE to be sexual, or you are a slave to your own lust and a threat to society (because you're the one likely not to use condoms or good sense, and thus be the spreader of HIV).
Anyway, back to the real issue: It is not a violation of the Constitution for the church to hire and fire at will. People think that the "Seperation of Church and State" means that there is no interaction at all. This is not true. The Congress shall make no law that prohibits the free exercise of religion (which it does, anyway, by prohibiting some portions of religious practice like animal sacrifice and acquisition of some sacred plants for spirit trips, etc), nor make any law respecting a given religion. This is to prevent a State Religion from existing.
The state is making no law respecting the religion at all, but merely allowing an existing entity to execute a state task using tax dollars. It's weird, but that's how other organizations get their monies without strings, so either make all sides subject to the rules (and thus the Baptists, among others, will stop doing the work and force others to take it on), or eliminate the rules. It's not working.
The government thinks that controlling the pursestrings controls the organization, and is slowly finding out that some organizations won't play that game.
posted by dwivian at 11:54 AM on July 25, 2001
The government thinks that controlling the pursestrings controls the organization, and is slowly finding out that some organizations won't play that game.
did you just, like, make that up?
posted by techgnollogic at 12:07 PM on July 25, 2001
did you just, like, make that up?
posted by techgnollogic at 12:07 PM on July 25, 2001
The Congress shall make no law that prohibits the free exercise of religion which it does, anyway, by prohibiting some portions of religious practice like animal sacrifice and acquisition of some sacred plants for spirit trips, etc)
Completely false. Native American groups are allowed to obtain sacred materials (peyote, eagle feathers, etc) from the government, and animal sacrifice is protected as well (the Lukumi Babalu Aye case).
posted by skyline at 12:18 PM on July 25, 2001
Completely false. Native American groups are allowed to obtain sacred materials (peyote, eagle feathers, etc) from the government, and animal sacrifice is protected as well (the Lukumi Babalu Aye case).
posted by skyline at 12:18 PM on July 25, 2001
Sorry to ask the obvious question, but why would it be all right for a religious organization to fire someone solely based on theri sexual orientation, again? You'll excuse my cognitive dissonance, in that thinking that employment should be based on job ability, and nothing else, even in a religion that refuses to acknowledge anything outside of joyless heretosexual coupling as legitimate. Just curious.
And sexual identity is such a convouluted mess of factors that it's impossible to label it as a "lifestyle choice" or "genetic." I think, anyway. I'm just pissed.
Tower. Rifle. GRRR.
LOTION. BASKET. NOW.
posted by solistrato at 12:21 PM on July 25, 2001
And sexual identity is such a convouluted mess of factors that it's impossible to label it as a "lifestyle choice" or "genetic." I think, anyway. I'm just pissed.
Tower. Rifle. GRRR.
LOTION. BASKET. NOW.
posted by solistrato at 12:21 PM on July 25, 2001
Vis10n, if this was a private, religious organization operating on their own money, the judge's decision would be fine. But there is state money going to it, and therefore, they should be expected to follow standard employment laws.
It's as simple as that. You want to discriminate? Fund yourselves and do as you please.
posted by mathowie at 12:22 PM on July 25, 2001
It's as simple as that. You want to discriminate? Fund yourselves and do as you please.
posted by mathowie at 12:22 PM on July 25, 2001
> This sounds like a great organization. When threatened
> in the past, they pulled a "Fine, we'll release all the
> starving, homeless children in the streets and blame the
> state, you want that PR disaster on your hands, Mr.
> state official? Huh? Leave us the hell alone to spread our
> word as we see fit, whether or not it is legal."
Well then, why doesn't some public-spirited gay organization step up and at least offer to run the centers and take care of the children, if they don't like the way the wicked Baptists are doing it?
Put up or shut up. Feeding the kids and keeping them clothed and warm is about three trillion times more important that the right to fuck whatever you prefer.
posted by jfuller at 12:36 PM on July 25, 2001
> in the past, they pulled a "Fine, we'll release all the
> starving, homeless children in the streets and blame the
> state, you want that PR disaster on your hands, Mr.
> state official? Huh? Leave us the hell alone to spread our
> word as we see fit, whether or not it is legal."
Well then, why doesn't some public-spirited gay organization step up and at least offer to run the centers and take care of the children, if they don't like the way the wicked Baptists are doing it?
