Nice to see a business stand up for traditional values and not bow to political correctness.
Opposing discrimination in hiring practices and the denial of basic civil rights and benefits to a group of people is not political correctness, so you can drop the silly buzzwords designed to get people who don't put more than two seconds of thought into their response on your side. You've already got
Randy, the King of Apathy on your side.
In the United States we routinely deny civil rights to pedophiles and rapists to list but 2 examples.
If you believe that denial of rights is okay for people who commit certain sexual acts, then denial of civil rights to those who actually commit homosexual acts is more than reasonable.
And to Peacemaker, you're not a bibical scholar of any kind (if you are, provide proof) so what when you lecture on what the Bible means, it has no relevance.
The only reason people listen to you regarding that is that you are "preaching" to the liberal echo champer at the TrekBBS.
You're using the same idiotic arguments
Brent did and all the lazy anti-gay advocates fall back on. Rape (including statutory rape which you cited in another post) and child molestation are not consensual, so it's not a reasonable comparison to two adults practicing consensual homosexual acts in the slightest. But you already knew that and were just throwing those comparisons in to get a rise out of people.
I believe
Peacemaker is actually a Biblical or religious scholar, and he doesn't owe you jack shit in the way of proof. I and others believe him because he clearly has a commanding grasp of religion and the Bible, and we listen to him --even when I might disagree with him-- because unlike you he actually knows what he's talking about and backs it up with evidence (when it's not a matter of faith).
And, for the record, the civil rights of pedophiles are not restricted in any way until and unless they act on their predispositions.
Neither are those of homosexuals.
Are they allowed to get married everywhere? Is it more difficult for them to adopt in many places? Are they denied access to and information about loved ones in the hospital? Are they denied benefits when their loved ones pass away? Are they allowed to be discriminated against in hiring and other situations? And that's in the "nice" countries that don't actively imprison or hunt them down like they do in some places overseas, which some Christian groups here also proudly fund and support.
I believe strongly in "freedom of association".
In that vein, people should be able to hire or not hired whomever they want regardless of the reasons.
Sell, rent or provide services or deny those services to whomever they want regardless of the reasons.
For starters.
"For starters," you're fine with denying blacks, women, people of different religions, the disabled, and any other group some asshole chooses not to associate with with basic civil rights, needs, goods, and services? Because that worked out so well in the past. Jesus, what's next if that's the start? Obviously you want to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964. You're reprehensible.
The freedom of assembly in the Constitution is inclusive, not exclusionary.
Perhaps you could list the Bible verses where God destroys entire cities for obesity?
Now this was the sin of Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen. —Ezekiel 16:49-50 (NIV)
The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is reaffirmed in the New Testament and therefore has continuity (so no OT excuse for you) and is one of the stories bigots like to cite most when they're condemning homosexuality.
God's
not a big fan of obesity, so I hope none of the anti-gay bigots in the thread are fat since we're taking this all as literal truths that must be upheld at all costs instead of instructional guidelines for leading a life that most benefited the community millennia ago. We wouldn't want you to be hypocritical now, would we?
Who said anything about "rape" in prison? You think prisoners can't have consensual homosexual relations?
That said, people worried about the thread being locked and things of that nature should consider this:
If you want to ever have a real "discussion" about homosexual rights you can't limit it to just one side of the argument. You can't have a real "discussion" when the only posts allowed or tolerated are endless advocacy of homosexual rights.
And if you really want a "discussion" you got to be willing to extend a level of respect and politeness to those who advocate political beliefs that you might find abhorrent.
Sure, there are some truly consensual sexual encounters between same-sex prisoners who are in need of companionship, but the vast majority of those situations are about displaying dominance over others or gaining protection, and are therefore not consensual in the normal sense of the word where it comes to two adults having a relationship.
As far as people being concerned about the thread being locked, they've been mostly on your side of the argument. I think most others are pretty content with identifying who the bigots really are.
You are simply trolling.
Admiral Troll
The person who compares consensual gay sex between two adults to rape and molestation doesn't have a leg to stand on in accusing others of trolling, so knock it off.
Women can speak in the church but not exercise authority over an adult male Christian.
Women can instruct and teach children.
Older women can teach and instruct younger women.
Women can teach and instruct adult non Christians.
Woman can speak in reponse to an invitation of questions by an adult male Christian teacher.
I hope that is helpful.
It's helpful in demonstrating that you believe women should be subservient to men, should not serve in any position of authority over men, should speak only when spoken to, and should not instruct their elders regardless of their level of knowledge.
And you wonder why people think you're a misogynist.
