posted
If some governments can make licensing decisions against companies due to their c-level opinions against SSM what's to stop other governments from doing the same thing against pro gay view pointed business?
Posts: 5 | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
If some governments can make licensing decisions against companies due to their c-level opinions against SSM what's to stop other governments from doing the same thing against pro gay view pointed business?
Posts: 5 | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think I know what you mean by "ironically", but the ACLU has a pretty good history of sticking by their principles and standing on the side of civil liberties no matter what the rest of the context is.
posted
Yeah, it's perhaps the opposite of irony. It's exactly what someone with any knowledge of the ACLU (outside of conservative/republican propaganda) would expect.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DustinDopps: Every dollar we spend at every company we visit ends up as profit to *somebody*. By purchasing an Apple product, I bet you are helping fund the salary of someone who buys drugs and takes them. Do you stop buying Apple products because your money goes to a cause you can't support?
It just doesn't make sense to me. It's like if someone went into Ben and Jerry's and said "Here's my money. Please make sure it is used to pay a *straight* employee. Don't let it go to those gay owners as profit."
I feel the need to point out that Jerry Greenfield was wed to his wife in 1987 and that while Ben Cohen has not publicly said he was gay I doubt he would ever care enough about what bigots think to stay in the closet. Although your anecdote does show some of your own character and views.
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jerry Lee: If some governments can make licensing decisions against companies due to their c-level opinions against SSM what's to stop other governments from doing the same thing against pro gay view pointed business?
By "pro gay" do you mean "anti discrimination?"
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I suspected, this is a tempest in a teapot. No licenses are being withheld unless there is evidence of discrimination in hiring practices (which there may well be). Both the alderman and the mayor have backed away from the rhetoric and acknowledged that, of course, they can't legally bar a business because of the legal (if hateful) speech of the owner.
What has happened is that, while we understand that government cannot actually prevent support for discrimination, we can, as a community, make clear our distaste for it. I find this shift in zeitgeist to be heartening.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am also heartened, though I am comforted additionally by the fact that less than a block from the only CFA in my city is one of only two Raising Cane's in my state. I have never tried CFA (never will now) but Cane's chicken strips are so good they don't have any other item on the menu, and now I want chicken.
Also I thought of sharing this yesterday and didn't, but now I think it may help ease some tension. Three drag queens on CFA.Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jerry Lee: An alderman and the mayor of Chicago said that they would do what they can to prevent any Chick-Fil-A's from coming in to the city.
This is all due to the president of the comany stating his opinion against same-sex marriage. He did not say that he would discriminate against homosexuals as employees or customers.
Please keep in mind that Chicago, like most major cities, is in desperate need of jobs.
Same sex marriage is still illegals in the majority of the states..... Including Illinois.
Him having that opinion (right or wrong) is protected free speech. Any repercussions should be from consumers choosing not to dine there.
posted
The threats made, and then somewhat backed off from by some of them, were indeed not about hiring practices, but Cathy's politics and contributions.
But there is really no doubt that, so far as its actual operators are concerned, CFA does discriminate against non-Christians, homosexuals, the unmarried, and really anyone who can't pass an exhaustive vetting process that reads actually like the process Mitch McDeere (I think that was his name) had to undergo in Grisham's novel The Firm, where friends, family members, neighbors will be interviewed to vet for quite a lot more than business acumen and stability as well as work ethic.
If you're fine with that, alright, but let's not pretend they don't discriminate to attempt to weed out those who don't toe their particular social and religious line. If you refuse to believe that, then you've simply not informed yourself about them. It's all in a Forbes article linked in this very thread.
However, the initial outcry on the part of Chicago and Boston ppoliticians, wasn't about this. I'm not even sure they knew about it, or they would probably have said so.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, typical far-right perspective on the ACLU, that. Along with the sudden realization that, hey, local government using power unlawfully to curb unwanted social behavior or political speech is serious business.
This insistence that government has no business interfering in the private speech and associations of private citizens is, of course, supremely amusing coming as it does from people who advocate precisely that: concern in and interference with the private lives of homosexuals.