Put up or shut up. Feeding the kids and keeping them clothed and warm is about three trillion times more important that the right to fuck whatever you prefer.
posted by jfuller at 12:36 PM on July 25, 2001
American Indians got a specific exemption for their religious practice, and succeeded because of their American Indian nature. You don't see too many Rastafarians succeeding in their religious stand....
I'll accept your word on the animal sacrifices, though. I do know that a local (Georgia) religious group got into federal dutch for animal sacrifice for religious worship, so I'm guessing there are further exemptions....
Still, the Congress *DID* pass the laws....
posted by dwivian at 12:44 PM on July 25, 2001
I'll accept your word on the animal sacrifices, though. I do know that a local (Georgia) religious group got into federal dutch for animal sacrifice for religious worship, so I'm guessing there are further exemptions....
Still, the Congress *DID* pass the laws....
posted by dwivian at 12:44 PM on July 25, 2001
"homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. So is heterosexuality"
That's funny. I don't remember choosing my sexual orientation. Maybe I'll choose to be gay now, and will start to love men, automatically.
You'd expect that the people who "chose" one of the less popular orientations would have had the common sense to "pick a lifestyle" that would avoid getting bashed, threat of disease, etc. Those wacky homosexuals!
posted by websavvy at 1:14 PM on July 25, 2001
That's funny. I don't remember choosing my sexual orientation. Maybe I'll choose to be gay now, and will start to love men, automatically.
You'd expect that the people who "chose" one of the less popular orientations would have had the common sense to "pick a lifestyle" that would avoid getting bashed, threat of disease, etc. Those wacky homosexuals!
posted by websavvy at 1:14 PM on July 25, 2001
"and succeeded because of their American Indian nature"
That's Racist!
m4d pr0pz to Angry Asian Male, natch
posted by mimi at 1:20 PM on July 25, 2001
That's Racist!
m4d pr0pz to Angry Asian Male, natch
posted by mimi at 1:20 PM on July 25, 2001
(I'm just chiming in to comment on Websavvy's post... I need more time to respond to mathowie, rich, et al)
Websavvy... although I think "choose" is too liberal a term for the discussion, your response is specious at best. People rarely choose the negative consequence of anything... but people still choose to do things that bring them harm: drug use, cigarette smoking, unprotected sex, premarital sex, driving without a seat belt... Saying that no one in their right mind would choose to be homosexual just because of some very real disadvantages -- like people put that much thought into each and every choice they make! -- is wrong, wrong, wrong.
posted by silusGROK at 1:24 PM on July 25, 2001
Websavvy... although I think "choose" is too liberal a term for the discussion, your response is specious at best. People rarely choose the negative consequence of anything... but people still choose to do things that bring them harm: drug use, cigarette smoking, unprotected sex, premarital sex, driving without a seat belt... Saying that no one in their right mind would choose to be homosexual just because of some very real disadvantages -- like people put that much thought into each and every choice they make! -- is wrong, wrong, wrong.
posted by silusGROK at 1:24 PM on July 25, 2001
I own a small business in my town. Recently I had to let a guy go. You see, his car broke down one day, and around closing time his wife came by to pick him up. Being the congenial sorta guy I am, I went outside to meet her. Sweet mother of Jesus, she was ugly. Dirt ugly. Like 3 miles of bad road. I fired him on the spot. I can't have one of my employees having sex with someone that unappealing. So I can relate to this story on a very personal level.
posted by Doug at 1:35 PM on July 25, 2001
posted by Doug at 1:35 PM on July 25, 2001
Well then, why doesn't some public-spirited gay organization step up and at least offer to run the centers and take care of the children, if they don't like the way the wicked Baptists are doing it?
The point is that we are all tax payers, and we *do* have a say in how government programs are run. Either follow our rules (don't discriminate, don't preach), or don't take government dollars. Freedom of religion also means that I don't want the government to endorse a group that discriminates based on sexual orientation.
"Faith-based initiative" money is supposed to be used for social service programs. These programs should be non-religious and non-discriminatory. It seems to me that too many religious organizations run "social services" not so much so they can help their fellow man, but so they can evangelize to a captive (literally) audience.
posted by jennak at 2:02 PM on July 25, 2001
The point is that we are all tax payers, and we *do* have a say in how government programs are run. Either follow our rules (don't discriminate, don't preach), or don't take government dollars. Freedom of religion also means that I don't want the government to endorse a group that discriminates based on sexual orientation.
