Honest Questions For Religious Conservatives About LBGT

[RodISHI]

"Hiring someone gay"? Is that what the 1st Amendment freedom of religion means to the left? Democrats want to put people in jail for not building wedding cakes for sodomites. Democrats want to put county clerks in jail for not performing sodomite weddings.Freedom of religion was established about 250 years before some court decision about sodomite relationships and crazy less than 1% of people who defy DNA and create their sexuality. Why not give religious freedom a break?

If someone comes to you and applies for a job saying they are gay they are not there for the job but for an agenda.

 

[BulletProof]

1. I understand that the Bible says homosexual sex is a sin, but what about other sins like lying, adultery, or re-marrying? Would you refuse to hire someone who had violated the Commandments?

I'm not aware of any anti-discrimination laws forcing people hire liars or adulterers, let alone forcing them to assist in their immorality.

2. It seems to me that Christ spent most of his time with sinners. How do you reconcile forgiveness and love that Jesus preached with wanting to keep your work free from sinners?

Jesus didn't spend time with sinners. The lying Jews accused him of spending time with sinners... but they were lying Jews.

3. Do you feel that hiring someone gay violates your faith? If so, why?

Most Christians are completely willing to hire a homo, as long as the homo doesn't bring his perversion to work. There are some jobs where a homo can't sufficiently separate his private perverse lifestyle from the job, such as married homo wanting to teach children in school. No Christian school should be forced to hire homosexuals. For that matter, every employer should for allowed to hire anyone they want, for any reason. It's their business, not yours.

Liberals deserve no respect. Liberals discriminate all the time against Christians for their beliefs, while denying it's religious discrimination. But, if a Christian school fired a homosexual for comments to students, for saying to the class that homosexuality isn't a sin, liberals would be yelling that it's discrimination against homosexuals.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

"Hiring someone gay"? Is that what the 1st Amendment freedom of religion means to the left? Democrats want to put people in jail for not building wedding cakes for sodomites. Democrats want to put county clerks in jail for not performing sodomite weddings. Freedom of religion was established about 250 years before some court decision about sodomite relationships and the crazy concept of less than 1% of people who defy DNA and create their sexuality. Why not give religious freedom a break?

Sodomites? Are you fucking serious with that clap trap? Why not give the Constitution break?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Leo123]

What the fuck are you talking about? Do you know anything at all about the transgender issue....if that is, in fact what you're alluding to.?? Ignorance is abnormal although not as much as it should be.

There is no such thing as transgender. We are born either male or female. You can't really change your gender so, the 'issue' is a false one. Deal with it on your own.

 

[Crixus]

I'm liberal more than anything else, but I like to reach out and try to understand the POV of conservatives so I don't think y'all are one big lump.

In light of the White House's directive reversing anti-discrimination employment rules for gay folks, I was hoping some religious conservatives could help me understand by answering a few questions. (Or, since I know this site, call me an idiotic libturd who hates America.)

1. I understand that the Bible says homosexual sex is a sin, but what about other sins like lying, adultery, or re-marrying? Would you refuse to hire someone who had violated the Commandments?

2. It seems to me that Christ spent most of his time with sinners. How do you reconcile forgiveness and love that Jesus preached with wanting to keep your work free from sinners?

3. Do you feel that hiring someone gay violates your faith? If so, why?

(NOTE: I am not addressing the whole "gay wedding cake" clusterfuck. This is about supporting the White House saying employers can fire or refuse to hire someone based on religion.)

As usual, I'll give respect when respect is shown. Thanks!

1. Remarrying is not a sin. More reading should be done there. There is also a huge misunderstanding about the commandments.


2. Jesus loves gay people to.do some reading and you will understand more fuller why jesus spent time with folks who were considered bad. Gas as sin gos, sin is sin. A little white lie is as bad as murder. Any Christian who says different should be ignored completely.


3. No. The Bible is full of excamples of the Jews doing business with nonbelievers, and they are even commanded to deal with them fairly. Read about the building of the temple, and where that got the building materials. Gay is fine for gay people. Who they are attracted to is no concern of mine. Do whatever. Just don’t try and convince me. I’m sure you are an awesome dude or dudette but pleas just leave it at that.

 

[raina_kk]

This may be generally unrelated, but how does the conservative party fit in with the whole "separation of church and state" thing? I've heard so many Republican politicians say they will enforce "Christian and Family Values," but I'm genuinely confused because I would assume that political parties avoid associating themselves with any religion as too not alienate voters?

Just wondering

 

[raina_kk]

What the fuck are you talking about? Do you know anything at all about the transgender issue....if that is, in fact what you're alluding to.?? Ignorance is abnormal although not as much as it should be.

There is no such thing as transgender. We are born either male or female. You can't really change your gender so, the 'issue' is a false one. Deal with it on your own.

The scientific definition of sex refers to the biological and physiological characteristics that define men and women, while gender refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for men and women. This is directly from the World Health Organization

So therefore, since gender is inherently a spectrum it is entirely possible to feel like you fit better into different roles and attributes, or even just a little more towards the other side of the spectrum (such as tomboys or feminine guys).