Eh, but taking the First Amendment seriously means one will often be shoulder to shoulder with those who attempt to deny the rights and freedoms of others, as in this case. Cost of doing business.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Yeah, typical far-right perspective on the ACLU, that. Along with the sudden realization that, hey, local government using power unlawfully to curb unwanted social behavior or political speech is serious business.
Unless it's happening to muslims or brown people or whatever. Then, the same people mewling about Chick-Fil-A's repression have suspiciously an opposite sort of concern.Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I feel the need to point out that Jerry Greenfield was wed to his wife in 1987 and that while Ben Cohen has not publicly said he was gay I doubt he would ever care enough about what bigots think to stay in the closet. Although your anecdote does show some of your own character and views.[/QB]
Ad hominem attacks rarely show intelligence. I was using an extreme example from the conservative side of the argument - one I've heard in real life, by the way - and you automatically attack me and say it says something about my character. The example has *nothing at all* to do with my personal beliefs, thanks.
YOUR response shows YOUR character: judgmental and arrogant. That's funny, considering you are arguing for the side of "tolerance"...
Posts: 298 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DustinDopps: YOUR response shows YOUR character: judgmental and arrogant. That's funny, considering you are arguing for the side of "tolerance"...
Given what you've posted on this board so far, would you claim not to be a judgmental and arrogant person?
And yes. We are arguing for the side of tolerance. We are also tolerant of intolerance, and you'll note no intent to make homophobic attitudes illegal. What we aren't going to be is polite. We'll be treating homophobic attitudes the exact same as, say, racism, or people who a generation or two ago would have been whinging about how marriage is not an institution for interracial couples.
Which is about where anti gay marriage attitudes will be a few decades from now anyway; the dustbin of stigma and history. Your religion, as usual, will adjust to compensate, so there won't be any big loss. It'll just become a better religion than it was. We all win!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Donald A. Perry, the vice president of corporate public relations for Chick-fil-A, died of a heart attack on Friday morning, Columbus Georgia's WRBL News 3 reports.
The company confirmed the news in a statement to the Atlanta Journal Constitution.
quote:And yes. We are arguing for the side of tolerance. We are also tolerant of intolerance, and you'll note no intent to make homophobic attitudes illegal. What we aren't going to be is polite. We'll be treating homophobic attitudes the exact same as, say, racism, or people who a generation or two ago would have been whinging about how marriage is not an institution for interracial couples.
Oh, I wouldn't go quite so far as all that. There are certainly plenty of folks who, as is so very human, don't have much respect for or knowledge of what freedom of speech really means-not just the freedom to say (and to hear, more importantly) things that are disagreeable but things that really, really, really revolt you. There's a strong whiff of that in this discussion, actually, though thankfully respect for freedom of speech does win out.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DustinDopps: YOUR response shows YOUR character: judgmental and arrogant. That's funny, considering you are arguing for the side of "tolerance"...
Given what you've posted on this board so far, would you claim not to be a judgmental and arrogant person?
And yes. We are arguing for the side of tolerance. We are also tolerant of intolerance, and you'll note no intent to make homophobic attitudes illegal. What we aren't going to be is polite. We'll be treating homophobic attitudes the exact same as, say, racism, or people who a generation or two ago would have been whinging about how marriage is not an institution for interracial couples.
Which is about where anti gay marriage attitudes will be a few decades from now anyway; the dustbin of stigma and history. Your religion, as usual, will adjust to compensate, so there won't be any big loss. It'll just become a better religion than it was. We all win!
This. I am so tired of people thinking using "tolerance" as a get-out-of disdain-free card. "Wah! You are not being tolerant of my intolerance! You are equally as bad!"
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My tolerance for conservative religion ends when they attempt to interfere in the personal business and lives of my best friends and their two daughters.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: This. I am so tired of people thinking using "tolerance" as a get-out-of disdain-free card. "Wah! You are not being tolerant of my intolerance! You are equally as bad!"