"Faith-based initiative" money is supposed to be used for social service programs. These programs should be non-religious and non-discriminatory. It seems to me that too many religious organizations run "social services" not so much so they can help their fellow man, but so they can evangelize to a captive (literally) audience.
posted by jennak at 2:02 PM on July 25, 2001
And in the US public sector you can't discriminate (in this case, fire) someone based on their religious beliefs even if their beliefs are themselves discriminatory. Ermmm, if this Mr. Phillips' boss belonged to a church that discriminated against homophobes, do we get to an irresistible force/immovable rock paradox?
posted by spandex at 2:08 PM on July 25, 2001
posted by spandex at 2:08 PM on July 25, 2001
Vis10n: but people still choose to do things that bring them harm: drug use, cigarette smoking, unprotected sex, premarital sex, driving without a seat belt
Could someone explain to me how premarital sex is harmful?
posted by fullerine at 2:20 PM on July 25, 2001
Could someone explain to me how premarital sex is harmful?
posted by fullerine at 2:20 PM on July 25, 2001
Could someone explain to me how premarital sex is harmful?
Children born out of wedlock? Not necessarily a death sentence, but not ideal either...
posted by owillis at 2:23 PM on July 25, 2001
Children born out of wedlock? Not necessarily a death sentence, but not ideal either...
posted by owillis at 2:23 PM on July 25, 2001
> The point is that we are all tax payers, and we *do*
> have a say in how government programs are run. Either
> follow our rules (don't discriminate, don't preach), or
> don't take government dollars.
"We"? "Our" rules. You speak as if there were a consensus among taxpayers about this, when obviously there isn't. I think it's perfectly OK for the Baptists to fire men with hangnails or women who wear pants suits, whether or not there are tax dollars involved. And I'm just as much a taxpayer as you are.
> Freedom of religion also means that I don't want the
> government to endorse a group that discriminates based
> on sexual orientation.
...and other people do want it to endorse such groups, and there's room for all opinions. See, that's freedom. P.S. can you find me a constitutional scholar who can explain how freedom of religion "means" freedom of sex? To me that's a breathtaking leap, unless sex is your religion.
posted by jfuller at 2:31 PM on July 25, 2001
> have a say in how government programs are run. Either
> follow our rules (don't discriminate, don't preach), or
> don't take government dollars.
"We"? "Our" rules. You speak as if there were a consensus among taxpayers about this, when obviously there isn't. I think it's perfectly OK for the Baptists to fire men with hangnails or women who wear pants suits, whether or not there are tax dollars involved. And I'm just as much a taxpayer as you are.
> Freedom of religion also means that I don't want the
> government to endorse a group that discriminates based
> on sexual orientation.
...and other people do want it to endorse such groups, and there's room for all opinions. See, that's freedom. P.S. can you find me a constitutional scholar who can explain how freedom of religion "means" freedom of sex? To me that's a breathtaking leap, unless sex is your religion.
posted by jfuller at 2:31 PM on July 25, 2001
(OT: Fullerine: although I personally believe that any premarital sex is harmful, I was specifically thinking of teenagers when I wrote that... and I think that the arguments against teenage sex are fairly strong. Specifically, the harms that may come as a result of teenage sex: unwanted pregnancy, abortion, family stress, STDs, psychological trauma, loss of childhood (that last one's a bit more abstract than the rest).)
posted by silusGROK at 2:36 PM on July 25, 2001
posted by silusGROK at 2:36 PM on July 25, 2001
I find it rather interresting that many christians have chosen to single out homosexuality as a point of contention. In my mind there are 'transgressions' which seem no more/less substantial.
When was the last time you heard someone being fired from the Salvation Army because they had sex prior to or outside of marriage.
I suppose its a bit easier to identify someone's sexual preference than it is to identify someone who still carries his/her v-card or someone who's never cheated on his/her spouse.
posted by darainwa at 2:40 PM on July 25, 2001
When was the last time you heard someone being fired from the Salvation Army because they had sex prior to or outside of marriage.
I suppose its a bit easier to identify someone's sexual preference than it is to identify someone who still carries his/her v-card or someone who's never cheated on his/her spouse.
posted by darainwa at 2:40 PM on July 25, 2001
P.S. can you find me a constitutional scholar who can explain how freedom of religion "means" freedom of sex? To me that's a breathtaking leap, unless sex is your religion.
