(05-19-2015 11:49 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(05-19-2015 11:48 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Only one of the sources you posted actually says gay men are more suseptable to desease.

What? lol. You need to keep reading and spell disease correctly.

Let me help you out here shifty..... if you misspell a word, you're a freaking moron. If Fit misspells a word, he's using his phone and thus is more susceptible to typos.

My phone has amazingly accurate spell correction.

(05-19-2015 11:21 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Actually this is a NEW phenomenon. If you work for a parochial school or a "Christian University" or even a "Christian" hospital....you must stay single to be employed as a Gay man.

And, with that, you expose another NEW phenomenon... an institution that's made itself even more gay by trying to discriminate against gays...

(05-19-2015 11:21 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  LeTourneau in Texas just implemented this policy this week. http://www.outsports.com/2015/5/18/86205...s-ban-ncaa

(05-19-2015 08:07 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-19-2015 07:12 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(05-19-2015 01:30 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-19-2015 01:26 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(05-19-2015 01:16 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Again, if it isn't a problem then I think that people shouldn't be upset if the government stopped taxpayer subsidies of institutions that do not open all employment (save pastoral jobs where purely pastoral duties account for more than 50% of work time), including management employment, to everyone.

If people want to discriminate, do it without taxpayer subsidies or offsets. And don't be upset if people want to avoid doing business with such groups.

Interesting.... We've tried to say the same thing about the Freedom of Religion Restoration Laws.

We're talking about discrimination in EMPLOYMENT not provision of services. There's a difference.

No for profit entity should be able to discriminate in provision of services.

No non-profit should hold taxpayer benefits so long as they discriminate in non-pastoral employment.

A bigoted and malice filled statement; if a CHRISTIAN church is the one discriminating (based on your definition of discrimination) you'd want to bring severe economic harm to that church by taking away their tax exempt status, nice. I seem to remember you saying the Gay Agenda gang didn't want to go after churches you simply wanted the state to recognize same sex marriages. Now state recognition is no longer enough, just as I suspected all along.

So a church affiliated school should be FORCED to hire gay teachers. What if a Muslim woman wanted to teach at a Jewish school, or a Jewish woman at a Muslim school, if they are denied a job their qualified for, should those institutions lose their tax exempt status?

A church operated school, operated without any taxpayer support or benefits, may do what it wishes.

Otherwise, they can keep their discrimination to the religion department.

So in states where gay marriage is legal, churches will not be forced to marry gays and they won't have their tax exempt status challenged.

Good.

(05-20-2015 04:06 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(05-19-2015 08:07 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-19-2015 07:12 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(05-19-2015 01:30 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-19-2015 01:26 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Interesting.... We've tried to say the same thing about the Freedom of Religion Restoration Laws.

We're talking about discrimination in EMPLOYMENT not provision of services. There's a difference.

No for profit entity should be able to discriminate in provision of services.

No non-profit should hold taxpayer benefits so long as they discriminate in non-pastoral employment.

A bigoted and malice filled statement; if a CHRISTIAN church is the one discriminating (based on your definition of discrimination) you'd want to bring severe economic harm to that church by taking away their tax exempt status, nice. I seem to remember you saying the Gay Agenda gang didn't want to go after churches you simply wanted the state to recognize same sex marriages. Now state recognition is no longer enough, just as I suspected all along.

So a church affiliated school should be FORCED to hire gay teachers. What if a Muslim woman wanted to teach at a Jewish school, or a Jewish woman at a Muslim school, if they are denied a job their qualified for, should those institutions lose their tax exempt status?

A church operated school, operated without any taxpayer support or benefits, may do what it wishes.

Otherwise, they can keep their discrimination to the religion department.

So in states where gay marriage is legal, churches will not be forced to marry gays and they won't have their tax exempt status challenged.

Good.

Not yet.

Soon the "Separation of Church and State" goobers will be advocating the direct taxation of all churches whilst being completely blind to their cognitive dissonance. It's coming.

"Stop imposing your religious moral code on me! Separation of Church and State! Separation of Church and State!"


"Tax all churches!"

(05-19-2015 08:07 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-19-2015 07:12 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(05-19-2015 01:30 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-19-2015 01:26 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(05-19-2015 01:16 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Again, if it isn't a problem then I think that people shouldn't be upset if the government stopped taxpayer subsidies of institutions that do not open all employment (save pastoral jobs where purely pastoral duties account for more than 50% of work time), including management employment, to everyone.

If people want to discriminate, do it without taxpayer subsidies or offsets. And don't be upset if people want to avoid doing business with such groups.

Interesting.... We've tried to say the same thing about the Freedom of Religion Restoration Laws.

We're talking about discrimination in EMPLOYMENT not provision of services. There's a difference.

No for profit entity should be able to discriminate in provision of services.

No non-profit should hold taxpayer benefits so long as they discriminate in non-pastoral employment.

A bigoted and malice filled statement; if a CHRISTIAN church is the one discriminating (based on your definition of discrimination) you'd want to bring severe economic harm to that church by taking away their tax exempt status, nice. I seem to remember you saying the Gay Agenda gang didn't want to go after churches you simply wanted the state to recognize same sex marriages. Now state recognition is no longer enough, just as I suspected all along.