Often times this is accidentally made into 'since you are the side professing tolerance you are hypocritical if you are expressing just half as much dismissive disdain of our views as we express of yours.'
but if you take their attempted riposte at face value you can point out to them that it accidentally expresses that they are holding their opponents to a standard of decency and they get to be jerks about it wait this does not score their side any good cred whoops
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the problem is actually less what they do and more what we do to ourselves. We start to think that all beliefs are equally worthy as if we had no ability to make value judgements.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not defending Dan Cathy. For anything, ever. He's very rude to people when he plays in those golf tournaments. Just the "service" people, though. Not, like, quality people. Also, this company had approved a fellow to open a franchise, up to the point where they had a party for him to welcome him to the Chick-FilA family.
Where Mr. Cathy met the man's wife, discovering that she was black. *Faints* Oh my LAWD!
The next week he got a letter in the mail stating his franchise was being denied after all, with no explanation other than he was "not a good fit for Chick-Fil A." Of course, this is not proof of racism, either, and certainly not enough to spend a bunch of money suing them. But, certainly not cool.
So CFA is not a good fit for Boston or wherever. Them's the breaks.
Posts: 79 | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
And if I had to guess, I'd say the Mayor's statement had it's intended effect. A TON of people who were not aware of his companies borderline illegal acts, and his beliefs and contributions to anti-gay groups, are now aware of it.
And people who were not aware of the Mayor's views now are, so he scored political points in his own city.
quote:Originally posted by Olivet 2.0: Not defending Dan Cathy. For anything, ever. He's very rude to people when he plays in those golf tournaments. Just the "service" people, though. Not, like, quality people. Also, this company had approved a fellow to open a franchise, up to the point where they had a party for him to welcome him to the Chick-FilA family.
Where Mr. Cathy met the man's wife, discovering that she was black. *Faints* Oh my LAWD!
The next week he got a letter in the mail stating his franchise was being denied after all, with no explanation other than he was "not a good fit for Chick-Fil A." Of course, this is not proof of racism, either, and certainly not enough to spend a bunch of money suing them. But, certainly not cool.
So CFA is not a good fit for Boston or wherever. Them's the breaks.
Do you have a link for that story? I tried working some Google magic, but can't seem to find it.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's because it was never in the news. I've known local people (I live in the Atlanta area) who have been avoiding CFA well before this for no other reason than Dan Cathy is kind of a dick.
Posts: 79 | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
I celebrate the idea that being openly supportive of LGTB issues is now a way to score political points. Yay!
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I did enjoy the content of Cathy's radio broadcast that triggered this brouhaha. I am of course biased, but his tone of voice didn't sound like the mournful regret of a friend, but rather the strident antagonism of an enemy making a thinly veiled threat. Just speaking of the tone of his voice there, and of course others will hear it differently.
The content, though, is also fun. Appealing to the infinitely loving God for mercy, because our society is in the process of supposedly beginning to disagree with Him. Mercy from what? It seems likely that the mercy being sought is from the badly hidden sadism that is at the heart of this far-right evangelical nonsense: God loves you so much if you don't do what he says, and legislate as he would have you do, everlasting torture and damnation.
I think it would be nice if while digging into how wrongheaded and hateful his stance on homosexuality is, we could get to the heart of *why* it is, but it's probably too soon for that.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Olivet 2.0: That's because it was never in the news. I've known local people (I live in the Atlanta area) who have been avoiding CFA well before this for no other reason than Dan Cathy is kind of a dick.
posted
Let me state before I say anything that I am a Christian and my beliefs say that homosexuality is a sin and I think it's wrong. However, I think that you have every right to live as you choose, that it doesn't make you any less a person, and that you have the right to not be discriminated against. And beyond that, Christ calls me to love, I may think you're in the wrong but it doesn't mean I love you any less for it. I have friends and even family that are homosexual that I care about, I think they are wrong but I don't care about them any less because of it. As for SSM, I have understanding for both sides and I haven't decided which I support but that is another discussion entirely.
And one final note before the main body of my post, while I have read the entirety of this thread, I have not heard Mr. Cathy's radio broadcast or even the letter that started this.