It doesn't take a scholar at all: freedom of religion is also freedom from religion. Only religious institutions claim that freedom of sexuality doesn't exist, denied by god. As a citizen, it's my right to be free of such nonsense.
posted by skyline at 2:47 PM on July 25, 2001
It doesn't take a scholar at all: freedom of religion is also freedom from religion. Only religious institutions claim that freedom of sexuality doesn't exist, denied by god. As a citizen, it's my right to be free of such nonsense.
posted by skyline at 2:47 PM on July 25, 2001
speaking as an attorney, a u.s. government professor, and a gigantic liberal:
(1) what mathowie and jennak said.
(2) for jfuller: thanks for the input, but you don't get to decide, nor do the rest of us taxpayers - the supreme court decides who government agencies can discriminate against.
(3) it's disgusting (to me), but the supreme court has been pretty clear on this issue: homosexuality (unlike race and gender) is NOT a protected class. in other words, the court has said explicitly that discrimination against a homosexual is fine as long as the government has a minimal, rational basis (ie, "we think it is immoral") for the discrimination. that sucks, but them's the facts.
the gay community has made many inroads into equal protection at the state level (ie. protection under state laws from discrimination), but not at the federal level. the u.s. constitution has not been interpreted to protect gays from discrimination from the federal government. that is not likely to change in the near future, given teh political make-up of the supreme court.
posted by conquistador at 2:53 PM on July 25, 2001
(1) what mathowie and jennak said.
(2) for jfuller: thanks for the input, but you don't get to decide, nor do the rest of us taxpayers - the supreme court decides who government agencies can discriminate against.
(3) it's disgusting (to me), but the supreme court has been pretty clear on this issue: homosexuality (unlike race and gender) is NOT a protected class. in other words, the court has said explicitly that discrimination against a homosexual is fine as long as the government has a minimal, rational basis (ie, "we think it is immoral") for the discrimination. that sucks, but them's the facts.
the gay community has made many inroads into equal protection at the state level (ie. protection under state laws from discrimination), but not at the federal level. the u.s. constitution has not been interpreted to protect gays from discrimination from the federal government. that is not likely to change in the near future, given teh political make-up of the supreme court.
posted by conquistador at 2:53 PM on July 25, 2001
Thank you, conquistador. I was beginning to wonder what I was missing.
posted by gd779 at 2:59 PM on July 25, 2001
posted by gd779 at 2:59 PM on July 25, 2001
> jfuller: thanks for the input, but you don't get to
> decide
Never said I did. But one has influence on the outcome, you know, as for example by electing right-wing presidents to nominate the justices and Neanderthal fascist senators to confirm 'em.
You know, political feelings seem to run high around here but I wonder how many MeFi folks were really there at the polls with me to cancel my vote against Al with their vote against Dubya? Actually fewer, I'll bet, than the number who will claim they were there.
posted by jfuller at 3:38 PM on July 25, 2001
> decide
Never said I did. But one has influence on the outcome, you know, as for example by electing right-wing presidents to nominate the justices and Neanderthal fascist senators to confirm 'em.
You know, political feelings seem to run high around here but I wonder how many MeFi folks were really there at the polls with me to cancel my vote against Al with their vote against Dubya? Actually fewer, I'll bet, than the number who will claim they were there.
posted by jfuller at 3:38 PM on July 25, 2001
Well then, why doesn't some public-spirited gay organization step up and at least offer to run the centers and take care of the children, if they don't like the way the wicked Baptists are doing it?
I'd love to hear the kind of howls that "right-thinking" folks like jfuller would set up if a gay organization actually did attempt to run youth centers and care for children.
And I must speculate that most activist gays are too busy trying to make sure that homosexuals can walk down the street without getting bashed, come out without losing their jobs, and generally live free of discrimination, to take on the task of homelessness and poverty as well.
You know, political feelings seem to run high around here but I wonder how many MeFi folks were really there at the polls with me to cancel my vote against Al with their vote against Dubya? Actually fewer, I'll bet, than the number who will claim they were there.
Thanks for the specious, off-topic, ad hominem slam, jfuller. Always nice to see the true face peek out from behind the mask.
(I voted Nader for President, straight-ticket Democrat otherwise.)
posted by Zettai at 4:08 PM on July 25, 2001
I'd love to hear the kind of howls that "right-thinking" folks like jfuller would set up if a gay organization actually did attempt to run youth centers and care for children.
