I see it as a practical matter: Homosexuals are often very hostile towards Christianity.
I’m sorry, Mr. Smith, but you’re going to have to prove you’re not gay. This is our test. Mr. Smith, meet Sheila. You have 30 minutes to complete the test. The size of the stain on the blue dress will be judged by an independent panel of experts.
With that said, I'm out of whiskey.....
Get ready for the fagscist attempts to sue the school into submission.
thats wrong no instition got wher is on their won they have to let the gay man pass
This has NOTHING to do with tolerance or INtolerance —it’s about LIABILITY:
Male homoz molest kids at a FAR higher rate. Then there are eye-popping lawsuits, thereby beggaring the organization.
This is sad, but simply PRACTICAL.
It’s probably cheaper 2 defend against allegations of discrimination, than get 200 lawsuits for having tolerated a MOLESTER in your midst —sometimes the suits do not emerge for 25 years...
Male homos have a way of infiltrating any org that has young boys in it. See the destruction they brought to the Catholic Church.
Will they let the students have premarital sex?
The bottom line is that I am a 'minor attracted' Christian
The bottom line is that I am a pyromaniac Christian
The bottom line is that I am a nudist Christian
The bottom line is that I am a womanizing Christian
I don't remember the scritpture that covers 'big tent' Christianity.
“I recognize that the university has the legal right to do this, but just because it is legal, it isn’t necessarily morally right,” an anonymous gay employee
What? You say that it is morally right to engage in homosexual behavior, that clearly is identified as an abomination?
“The bottom line is that I am a gay Christian and I made a decision to be around other Christians. I’m not alone, and it is sad to see organizations shun people like me. I’d assume that if you’re a strong Christian, you wouldn’t need to turn those away who sin, and instead you’d welcome them with open arms because they love Jesus.”
Just another effort to silence real Christians. A Christian will NOT willfully engage in sin. Yet this person does.
That person equates homosexuality to him or herself, when that is not the real situation. Homosexuality is a behavior, not a person. The school is shunning a behavior. Neither will that school allow drunkards, or adulterers, or such to be employees.
“Shorter University in Rome, Ga., is requiring its employees to certify that they are not gay as a condition of employment.”
This is no different than the hundreds of companies out there that require employees to sign documentation to certify that they do not smoke cigarettes.
Actually, the “gay Christian” is welcome to work there.
He simply has to not commit sodomy. Big difference.
Shorter Univ is correct. The roots of our acceptance of the gay perversion is our acceptance of pre-marital sex to the point that now if you DON'T live together before marriage you are considered weird.
Open arms to sinners who renounce their sins an turn from them yes. Those who celebrate, justify, and flaunt their sins not so much.
I don’t like this. How does one prove you are not gay if the angry or envious falsely accuse you? How does one prove one was not drinking in public? There appears to be no explanation for how an accusation would be handled spelled out in the policy . Would there be an investigation? Suspension? Termination?
Drinking is particularly problematic. I was once approached by colleague at a party who surpassed to see me “drinking”. It was club soda and lime. Mistakes are that easy.
I’ve also had people assume that I’m gay because I’m very short, very thin, and I work in the arts. (I guess most artists are fey in their minds?) When I disclaim it to them they merely take me at my word. Would that be good enough for a formal investigation?
"We now will live in fear that someone who doesn't like us personally or someone who has had a bad day will report that we've been drinking or that we are suspected of being gay," the employee said. "What happens then? There is no defined process, and even if there were, there is no way to absolutely prove or disprove the accusation." So you're gay, and you're objection to the policy is....what, exactly? That you might falsely be accused of being gay? But....you are gay. Right?
That's an incredibly weak objection coming from someone who actually is gay. The risk of a false accusation is non-existent.
Shorter is not the government nor a government run institution; of course it has the right to invite into its employment and its association those persons who share the values and beliefs that Shorter wants to uphold.
Why, in the land of Liberty, that right should be questioned ought to be the real story in the news.
they will not prevail unless they echew all federal and state funding including student loans.