Now with my views, hopefully, clearly stated:
Is it really so surprising that a Christian company (of which the privately owned CFA is) that is chooses to be closed on the third busiest day of the week for restaurants, is unsupportive of homosexuality? CFA abides by the law, it does not discriminate against anybody, if it has please show me the legal case that was filed against them, I refuse to listen to stories from a friend of a friend who heard it. Too often those tales are distorted from the truth or even plan made up. Not only should companies be able to have a stance on something, they are legal entities that actually do have rights.
I have a problem with comparing disagreeing with homosexuality to racism. There is a huge difference between thinking someone's life choices and views are wrong. And believing that somebody is fundamentally lesser than somebody else.
Everybody has a right to believe what they believe, they have the right to say it and you have the right to disagree and even voice that opinion. That is part of what makes America great.
Also, if we are going to have truly open and free discussion we need to use less high-inference language or loaded words. When we do we taint the conversation and color the perspective of people rather than win a discussion (as if most discussions could be won) by merit.
Posts: 503 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's the problem, Vasslia....a lot of these people threat gay people like they are less, not worthy of making their own choices. That they need to be operantly conditioned to not be gay, even.
The reasons that people compare it to racism is that there are far more parallels between them than differences. Both groups are discriminated against, are treated as children not capable of making life choices for themselves, and have basic rights barred from them because of who they are....when in fact if they were not gay the things they are asking for are so common that we would be SHOCKED anyone would bar US from them.
I understand why you feel what you do, and why you object to the comparison, but I don't agree at all.
And there is a huge difference between believing something personally, and donating MILLIONS of dollars to bigoted causes. Not to mention unofficially discriminating against minorities and gays when awarding franchises.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Is it really so surprising that a Christian company (of which the privately owned CFA is) that is chooses to be closed on the third busiest day of the week for restaurants, is unsupportive of homosexuality? CFA abides by the law, it does not discriminate against anybody, if it has please show me the legal case that was filed against them, I refuse to listen to stories from a friend of a friend who heard it. Too often those tales are distorted from the truth or even plan made up. Not only should companies be able to have a stance on something, they are legal entities that actually do have rights.
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2007/0723/080.html Not exactly a bastion of liberalism and left-leaning spin, keep in mind. Anyway, just because a legal case hasn't been filed isn't a good reason to refuse to believe any discrimination happened. It's a good reason not to believe it's been proven though, but in any event read the article and then let us know-do you believe social, religious, and sexual preference factors play no role in who is permitted to be an operator? The reason I'm inclined to believe Olivet's account stands a good chance of accuracy (having no doubt at all that she related it as told) is because her judgment seems thoroughly reliable to me, but as much as that is that her account fits with what I read in the article.
Now, as for companies having the right to a political stance-of course they do, and already politicians are beginning to back off. That's not in dispute, though I will say it is cynically amusing to hear so many conservative Christians make a full-throated defense against infringement on freedom of speech, when God literally forbid that we, for example, burn an American flag, restrict teacher/administrator led prayer in schools, or take God out of the Pledge of Allegience.
quote:I have a problem with comparing disagreeing with homosexuality to racism. There is a huge difference between thinking someone's life choices and views are wrong. And believing that somebody is fundamentally lesser than somebody else.
If, as is medically and psychologically possible, homosexuality is not actually a voluntary choice but something someone is born to, then I'm afraid there is no difference between disapproving of homosexuality and disapproving of one's skin color. But even if homosexuality, the difference is hardly 'huge'. Academically perhaps, but out here in the real world you're not going to convince me, and I'd be surprised to hear you really believed it yourself, that many people are really able to practice this love the sinner hate the sin nonsense you're describing. If this tolerance and love for people in spite of 'bad choices' was really so prevalent, so thoroughly practiced by anyone, well you tell me: how many openly homosexual people do you know who regularly attend church with their partners?