And I must speculate that most activist gays are too busy trying to make sure that homosexuals can walk down the street without getting bashed, come out without losing their jobs, and generally live free of discrimination, to take on the task of homelessness and poverty as well.
You know, political feelings seem to run high around here but I wonder how many MeFi folks were really there at the polls with me to cancel my vote against Al with their vote against Dubya? Actually fewer, I'll bet, than the number who will claim they were there.
Thanks for the specious, off-topic, ad hominem slam, jfuller. Always nice to see the true face peek out from behind the mask.
(I voted Nader for President, straight-ticket Democrat otherwise.)
posted by Zettai at 4:08 PM on July 25, 2001
> Always nice to see the true face peek out from behind the
> mask.
What mask, zet? This thing with the fangs is my face. If you saw anything peeking out, it was the chernobog that hangs out in my filthy, matted hair.
posted by jfuller at 4:57 PM on July 25, 2001
> mask.
What mask, zet? This thing with the fangs is my face. If you saw anything peeking out, it was the chernobog that hangs out in my filthy, matted hair.
posted by jfuller at 4:57 PM on July 25, 2001
What's disgusting to ME is that there are still people who think that homosexuality is a choice. I spent literally years of my life wishing that I'd start liking girls. Never happened. Then, despite what "right thinking" people tried to say, I got comfortable with it.
As for this topic itself, because this group gets federal funding, they lose the right to hire/fire in a discriminatory way. If they had fired this person because she was Asian or under 5'11", this wouldn't even be an issue.
posted by billybunny at 5:44 PM on July 25, 2001
As for this topic itself, because this group gets federal funding, they lose the right to hire/fire in a discriminatory way. If they had fired this person because she was Asian or under 5'11", this wouldn't even be an issue.
posted by billybunny at 5:44 PM on July 25, 2001
billybunny: Re-read conquistador's post. They have every (legal) right to hire/fire people on the basis of their sexual orientation. The ruling was a proper one, legally.
Also, there's a qualitative difference between firing someone because she's Asian or short and firing someone because she's a lesbian. Regardless of how offensive you find it, Baptists consider homosexuality to be immoral. To hire a homosexual as a therapist for neglected or abused [and thus VERY impressionable] children would be completely unacceptable to them. That is what happened here.
If we stop allowing religious groups to help society in a way that is consistent with their beliefs, we may essentially preclude certain groups from helping society at all. We don't have nearly enough people volunteering their time to help neglected children as it is.
I think that it's important to point out that this group (presumably, though the article is a little sparse on facts) is NOT teaching religion. They're not preaching AGAINST homosexuality. They simply don't want children exposed to it. Whether the group is Baptist or Mormon, Muslim or Buddhist, I think that society ought to be willing to allow our churches and religious groups to contribute to society without violating their faith.
As for this particular woman in this particular case: she'll survive, and she'll find another job. I mean, honestly, she had to see this coming when she took the job. They have a mandatory "moral code of conduct" for crying out loud.
posted by gd779 at 6:41 PM on July 25, 2001
Also, there's a qualitative difference between firing someone because she's Asian or short and firing someone because she's a lesbian. Regardless of how offensive you find it, Baptists consider homosexuality to be immoral. To hire a homosexual as a therapist for neglected or abused [and thus VERY impressionable] children would be completely unacceptable to them. That is what happened here.
If we stop allowing religious groups to help society in a way that is consistent with their beliefs, we may essentially preclude certain groups from helping society at all. We don't have nearly enough people volunteering their time to help neglected children as it is.
I think that it's important to point out that this group (presumably, though the article is a little sparse on facts) is NOT teaching religion. They're not preaching AGAINST homosexuality. They simply don't want children exposed to it. Whether the group is Baptist or Mormon, Muslim or Buddhist, I think that society ought to be willing to allow our churches and religious groups to contribute to society without violating their faith.
As for this particular woman in this particular case: she'll survive, and she'll find another job. I mean, honestly, she had to see this coming when she took the job. They have a mandatory "moral code of conduct" for crying out loud.
posted by gd779 at 6:41 PM on July 25, 2001
billybunny: As far as I can tell, the people who've been saying (here, at least) that homosexuality is a choice weren't saying "it's possible to choose to be attracted either to men or to women". They were saying "regardless of who you like, it's possible not to have sex". I should think this much would be undeniably true. Homosexual sex--like any sex--like anything at all that people do--is something that one takes part in by choice.