 

[jc456]

"Hiring someone gay"? Is that what the 1st Amendment freedom of religion means to the left? Democrats want to put people in jail for not building wedding cakes for sodomites. Democrats want to put county clerks in jail for not performing sodomite weddings. Freedom of religion was established about 250 years before some court decision about sodomite relationships and the crazy concept of less than 1% of people who defy DNA and create their sexuality. Why not give religious freedom a break?

Sodomites? Are you fucking serious with that clap trap? Why not give the Constitution break?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sodomi, many don’t approve it’s fking messed up.

 

[whitehall]

Sodomites enjoy the greatest freedom of the greatest Country in the world. Freakazoids parade in the streets without fear of reprisal from the government but a kid with a Bible might be detained by government officials in some areas. .

 

[bodecea]

"Hiring someone gay"? Is that what the 1st Amendment freedom of religion means to the left? Democrats want to put people in jail for not building wedding cakes for sodomites. Democrats want to put county clerks in jail for not performing sodomite weddings. Freedom of religion was established about 250 years before some court decision about sodomite relationships and the crazy concept of less than 1% of people who defy DNA and create their sexuality. Why not give religious freedom a break?

Sodomites? Are you fucking serious with that clap trap? Why not give the Constitution break?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The people of Gomorrah get no respect.

 

[bodecea]

Sodomites enjoy the greatest freedom of the greatest Country in the world. Freakazoids parade in the streets without fear of reprisal from the government but a kid with a Bible might be detained by government officials in some areas. .

You prefer christian sharia?

 

[jc456]

Sodomites enjoy the greatest freedom of the greatest Country in the world. Freakazoids parade in the streets without fear of reprisal from the government but a kid with a Bible might be detained by government officials in some areas. .

You prefer christian sharia?

What’s that

 

[Johann]

Why would anyone mention their sexual preference to an employer?

They shouldn't have to. It has no bearing on how they do their work.

Depends on the job.

Being gay might be a bonus in some jobs. That way they know you'll be enthusiastic about your work.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

What the fuck are you talking about? Do you know anything at all about the transgender issue....if that is, in fact what you're alluding to.?? Ignorance is abnormal although not as much as it should be.

There is no such thing as transgender. We are born either male or female. You can't really change your gender so, the 'issue' is a false one. Deal with it on your own.

Thank you for confirming your pathetic, willful ignorance and bigotry

 

[JoeB131]

They could have fired her because they didn't like her too. Company parties always seem to open personal aspects to people lives up to scrutiny. My ex got fired after a company party because they learned what an asshole he was. Thing is though he was such an ass he didn't even realize it even though it was as plain as day.

I agree, but it shouldn't be like that. Personally, I think every company should have a union, and if they pull shit like that, there should be consequences.

Breaking some manager legs in the parking lot would also be acceptable.

 

[The Professor]

TO THE OP:

Trump did not reverse anti-discrimination employment rules for gay folks as you claim. He does not possess the authority to do that. You didn't provide a link and the only thing I could find on the internet was this:

“Without being asked, the Justice Department intervened in a private employment lawsuit on Wednesday, arguing that the ban on sex discrimination in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not protect workers on the basis of their sexual orientation. The friend-of-the-court brief, filed at the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York, was a striking shift in tone from the Obama administration, which had shied away from that question.”

In One Day, Trump Administration Lands 3 Punches Against Gay Rights

Trump's Justice Department filed a friend of the court brief, but it is the court which will decide the law. The question is whether discrimination based on sexual orientation is a violation of Title VII of the Civil rights Act of 1964. Lower courts have issued conflicting opinions on this issue and the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has not made a decision on the issue. However in the case of Price Waterhouse v Hopkins the SCOTUS concluded that discrimination based upon sexual stereotypes is a violation of Title VII. The case involved a woman who was denied a promotion because he employer thought she was not feminine enough in the way she walked, talked, dressed and acted. Here are the details:

“Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989). The Supreme Court recognized that employment discrimination based on sex stereotypes (e.g., assumptions and/or expectations about how persons of a certain sex should dress, behave, etc.) is unlawful sex discrimination under Title VII. Price Waterhouse had denied Ann Hopkins a promotion in part because other partners at the firm felt that she did not act as woman should act. She was told, among other things, that she needed to "walk more femininely, talk more femininely, [and] dress more femininely" in order to secure a partnership. Id. at 230-31, 235. The Court found that this constituted evidence of sex discrimination as "n the . . . context of sex stereotyping, an employer who acts on the basis of a belief that a woman cannot be aggressive, or that she must not be, has acted on the basis of gender." Id. at 250. The Court further explained that Title VII's "because of sex" provision strikes at the "entire spectrum of disparate treatment of men and women resulting from sex stereotypes." Id. (quoting City of Los Angeles Dep't of Water & Power v. Manhart, 435 U.S. 702, 707 n.13 (1978) (internal citation omitted)).”

Examples of Court Decisions Holding LGBT-Related Discrimination Actionable Under Title VII

(Note: The above link also gives examples of lower court rulings showing that sexual orientation is protected against discrimination.)

