Posted on 07/16/2005 12:12:46 PM PDT by gopgen
Never mind. I'm too tired to explain it to you and you are just making this more difficult than it need be.
Did Christ preach that being a woman was a sin?
Your comment made no sense at all?
It made no sense, because it took NMH's comment at face value. That was the point...
No, it was just a stupid remark.
Are you seriously comparing people who choose a behavior and life(death)style to being a woman?
Senator Santorum is indeed a Catholic, and as a Catholic I support his position on his employee.
I think gay people have the same right to employment as anyone else. His private life is his private life. I don't think employment decisions should be made on someone's personal life if it doesn't affect work. Meaning, if your personal life requires you to drink copious amounts of alcohol resulting in impaired effectiveness when you show up for work the next morning, it's a problem. If this guy sleeps with a man and then gets up for work on time, who cares?
Hypocrisy, thy name is "Mainstream Media"!
pa mom:
We had a gay couple living in our neighborhood until very recently and they had the most beautiful home and threw the best parties of all! I miss them but we keep in touch and I expect to be invited to their housewarming for their even more beautiful new home when it is completed!
We also have a registered sex offender and a retired couple who spends time at a nudist colony. The horrors! That must be why we had four hurricanes last year!! LOL!
Heck, I'd pick the gay couple over a nudist any day!
Keep your head down when the winds blow!
Actually, I was addressing the fact that having never been an apostle wasn't an indicator of anything. There were only thirteen, you know.
His premise was preposterous, as is yours. Jesus associated with sinners and tax collectors. There's nothing wrong with Santorum defending his aide; it's totally appropriate. It doesn't imply support of his actions, it disputes that it's a proper matter for outing. It reeks for fundamentalist intolerance...as do you.
If my questions are too hard to answer, then it must be that your position is flawed to begin with.
First, you quoted the other poster when he said: "Think Christ would employ a non repentant homosexual as one of His disciples? I doubt it.
With me so far?
And then you replied with this:
"Christ didn't employ women as disciples either...and your point is?"
And that is when I asked if you equated a woman with someone indulging in homosexual activity? You implied that the reason that Christ had neither as disciples was the same -- like women were sinners by virtue of being women. A woman cannot repent for being a woman and change (even with surgery, she is still a woman). Christ had other reasons for not including women, but it had nothing to do with sin.
A homosexual can leave that lifestyle, repent and be forgiven for his past and Christ could have selected (not employed) him as a disciple.
Do you understand that although Christ walked among sinners, he did not have them (including unrepentant homosexuals) as his disciples? Your comparison was a non sequitor. That was my point.
Since it took you 36 hours to respond with that witty retort, perhaps it was that you are just too dense.
Now that we've traded insults, and I'm not so tired to reply, this is the point of my post regarding exceptions to the 'off limits' rule that you espouse.
If you are hiring someone to work in your hardware store, car dealership, or to cut your grass, perhaps that person's private life should be off limits. And there are good arguments to say that they really have no bearing on the job.
OTOH, In the area of hiring for jobs involving advocacy I see a huge exception. You already agreed with me in the case of releigion. A Baptist church shouldn't have to hire an agnostic or a Wican and they should be able to narrow their search to those of the same faith.
However, you don't think that same exception should apply to politics. Should the ACLU not be able to ask my political beliefs? Should the ACU not be able to ask if I support abortion, gun control, and government solutions for the everyday problems of society? Should Chuck Schumer not be able to discover if the tax aide he hires is a member of the John Birch Society? Should an opponent of special benefits for someone based on their preference for having sex not be allowed to know if a homosexual is applying for a job as a legislative aide?
You are looking at this from the standpoint of was the law IS. I am saying that the law is WRONG!