Now, I don't think there's anything at all wrong with homosexuality, and, since there's nothing wrong with it, I think it is wrong to discriminate against homosexuals. But it is a choice.
posted by moss at 6:44 PM on July 25, 2001
Now, I don't think there's anything at all wrong with homosexuality, and, since there's nothing wrong with it, I think it is wrong to discriminate against homosexuals. But it is a choice.
posted by moss at 6:44 PM on July 25, 2001
i'm kind of wondering why many people (in this thread) think that it's ever illegal to fire someone because of their homosexuality. is it naiveté? it's not illegal... the religion issue seems unnecessary -- who cares that it's their religious, moral tenet? so? people get fired when their bosses find out they're gay. it happens and there aren't laws against it. as conquistador pointed out, homosexuals are not a protected minority. deal.
deal with it, or fight the power, man.
whether or not to have sex is a choice, i guess. what gender one is attracted to is (most people argue) not a choice. does the term "homosexual" identify the attraction or the act? of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex. oh.
posted by palegirl at 8:07 PM on July 25, 2001
deal with it, or fight the power, man.
whether or not to have sex is a choice, i guess. what gender one is attracted to is (most people argue) not a choice. does the term "homosexual" identify the attraction or the act? of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex. oh.
posted by palegirl at 8:07 PM on July 25, 2001
They were saying "regardless of who you like, it's possible not to have sex". I should think this much would be undeniably true.
Hee hee! I can't wait until y'all on that side of this debate wake up in BizarroLand (tm) where homosexuality is the norm and the law and the law of religion, too, and y'all are freaks for liking the opposite sex better than yer own where it comes to matters of a prurient nature. Of course, that'll be the day that I see J2P2 is reborn as a poor woman in Mexico City with nine children to feed.
(With all due apologies to the reasonable Catholics in the house, and to those who are understandably quite tired of this discussion.)
posted by mimi at 8:14 PM on July 25, 2001
Hee hee! I can't wait until y'all on that side of this debate wake up in BizarroLand (tm) where homosexuality is the norm and the law and the law of religion, too, and y'all are freaks for liking the opposite sex better than yer own where it comes to matters of a prurient nature. Of course, that'll be the day that I see J2P2 is reborn as a poor woman in Mexico City with nine children to feed.
(With all due apologies to the reasonable Catholics in the house, and to those who are understandably quite tired of this discussion.)
posted by mimi at 8:14 PM on July 25, 2001
So... wait... I'm not heterosexual until I've screwed a girl? So, would these right-wing loonies fire me, too? Hmm...
posted by Ptrin at 8:25 PM on July 25, 2001
posted by Ptrin at 8:25 PM on July 25, 2001
What about the gay orphans?
Oh, shit I forgot, it's only straight kids who get the role models.
posted by fullerine at 12:17 AM on July 26, 2001
Oh, shit I forgot, it's only straight kids who get the role models.
posted by fullerine at 12:17 AM on July 26, 2001
They don't discriminate based on religion.
Baptists (like most religious people) believe their religious views are morally right and opposing views are morally wrong.
Thus, it seems to me they'd have a moral problem with someone making a choice (which religion unarguably is) to be of a different faith than their own.
Yet they seem to believe homosexuality is a choice, and a morally bad one, and that's the one they pick to discriminate against?
Whether they have the legal right or not, seems to me like there's just a big ol' absence of thought there.
(As for the choice-or-genetic thing, a friend of mine explained to me why it didn't matter: you don't discriminate based on religion, which is a choice, and you don't discriminate based on race, which is genetic. So you shouldn't discriminate based on sexuality, whether it happens to be a choice or genetic.)
posted by fidelity at 3:48 AM on July 26, 2001
Baptists (like most religious people) believe their religious views are morally right and opposing views are morally wrong.
Thus, it seems to me they'd have a moral problem with someone making a choice (which religion unarguably is) to be of a different faith than their own.
Yet they seem to believe homosexuality is a choice, and a morally bad one, and that's the one they pick to discriminate against?
Whether they have the legal right or not, seems to me like there's just a big ol' absence of thought there.