Don't kid yourself, and don't ask anyone else to believe it: if it's an important matter, and especially if it's actually (supposedly) commanded by God, in practice there really isn't a huge difference between thinking someone else's consensual private adult sexual choices* are wrong, and thinking they are fundamentally inferior. If you continue to insist there is this huge difference, why not ask one of these gay friends or relatives of yours which folks they think regard them as inferior?
*which simply, regardless what your religion tells you, are really none of your business anyway, thanks.
-------
As to your first two paragraphs...well, alright, if you feel God instructs you to feel in such contradictory and arbitrary ways, alright. You've as much right to that as Cathy does to his homophobic outlook.
But you cannot say 'homosexuals ought not be discriminated against' and 'I have understanding for both sides.' One side believes it is a religious command to discriminate, even if it also takes care to construct mental jungle gyms to avoid admitting it.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's kind of you to say that you trust my judgment, but anecdotes are not evidence. That article you linked to would count as evidence, and it is in keeping with my experience. The CFA vetting process for franchisees is just like that, from what I've been told. That process is not subject to the same discrimination laws as the employer/employee relationship. CFA franchises are really cheap, and the parent company lays out all the funds for the location. As in that article, they are pretty explicit about the kind of folks they want as franchisees.
However, it is possible that the franchisee said or did something at the welcome party that set off CFA's sphincters other than merely having a wife of the wrong color. We will never really know. They have the right to reject franchisees for whatever reason, and otherwise violate Wheaton's Law in the name of Jesus. Posts: 79 | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Out of how many openly homosexual people you know of, period, along with the unknown number of closeted homosexuals who don't come out, was the intended but unsaid remainder.
And in any event, if I'm not mistaken your particular brand of Christianity is known to be quite a bit more inclusive and welcoming than the norm, yes?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The "norm" is changing rapidly. And even in less inclusive denominations like mine, openly gay people attend quite regularly.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Vasslia Cora: I have a problem with comparing disagreeing with homosexuality to racism. There is a huge difference between thinking someone's life choices and views are wrong. And believing that somebody is fundamentally lesser than somebody else.
Do you maintain that homosexuality is a choice?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Anyway, just because a legal case hasn't been filed isn't a good reason to refuse to believe any discrimination happened.
There's been a few. One person, for instance, got fired from chick-fil-a because they wouldn't participate in the morning prayer circle, and when they asked why? Well, because I'm a Muslim, so. And was readily dismissed shortly thereafter.
And they had chick-fil-a dead to rights on this one. They settled out of court. For a lot.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't ask about trends, I was asking about how comfortable folks think homosexuals are identifying with various Christian communities. That question can be answered literally ('I know plenty'), or it could actually be addressed by admitting, "You know, generally speaking, homosexuals don't feel welcomed in church."
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm really surprised that this is actually happening. No politician should be sticking their nose into this kind of PR nightmare. Sure, they might not agree with something that a CEO said, but so what? Isn't this the exact same thing that happened fifty years ago when blacks were told they couldn't open up businesses because they were a certain skin color? Are we going to start telling Muslims that they can't own a company in a city because they have a certain belief system?
As I see it, this issue shouldn't even be an issue. In being so vocal, the mayor is actually helping to push progress backwards. Homosexuals deserve rights, but to tell a business owner that you're going to fight against them opening up any future stores in your town (the people's town, actually, since you serve the people) is just silly.
OSC doesn't believe in gay marriage, but does that mean the United States should stop selling his books? Should Chicago stop selling them in its stores?
Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I didn't ask about trends, I was asking about how comfortable folks think homosexuals are identifying with various Christian communities. That question can be answered literally ('I know plenty'), or it could actually be addressed by admitting, "You know, generally speaking, homosexuals don't feel welcomed in church."