So a church affiliated school should be FORCED to hire gay teachers. What if a Muslim woman wanted to teach at a Jewish school, or a Jewish woman at a Muslim school, if they are denied a job their qualified for, should those institutions lose their tax exempt status?

A church operated school, operated without any taxpayer support or benefits, may do what it wishes.

Otherwise, they can keep their discrimination to the religion department.

But a private business cannot?

The discussion is driven by those who had a rough go of it as kids. Society hurt them and now they are going to hurt it back. You can see that in this thread. That's why there is no logical connection between positions. It's about justification for their petty little attempts at revenge.

And the rest of us should tell them to go fck off.

(05-20-2015 09:05 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(05-20-2015 04:06 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(05-19-2015 08:07 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-19-2015 07:12 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(05-19-2015 01:30 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  We're talking about discrimination in EMPLOYMENT not provision of services. There's a difference.

No for profit entity should be able to discriminate in provision of services.

No non-profit should hold taxpayer benefits so long as they discriminate in non-pastoral employment.

A bigoted and malice filled statement; if a CHRISTIAN church is the one discriminating (based on your definition of discrimination) you'd want to bring severe economic harm to that church by taking away their tax exempt status, nice. I seem to remember you saying the Gay Agenda gang didn't want to go after churches you simply wanted the state to recognize same sex marriages. Now state recognition is no longer enough, just as I suspected all along.

So a church affiliated school should be FORCED to hire gay teachers. What if a Muslim woman wanted to teach at a Jewish school, or a Jewish woman at a Muslim school, if they are denied a job their qualified for, should those institutions lose their tax exempt status?

A church operated school, operated without any taxpayer support or benefits, may do what it wishes.

Otherwise, they can keep their discrimination to the religion department.

So in states where gay marriage is legal, churches will not be forced to marry gays and they won't have their tax exempt status challenged.

Good.

Not yet.

Soon the "Separation of Church and State" goobers will be advocating the direct taxation of all churches whilst being completely blind to their cognitive dissonance. It's coming.

"Stop imposing your religious moral code on me! Separation of Church and State! Separation of Church and State!"


"Tax all churches!"

It's a bad sign if all of your arguments against gay marriage revolve around stuff that isn't involved in gay marriage. A slippery slope argument can be made, sure, but it's not compelling when other nations with this exist and are not burning in hellfire.

(05-21-2015 12:22 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(05-20-2015 09:05 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(05-20-2015 04:06 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(05-19-2015 08:07 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-19-2015 07:12 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  A bigoted and malice filled statement; if a CHRISTIAN church is the one discriminating (based on your definition of discrimination) you'd want to bring severe economic harm to that church by taking away their tax exempt status, nice. I seem to remember you saying the Gay Agenda gang didn't want to go after churches you simply wanted the state to recognize same sex marriages. Now state recognition is no longer enough, just as I suspected all along.

So a church affiliated school should be FORCED to hire gay teachers. What if a Muslim woman wanted to teach at a Jewish school, or a Jewish woman at a Muslim school, if they are denied a job their qualified for, should those institutions lose their tax exempt status?

A church operated school, operated without any taxpayer support or benefits, may do what it wishes.

Otherwise, they can keep their discrimination to the religion department.

So in states where gay marriage is legal, churches will not be forced to marry gays and they won't have their tax exempt status challenged.

Good.

Not yet.

Soon the "Separation of Church and State" goobers will be advocating the direct taxation of all churches whilst being completely blind to their cognitive dissonance. It's coming.

"Stop imposing your religious moral code on me! Separation of Church and State! Separation of Church and State!"


"Tax all churches!"

It's a bad sign if all of your arguments against gay marriage revolve around stuff that isn't involved in gay marriage. A slippery slope argument can be made, sure, but it's not compelling when other nations with this exist and are not burning in hellfire.

I'm not against gay marriage. I wasn't even arguing against gay marriage just to troll SJWs, though I often engage in such activity because it's entertaining. I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy of the people who chronically yell "Separation of Church and State!!!!!"

Despite the fact you might not realize it, your post in context does imply you agree with the earlier statement.

(05-20-2015 09:05 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  Not yet.

Soon the "Separation of Church and State" goobers will be advocating the direct taxation of all churches whilst being completely blind to their cognitive dissonance. It's coming.

"Stop imposing your religious moral code on me! Separation of Church and State! Separation of Church and State!"


"Tax all churches!"

Actually, as a Catholic I'd be fine with taxing all the churches. It would get those who are only in it for fraud out of the business, and there are way too many of them in it now. Churches have to pay light bills, etc... so I'd be okay with it. But I'd also require an equal number of secular organizations to be taxed as well, beginning with Planned Parenthood, NOW, NAACP, Rainbow Coalition, PUSH, etc... Since we're for fairness and equality, let everyone play by the same rules.

The money given by individuals could still be deducted, as I'd only want it taxed once.

There is fraud obviously, but the answer is not taxing churches. That is really bad precedent imo.