(As for the choice-or-genetic thing, a friend of mine explained to me why it didn't matter: you don't discriminate based on religion, which is a choice, and you don't discriminate based on race, which is genetic. So you shouldn't discriminate based on sexuality, whether it happens to be a choice or genetic.)
posted by fidelity at 3:48 AM on July 26, 2001
OhgodohgodohgodohGOD. Reading this thread, I had the biggest realization I've had in a long time. This may be old news to some of you, but I'm just now seeing the connection.
I think I understand the real reason why it's not okay to be queer in America. Because it's not okay to be straight in America, either. Or it is, but under certain guidelines... no sex before marriage, no being in love with more than one person at a time (no sleeping with more than one person at a time, either), no being involved with someone outside of your certain race/age demographic/culture/economic class. Nice, neat, linear heterosexuality. Fall outside the lines, and that's it: you're anathema.
The two are tied together. One won't be free until the other is. Queer liberation is Hetero liberation, and vice versa.
I'm sure I'm not the first person to realize this, but I'd like to give my sincere, heartfelt thanks to the more ignorant people that have contributed to this thread for making me more aware. You have my gratitude.
posted by jason at 10:10 AM on July 26, 2001
I think I understand the real reason why it's not okay to be queer in America. Because it's not okay to be straight in America, either. Or it is, but under certain guidelines... no sex before marriage, no being in love with more than one person at a time (no sleeping with more than one person at a time, either), no being involved with someone outside of your certain race/age demographic/culture/economic class. Nice, neat, linear heterosexuality. Fall outside the lines, and that's it: you're anathema.
The two are tied together. One won't be free until the other is. Queer liberation is Hetero liberation, and vice versa.
I'm sure I'm not the first person to realize this, but I'd like to give my sincere, heartfelt thanks to the more ignorant people that have contributed to this thread for making me more aware. You have my gratitude.
posted by jason at 10:10 AM on July 26, 2001
"They have a mandatory "moral code of conduct" for crying out loud."
Their moral code of conduct would include such acts as adultery too. You can bet the Baptists are not firing anybody for that one though. It's selective and it's discriminatory.
Say they use the Bible as their moral guide? Jim Bob better spit out that ham and throw down that cigartette then. Let's not pick and choose which sins make us morally unfit and which don't brother Bobby Lee! Fire 'em all and let God sort 'em out! Me, I detest those eaters of monkey meat mahself, they're sub-human and uncivilized! (sarcasm alert)
Damn, did I just hear Loretta use God's name in vain? I'm firing her ass! That violates our moral code.
posted by nofundy at 11:21 AM on July 26, 2001
Their moral code of conduct would include such acts as adultery too. You can bet the Baptists are not firing anybody for that one though. It's selective and it's discriminatory.
Say they use the Bible as their moral guide? Jim Bob better spit out that ham and throw down that cigartette then. Let's not pick and choose which sins make us morally unfit and which don't brother Bobby Lee! Fire 'em all and let God sort 'em out! Me, I detest those eaters of monkey meat mahself, they're sub-human and uncivilized! (sarcasm alert)
Damn, did I just hear Loretta use God's name in vain? I'm firing her ass! That violates our moral code.
posted by nofundy at 11:21 AM on July 26, 2001
you got it, jason. a good friend pointed this out to me a while ago. it's when people have to think about other people having s.e.x. that they lose their minds. I'm just happy to be from CanEHdia where we ain't so nice to homophobes, eh.
posted by spandex at 11:33 AM on July 26, 2001
posted by spandex at 11:33 AM on July 26, 2001
no need to throw down the ham, or the cigarette. Remember, baptists are goyim first, and the laws don't apply to them.
Why anyone would want to be both a Jew and Christian is beyond me -- being Jewish is hard enough!
posted by dwivian at 11:39 AM on July 26, 2001
Why anyone would want to be both a Jew and Christian is beyond me -- being Jewish is hard enough!
posted by dwivian at 11:39 AM on July 26, 2001
I never did get back to writing a reposte to Mathowie's and Rich's comments... but I think that the issue has pretty much been beaten to death, and I don't imagine the thread will even bear much more commentary. Maybe in the next thread on the subject (and we all know that there will be another), I'll chime in a little sooner... and with a little more depth.
posted by silusGROK at 1:19 PM on July 26, 2001
posted by silusGROK at 1:19 PM on July 26, 2001
My ex-girlfriend used to say that you're only as principled as you are when things are going tough. For a community that's dedicated to tolerance, calm-objective thought, and insightful commentary, I think it's a little sad to see an emotional hot-button issue throw so many people off of their intellectual perch and down into the mud.