It seems to me me that if discrimination based upon sexual stereotyping is a violation of Title VII so would discrimination based upon sexual orientation. After all, the disparate treatment of gays and lesbians is based upon their non-conformity to the stereotype of what others expect their sexual behavior to be. I expect the SCOTUS to find that sexual orientation is afforded the full protections of Title VII. Further the SCOTUS has shown that they generally give deference to rulings made by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and The EEOC has already taken a position that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act affords protection from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

“In 2012, David Baldwin, a federal employee, filed an administrative charge of discrimination with the EEOC, alleging he was discriminated against because of his sex and sexual orientation. Specifically, Baldwin alleged he was denied a promotion because he is gay. In its decision, the EEOC relied upon the existing prohibition on discrimination based on sex-based stereotypes or assumptions, concluding it “applies equally in claims brought by lesbian, gay and bisexual individuals under Title VII.” According to the EEOC, “sexual orientation is inseparable from and inescapably linked to sex.” Without resolving the merits of the claim, the EEOC ultimately found that “sexual orientation is inherently a ‘sex-based consideration,’ and an allegation of discrimination based on sexual orientation is necessarily an allegation of sex discrimination under Title VII.” See Baldwin v. Foxx, FAA-2012-24738 (EEOC June 15, 2015).”

EEOC says sexual orientation protected under Title VII | JD Supra

Conclusion: The lower courts are in disagreement regarding whether discrimination based upon sexual orientation is a violation of Title VII. The SCOTUS has not addressed the issue head on; however, the Court has found discrimination based upon sex stereotyping to be a violation of Title VII and in my opinion it is impossible to separate sexual orientation from sexual stereotyping. The EEOC has already ruled that discrimination based upon sexual orientation is a violation of Title VII and the SCOTUS usually goes along with the EEOC in matters of policy.

When the SCOTUS gave gays the right to marry, most legal scholars believed the Court's decision did not make homosexuals a protected class (and thus subject to the provisions of Title VII). However, the Court's advisory opinion in Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Serv. seems to say that gays are in fact afforded such protection. Unfortunately, the SCOTUS did not rule on the case, electing instead to remand it to the lower court for further consideration; however, the EEOC leaves no doubt that gays are afforded the same protections under Title VII as any other protected class. Where will it end? I predict that if SCOTUS issues a final ruling on the issue, Title VII will be expanded to include protections for sexual orientation.

Of course, that is only my humble opinion. OK, I lied about the humble part.

 

[bodecea]

1. I understand that the Bible says homosexual sex is a sin, but what about other sins like lying, adultery, or re-marrying? Would you refuse to hire someone who had violated the Commandments?

Are those sinners running around and are in your face yelling "I am an adulterer" or "I am a liar?" If your answer is no to those then you already have your answer to your question. I did not address re-marrying because it has different criteria.

To your #2 and #3 questions the answer is the same. Quit the "in your face" attitude and everything will be just fine.

So your stance is as long as your sexual preference is a secret I have no problem? To 2 and 3 you didn't answer at all. How do you reconcile Jesus teachings concerning forgiveness with refusing to hire gay people? That was the question.

Simple, the Bible is bigger than Jesus

That opens a whole other can of worms. If you say I'm allowed to ignore those teachings that don't fit your political narrative you just admitted to use religion as a cover for them. Kind of the point of the question but glad to have it confirmed.

The Bible is the Bible . It contains many passages. Read it

There are several versions of the bible...which one are you referring to?

 

[jknowgood]

Why would anyone mention their sexual preference to an employer?

Lesbian teacher loses job after wedding

She was a teacher at a Catholic University and understood that this was an institution of religious instruction. She was correctly fired.

He left out that little fact, why am I not surprised.

 

[jknowgood]

If a religious person chooses to overlook sin that is completely different than being forced to embrace sin by the government.

It's what you get when you choose to have a secular government, as opposed to one where a religion gets to make the laws of the land.

A secular government that must not infringe religious freedom.

Religious freedom doesn't include making others follow the "rules" of your religion....that sharia law.

I don't remember the baker telling the queers you have to worship my God. All he did was tell them he couldn't bake a cake for their wedding. He sold them everyday pastries.

 

[jknowgood]

Private businesses should be allowed to discriminate. I would never use or except a job from a business that does that, but I wouldn't want to take away their right to do business with who they want either.

My question is for LBGT people: why do you want to use or work at a place you aren't welcome? If you are gay why do you want a job or get your wedding cake at Holy Spirit Bakery?

This isn't a 70 years ago and there is one bakery or a few employers there are many in most areas.

It is the in your face attitude. Fags want to antagonize everybody, then they are whining that Jesus was forgiving etc....

Can you kindly provide an example of how you have been antagonized??

You haven't seen the hate on here? I don't agree with the gay lifestyle, but they have the right to be happy. I have never done anything against a queer, I treat them with total respect. But since I disagree with the lifestyle, I am on here considered a homophobe. Just like I disagree with liberals, but some of my best friends are liberal.