Not being allowed to determine who it is that you are hiring when hiring a person who opposes your beliefs and would be detrimental to your advocacy is wrong. And a falsified application could be grounds for dismissal. Even though I disagree with the left on everything, they should be free to hire only those who adhere to their policies and beliefs. And if I am the head of a family values advocacy group, I should be able to screen my employees to see if their behavior will reflect badly on my group and be able to fire them if it doesn't.
You assume that everyone has a right to any and every job they want. They don't. It's the employer's job and he should be able to create his own criteria and that is especially true when it comes to advocacy in politics. The potential for damage is too great.
No, dear. Some of us have a life other than FR. It is particularly amusing that you counted the number of hours between the time you posted and the time I posted.
You already agreed with me in the case of releigion.(sp)
Indeed. The freedom to practice religion in any way we see fit is protected by the constitution. In other words, you cannot reasonably compare the hiring practices of a religious group to the hiring practices of elected officials.
However, you don't think that same exception should apply to politics.
Nope, I don't, because Senators, et al, are public employees. Therefore, their hiring practices are not covered by the constitutional freedom of religion clause.
Should the ACLU not be able to ask my political beliefs?
Sorry, but to try to compare private organizations to elected officials is silly. The ACLU is a private organization - of course they can ask you.
Not being allowed to determine who it is that you are hiring when hiring a person who opposes your beliefs and would be detrimental to your advocacy is wrong.
If the Senator asked the guy in writing if he was gay, and he answered in writing that he was not, then yes, he can be fired - for lying on his application. However, that is not the case. The subject wasn't brought up, and the individual was attempting to be discrete. He did not 'out' himself - he was forcibly 'outted'.
You assume that everyone has a right to any and every job they want.
Please copy and paste where I ever said that.
:::::crickets:::::
Oh good grief, Charlie Brown. We traded shots and I noted that in my post. Get over it.
You already agreed with me in the case of releigion.
(sp)
I should have known that I was dealing with the anal retentive spelling police too. It's a freaking typo. You get no points for finding it.
Indeed. The freedom to practice religion in any way we see fit is protected by the constitution.
Wrong. Our freedoms are neither granted nor protected by the Constitution. There are simply reminders in the document of some of our rights and a notation that we retain all others even if not mentioned. When was the last time you or any one else held up that document in the face of a government bureaucrat or judge and they said, "Ooops. You caught me. I'm sorry."
No dear, the Constitution doesn't protect us. We have the responsibility of enforcing the rules laid down by the Constitution on those who would ignore them and try to usurp our rights. Your perception is quite backward.
In other words, you cannot reasonably compare the hiring practices of a religious group to the hiring practices of elected officials.
Considering that the first part of your premise is wrong, why not?
Nope, I don't, because Senators, et al, are public employees. Therefore, their hiring practices are not covered by the constitutional freedom of religion clause.
Gee, whatever happened to freedom of association?
Sorry, but to try to compare private organizations to elected officials is silly. The ACLU is a private organization - of course they can ask you.
Oh really? I thought that asking those types of questions were illegal in all cases? Discrimination and all, doncha (that's slang, not a typo or misspelling) know? Aren't they subject to the same laws as every else?
If the Senator asked the guy in writing if he was gay, and he answered in writing that he was not, then yes, he can be fired - for lying on his application. However, that is not the case. The subject wasn't brought up, and the individual was attempting to be discrete. He did not 'out' himself - he was forcibly 'outted'.
Did you miss my point or are you just ignoring it? I know that you can fire someone for lying on an application. I also know that the law prohibits employers from asking about a lot of things. My premise is that the law is wrong, expecially when applied to advocacy. Whether it is a church, a private group, or a senator there is an advocacy of beliefs and all of these groups should not be bound by laws governing employment. Are you old enough to have ever been free or to appreciate that freedom?
Please copy and paste where I ever said that. :::::crickets:::::
You have to be able to read between the lines. Believe me, it's in there.
Sweetheart, I didn't ask for any points. It's a shame you get your panties all in a twist over such incidental things.