Let me pose a question to the ubiquitous "you", for the target of this question is a great many people in this thread. If I were to talk about homosexuals with the same degree of understanding, tolerance, and respect as you talk about Baptists, what would you call me?
You don't know these people. You don't know their beliefs (several of you demonstrated that quite clearly). You don't know why they've dedicated their lives to helping children, or what they hope to accomplish. You don't know if they have a rational reason for their decision. Nor do you care. You're all so upset over the firing of a lesbian (who, again, had to see this coming a mile away) that you're not even bothering to practice tolerance or respect for beliefs different than your own. All of your principles have flown out the window, in my opinion. And remember, it's no easier for a Baptist to tolerate a homosexual than it is for you to tolerate a Baptist. Pot, meet kettle.
Sorry if I'm pissed, I broke up with my girlfriend today and so I'm lacking my usual restraint. But, as far as I'm concerned, those of you who have replaced rational thought with knee-jerk emotion and convenient assumptions can just piss-off. I'm not in the mood.
posted by gd779 at 2:48 PM on July 26, 2001
Let me pose a question to the ubiquitous "you", for the target of this question is a great many people in this thread. If I were to talk about homosexuals with the same degree of understanding, tolerance, and respect as you talk about Baptists, what would you call me?
You don't know these people. You don't know their beliefs (several of you demonstrated that quite clearly). You don't know why they've dedicated their lives to helping children, or what they hope to accomplish. You don't know if they have a rational reason for their decision. Nor do you care. You're all so upset over the firing of a lesbian (who, again, had to see this coming a mile away) that you're not even bothering to practice tolerance or respect for beliefs different than your own. All of your principles have flown out the window, in my opinion. And remember, it's no easier for a Baptist to tolerate a homosexual than it is for you to tolerate a Baptist. Pot, meet kettle.
Sorry if I'm pissed, I broke up with my girlfriend today and so I'm lacking my usual restraint. But, as far as I'm concerned, those of you who have replaced rational thought with knee-jerk emotion and convenient assumptions can just piss-off. I'm not in the mood.
posted by gd779 at 2:48 PM on July 26, 2001
Note: My comments are not leveled at everyone in this thread. Some of you added to the discussion quite nicely.
posted by gd779 at 2:50 PM on July 26, 2001
posted by gd779 at 2:50 PM on July 26, 2001
listen man, i'm sorry you had a bad day and all, and i agree that we all have to be tolerant of difference -- but i have a general policy against tolerating intolerance, which is what the firing of a lesbian is.
i know that some other issues have been brought up in this thread, (one of note being the idea that the baptists would stop doing community service if government funding was eliminated,) but in terms of the original issue of religious dogma mandating that an employee be fired over her homosexuality -- i stand by it.
being tolerant of intolerance is hypocrisy, no?
(it's late, i'm not sure if this post is coherent. i apologize in advance.)
posted by palegirl at 12:50 AM on July 27, 2001
i know that some other issues have been brought up in this thread, (one of note being the idea that the baptists would stop doing community service if government funding was eliminated,) but in terms of the original issue of religious dogma mandating that an employee be fired over her homosexuality -- i stand by it.
being tolerant of intolerance is hypocrisy, no?
(it's late, i'm not sure if this post is coherent. i apologize in advance.)
posted by palegirl at 12:50 AM on July 27, 2001
> Sorry if I'm pissed, I broke up with my girlfriend today
> and so I'm lacking my usual restraint.
When you start looking for a replacement, remember to choose to be bisexual. You'll double your options.
posted by pracowity at 3:15 AM on July 27, 2001
> and so I'm lacking my usual restraint.
When you start looking for a replacement, remember to choose to be bisexual. You'll double your options.
posted by pracowity at 3:15 AM on July 27, 2001
But if you do so, you'll have to chose to not marry a Baptist.
posted by Ptrin at 3:44 PM on July 28, 2001
posted by Ptrin at 3:44 PM on July 28, 2001
« Older Snapshots of san francisco: | U.S. Rejects Anti-Germ Warfare Accord Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
But then, couldn't they just pick on some aspect of a wiccan's "lifestyle" that they didn't like?
I'm confused about the difference between "lifestyle" and "faith" and where the line is...
posted by whatnotever at 10:06 AM on July 25, 2001