World Vision Impairment

[Mrs Haruo]

"Don't Ask Don't tell" is NOT the perfect regime in my opinion. For the record, I am hetero, always have been, but in various organizations I was involved in, and even within my extended family, there have been women who just weren't interested in men, men who were not attracted by women, I have known of too many young people who were still unsure of their own sexuality because the teen years are very confusing in the first place -- who were driven to self destructive behavior and even suicide from teasing and bullying by evangelical "uber Christians" who made snap judgements about someone because of a style of clothing or a mannerism or associating with another teenager who was already being teased about being different. My daughter has always been highly intelligent and creative, and has enjoyed creating fanciful jewelry and painted items. I taught her to sew and she made costumes for dramatic productions and Ren fairs. She also got teased and taunted unmercilessly by a group of girls from some extreme rigt wing Southern Baptist church in town who branded her a witch because she wore the black velvet cloak she made for a Snow White costume to school. This sort of attitude drove her AWAY from the church she was raised in.

[DSimmons]

Keith, from whence do you or anyone derive the notion that the same laws and rules that protect you and me somehow don't protect gays? Assault is a crime regardless of who the victim or their sexual orientation. Now if you're talking about discrimination in housing or employment, then I have to go back to my earlier comments. In creating a protected class of people we necessarily elevate them and their wants and desires over the natural right of another to make and experience the consequences of his or her own choices about the use and disposition of the fruit of their invested time and energy. What great harm is done to someone who is discriminated against by not being hired or have a"wedding picture" or cake made which is sufficient to deny personal economic liberty to another? Why should anyone be compelled to serve another by force of law? How does such compulsion not constitute a form of legal slavery? It is wrong, immoral and unjust in the extreme for the law to impose the burden of serving another regardless of and despite his or her personal wishes or desires. I do not understand why this concept of liberty is so hard for so many to grasp and accept. Are people really so anxious to be viewed as progressive and tolerant of some that they are willing and ready to deprive others of their God-given freedom? How can this be?

[DSimmons]

[KeithE]

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed; Keith by what rule of logic am I or Doug or and landlord or employer obligated to enable another's poor choice to live in a sinful state? I take it that you have not changed your position that the practice of homosexuality is a sin. Now if we where to form an association dedicated to promoting homelessness among homosexuals that would be discrimination.

And BTW Keith, where did you get that 3.5% figure? Most of th Data I have seen reports between 3.8 & 4.5%.

[KeithE]

[Haruo]

Good thing we own our own home so no one is tempted not to rent to us because we're too heavy (which probably came, at least in part, from eating too much).

[Ed Pettibone]

[KeithE]

[Haruo]

All sins are destructive and all sinners should have equal rights.

Ed, I am not defending gluttony or even obesity. Or even homosexuality, though I don't think it's "a sin". That is, I think homosexuality is more like obesity than it is like gluttony.

[Sandy]

I don't want the government in the business of determining what is or is not sinful. I do want it defining the rules necessary for people to live and function together in a free society. While there may be some overlap in terms of the law enforcing principles that happen to be moral, I don't want the law to define morality. The rights that you have as a citizen of the US depend on your compliance with the law, not on your definition of morality.

I don't think it is really all that hard to draw a line that defines the status of an organization as either a religiously based institution or not. You declare your mission and purpose, and your 501c3 status, and you set your statement of faith to define your constituency and your ministry, and you hire only those people who can be in agreement with your statement of faith. World Vision is clearly within those parameters. Hobby Lobby is not.

[Ed Pettibone]

[KeithE]

[KeithE]

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed: And Keith I maintain that requiring a landlord renting private property to accept homosexual tenants or to force the owner of a small business to hire them is discriminatory. Doug made a good case for this.

You like to make reference the absence of teaching prohibiting homosexuality by Jesus, but neither does he make exceptions for ignoring biblical restrictions on sexual activity. Sin is destructive to the participating individuals and is therefore not victimless. Also when I worked in a mental health crisis unit we dealt with a number of individuals who felt trapped in homosexual relationships. And yes we did see some homosexuals who's presenting problem was societal rejection.

[linda]

Folks do find interesting ways to get around what they believe to be unjust laws.

I have one relative who lives in and owns a duplex. When laws changed and she faced allowing unmarried hetero couples or homosexual couples to rent from her, she decided to forgo the income and shut the other side of the building down, at painful financial loss. Others have long term leases with renters but sell off properties as those leases expire if the occupants do not wish to renew the lease. Still other small towns find landlords simply abandoning the property to the city or tearing down the homes rather than rent any sort of illicit love shack.

We lived in one state that had its antiabortion laws struck down. Fair enough, but that did not force one single doctor or nurse from that state to provide abortions.

I know folks who have stopped doing flowers, cakes, or photographs for ANY weddings at great financial loss rather than do gay weddings. In fact, some judges in a nearby state have done so.

I personally respect those who stand by their beliefs even at great loss.

And I wonder how long it will be before that right is taken from us?

[DSimmons]

Keith, my objection turns on this question: how does the desire of someone to have employment or housing provided by me create an obligation on my part to provide it?

You keep focusing on the perceived rights of the LGBTUVWXYZ's to be employed or housed in a particular place, but where does that right come from? There is no such thing as a human right which must be paid for by (or imposes a burden of any sort on) another. Just because someone wants to live in the rental property I own, why am I obligated or required to allow them to do so? If I'm allowed some measure of discrimination based on whether or not I think they will pay the rent or take care of the place properly, why is there a limit on my discrimination at all? Is it not my place? Am I not running the risks of economic loss if they don't pay, or tear the place up, or I simply choose not to rent to them on some other basis? Is it not my right to choose to run that risk or encur that loss? Where does someone else's desire get the power to override my liberty? Just because their feelings have been hurt if they were turned down for some (or any) reason? What makes their so-called right to housing or employment superior to my right to enjoy the fruit of my life's energy and time that I must give way to them and their desires?

You keep talking about the rights of the LGBTUVWXYZ's, but what about my rights as an employer or property owner?

Or business person. The line you highlighted in red turned on that issue. If I don't want to provide my business services to someone/anyone for any reason, where does the law, in the form of a judge, get the power to force me to do so? I tell you true, a judge might order me to do something for someone after I had already decided not to, but the next thing they would see would be a "Closed, Out of Business" sign hanging on my door. Such an order is beyond the power of the court to enforce. Lock me up? Go ahead. Still no cakes being baked or pictures being taken. And I'd still be getting my 3 hots and a cot while the judge whistled up his rope.

This is an issue of rights and governmental intrusion and coercion. I have nothing against the LGBTUVWXYZ's, other than I resent their demand that the rest of us cater to their whims under threat of harassment.

[Haruo]

[Sandy]

[KeithE]

[Ed Pettibone]

[Sandy]

[Ed Pettibone]

[KeithE]

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed: Keith your last sentence in the above post tells me we are wasting our time, and that too is a sim.