When was the last time you or any one else held up that document in the face of a government bureaucrat or judge and they said, "Ooops. You caught me. I'm sorry."
You are right, they don't. Doesn't change the fact that we have the right to practice our religion as we see fit.
We have the responsibility of enforcing the rules laid down by the Constitution on those who would ignore them and try to usurp our rights.
And this has to do with your demand that the Senator fire the guy that was 'outed' HOW exactly? Seems you've gotten off on some sort of tangent.
"Considering that the first part of your premise is wrong, why not?"
Good grief. So let me get this straight. You compare the right to freely practice our religion to somehow requiring the Senator to fire someone who was 'outed' against their will. Weird.
Gee, whatever happened to freedom of association?
An elected official gives up some of that right by choosing to be elected as a representative of all the people, not just the ones he chooses to be associated with. He still has the 'freedom of association' on his own time. But when acting in the capacity of elected representative, he doesn't get to not represent people just because he doesn't like them.
"Oh really? I thought that asking those types of questions were illegal in all cases?"
Then what is your beef? Is your beef with the law, or with the Senator for not finding out the guy was gay before he hired him? You seem to be going in circles.
My premise is that the law is wrong, expecially when applied to advocacy.
If this has been your point all along, it's strange that this is the first time you've stated it to me. Your point SEEMED to have been that the Senator should fire this guy because he was 'outed' as a gay.
You have to be able to read between the lines.
So you think you can 'read between the lines' something I did not intend to say. Weird.
Go back and read what I wrote.
I did go on a tangent and plainly stated it.
I did say that in areas of ADVOCACY of any kind, the BS laws regarding hiring practices should not apply. That was one of the first things that I said.
I also said that our rights are ours regardless of what the government says. We just might have to fight to keep them. You are the one saying that the Constitution protects them. We defend our rights by exercising them.
I never said that he should be fired, much less demand it.
I didn't intend this to be a pissing contest. I also notice that with each response, you are getting closer to acknowledging that you agree with me. It's alright, go ahead. It'll make you feel better to just admit it. ;-)
Depends on what your real point is. You haven't been very clear.
If you think Santorum should fire the guy just because he was 'outed' against his will, I don't agree.
If your point is that so called 'discrimination' laws should not apply to private organizations, then we agree.
But if that was your whole point, why in the world did you start posting to me in the first place? I never said that they SHOULD apply.
Let's see if you can follow this time.
You posted a comment -- copied here:
"To: nmh
Mr. Family values man is a hypocrite.
So you think that Mr. Family values man should only hire married men with a wife at home taking care of the kids? Should he fire someone who has an affair, or gets divorced, or whose wife has an affair, or whose kids don't turn out right, or. . .? Are you saying you endorse employers having control over their employees private lives?
654 posted on 07/18/2005 10:58:05 AM EDT by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 643 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
Which sparked my question to you along with some comments to explain why I said what I said. That post was:
Posted by Badray to MEGoody
On News/Activism ^ 07/18/2005 2:27:57 PM EDT · 678 of 716 ^
Should a Baptist church be forced to hire an atheist as the church secretary?
Besides all the foolish PC rules that override common sense these day, hiring for positions in the areas of religion and politics should be free of 'don't ask, don't tell' type rules. You [the advocacy group -- added now to clarify 'you'] are propogating a set of beliefs, why shouldn't you be able to be sure that you hire someone who is aligned with you and reject those who aren't?
National security just might fall within that realm too. I don't think that we should be hiring Muslims and commies for postitions in the Defense Dep't or munitions factories.
It was an interesting thread, till this ignorant minority came around. Anyway, I'll be answering them soon...just when they think it's over. I can't say they'll look like idiots (I mean, that would be redundant), but they ain't gonna like it. Stay tuned.
From your post above I got the impression you didn't see my post 457. I think reading about Spitzer and why he changed his mind that gays can go straight is something you should checkout.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.