Children's Home Standing Firm on Biblical Convictions, Firing of Lesbian

Agapy press ^ | November 20, 2001 | By Rusty Pugh and Bill Fancher

[RMrattlesnake]

Hummmmmm, well the gays are doing what ever thay can to take our religous freedoms away.

[Khepera]

?

[lavaroise]

Gees, might as well enforce that Jews must use baby sitters members of the KKK.

[Zack Nguyen]

Not trying to sound flippant, but I am afraid that this is what happens when a Christian institution accepts government money. They must choose between two masters now. It sounds like they are choosing correctly, but who knows if they are prepared financially to make up the cost when the government pulls its funding?

[RMrattlesnake]

Good piont

[BenR2]

Shoot, man. They need to have a Ramadan feast after they hire back the lezbo.

Just ask our "evangelical" Prez: We are a nation of "many faiths." (Read: Christians are toast.)

[babyface00]

Interesting.

The government forcibly takes money that would normally go to charities (which are largely religious, and usually Christian). By the sole reason that the government has taken the money, though, the ACLU reasons that it can't give it to those organizations which would have received it anyway, had the government not intervened (at the point of a gun, btw).

[WFTR]

You make a good point, but your point brings up the whole problem of government social services. If Christians believe that children, particularly vulnerable abused children, should not be exposed to the homosexual lifestyle, why do they have to pay taxes that will go towards putting children in these situations? If the government can withdraw its support for religious social service agencies, then Christians should be able to withdraw their financial support from government social services agencies.

WFTR
Mostly afraid of your ignorance (of the 4th Amendment)
Bill

[Skooz]

Kentucky Baptist Home for Children says it would rather operate without state subsidies, if receiving state money means sacrificing its religious values.

Christian organizations: Read it; Learn it; Live it. If you are doing God's work, He will provide. If you need government subsidies to stay afloat, you might want to get into another line of work.

[4Godsoloved..Hegave]

It sounds like they are choosing correctly, but who knows if they are prepared financially to make up the cost when the government pulls its funding?

Well you could always put them on your list of worthy donations. I think we will.
With all the administrative "fumbo jumbo" going on with the big charity names we are looking at one on one donations. Pray about what the Lord would have you do with your money, when these situations come up make a sincere note of them, and follow up.
I am sure this children's home would love to hear from folks like us.

James 1:27
Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

[pubmom]

You stated that well.

[Elkiejg]

If you want to support Kentucky Baptist Children's Home, here is their address:

Triad East, Suite 200
10200 Linn Station Rd
Louisville, KY 40223
(502) 245-2101
(800) 456-1386
info@kbhc.org

I'm sure donations and/or email letters of encourage will be greatly appreciated. On their web site -http://www.iglou.com/kbhc/ - you will also find a history of the ACLU suit.

[Dimensio]

Just a little bit of background (and I'll try to keep this as objective as possible). The woman who was fired made no mention of her sexual orientation where she worked and made no effort to make it known. Her sexual orientation only became known to her employer after a photograph of her with her lover taken at a local fair (I believe the Kentucky State Fair) was published in a local publication -- she wasn't even aware that she was being photographed for such a purpose (and before anyone starts with a snide remark, it was a perfectly normal outdoor shot with nothing "icky" going on). I believe that she wore a T-shirt that had some words regarding her sexual orientation, but it was completely outside of the workplace.

I hope I don't come off as sounding judgemental of either side; those are the facts. When the photograph was published and someone at her place of employment saw it she was terminated. Until then her sexual orientation was not known to anyone and she made no effort to share the details of her private life. (I only mention this because some people comment on how homosexuals "flaunt their lifestyle"). I'll not comment on whether her employer was in the right in terminating her (though I personally believe that organizations who make such arbitrary employment decisions should not accept government funding).

[hexpoppy]

Here's the thing about the tee shirt ----what does it say about a person who wears a "walking billboard" telling everyone about her "private" sexual practices?

[Salman]

Just ask our "evangelical" Prez: We are a nation of "many faiths." (Read: Christians are toast.)

I don't read it that way at all. The US has always been a nation of many faiths, if not always including Muslims. As for the Ramadan dinner at the White House, I call that excellent diplomacy to buy time. Whether this is consistent with being "evangelical", I won't comment because I'm not one myself.

[Clemenza]

Gay rights. Its for "the children."

[lady lawyer]

If we are not "a nation of many faiths," then we are no better than the Islamist countries, where "many faiths" are not allowed.

[Dimensio]

Here's the thing about the tee shirt ----what does it say about a person who wears a "walking billboard" telling everyone about her "private" sexual practices?

I dunno. What does it say when a person walks around in public with their children with them? We all know where those children came from!

Anyway, I don't recall all of the details ATM -- she may have just been with her lover and identified by caption (I'll try to find a reference).

[elephantlips]

The analogy you used with children is as lame as it can be. Children aren't "paraded" around as a demonstration that two people have had heterosexual relations. The advertisements we wear on our bodies, good or bad, are.

[John O]

As a lesbian (whether open or not) she must be considered as a molestation threat to the children.

I consider mental exposure to deviant sexual practices to be as harmful as the act of physical molestation.

Since the beliefs of this organization are that the practice of homosexual behavior is an abomination, then they shouldn't be forced to allow a person practicing homosexuality to come into contact with children in their care.

God Save America (Please)