In all the mainline Protestant denominations and (I think)in the Roman Catholic Church there are movements which congregations can associate themselves with to indicate that they are welcoming of persons of all sexual orientations. The Episcopal church and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America ordain openly gay clergy. Plus of course groups like Metropolitan Community Churches which was started specifically as a gay-friendly denomination. I have no idea whether, generally speaking, homosexuals feel welcome in church. I suspect it has a lot to do with the particular church they are or want to be a part of.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dkw: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Rakeesh: In all the mainline Protestant denominations and (I think)in the Roman Catholic Church there are movements which congregations can associate themselves with to indicate that they are welcoming of persons of all sexual orientations. The Episcopal church and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America ordain openly gay clergy. Plus of course groups like Metropolitan Community Churches which was started specifically as a gay-friendly denomination. I have no idea whether, generally speaking, homosexuals feel welcome in church. I suspect it has a lot to do with the particular church they are or want to be a part of.
I don't deny there are quite a lot of that sort of movement going on, which is of course a good sign. But would you deny that when they happen, they begin and in many cases continue in the teeth of opposition from various leadership and the rest of the various congregations?
I'll put the question another way: would you say that it was likely or unlikely an openly homosexual person would be welcomed wholeheartedly with open arms, as just another ordinary human sinner and without being made to feel somehow excluded, were they to enter a random church found somewhere in America?
I realize of course it's a guess, but I'm baffled by what I perceive is resistance to the claim that, no, churches aren't generally accepting of open homosexuals in their own persons, as opposed to an abstract concept. I could very well be misunderstanding you, though.
-----------
quote:I'm really surprised that this is actually happening. No politician should be sticking their nose into this kind of PR nightmare. Sure, they might not agree with something that a CEO said, but so what? Isn't this the exact same thing that happened fifty years ago when blacks were told they couldn't open up businesses because they were a certain skin color? Are we going to start telling Muslims that they can't own a company in a city because they have a certain belief system?
Have you kept up on this story, even a little? It doesn't sound like it. They haven't exactly been met with widespread legal support for their stance, these few local politicians. As for Muslims...I, well, I'm stunned that you would make that an example.
Right now, as we speak, Muslims are specifically barred from building churches in two American cities. This very second. One of them has been a substantial media thing for years.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just FYI, the United States doesn't sell OSC's books. Stores could decide not to stock them, but the city could not impose that. Cities do have some lattitude about what sort of businesses they allow within city limits, and have for some time. ESPECIALLY for moral reasons. Not that this hasn't been a mixed bag for the overzealous politicians. I'm just saying it is not without precedent.
Posts: 79 | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Have you kept up on this story, even a little? It doesn't sound like it.
I've been following it as much as I can, but if you know more then by all means, tell me what I'm missing. From what I've seen, it sounds like a few politicians are telling the owner of a company that they are going to do everything they can to make sure that company isn't able to open up shop in that town, specifically because of their religious beliefs.
quote:As for Muslims...I, well, I'm stunned that you would make that an example.
Right now, as we speak, Muslims are specifically barred from building churches in two American cities. This very second. One of them has been a substantial media thing for years.
Just because that's happening, it doesn't make the example any less correct. I used that as an example because I think it's wrong to bar anyone from doing something based solely on their religion. It's a complete coincidence that it actually happened. I could have just as easily used Christians or Jews, blacks or whites, as examples and the point would still stand.
Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dkw: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Rakeesh: In all the mainline Protestant denominations and (I think)in the Roman Catholic Church there are movements which congregations can associate themselves with to indicate that they are welcoming of persons of all sexual orientations. The Episcopal church and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America ordain openly gay clergy. Plus of course groups like Metropolitan Community Churches which was started specifically as a gay-friendly denomination. I have no idea whether, generally speaking, homosexuals feel welcome in church. I suspect it has a lot to do with the particular church they are or want to be a part of.
I don't deny there are quite a lot of that sort of movement going on, which is of course a good sign. But would you deny that when they happen, they begin and in many cases continue in the teeth of opposition from various leadership and the rest of the various congregations?
I'll put the question another way: would you say that it was likely or unlikely an openly homosexual person would be welcomed wholeheartedly with open arms, as just another ordinary human sinner and without being made to feel somehow excluded, were they to enter a random church found somewhere in America?
I realize of course it's a guess, but I'm baffled by what I perceive is resistance to the claim that, no, churches aren't generally accepting of open homosexuals in their own persons, as opposed to an abstract concept. I could very well be misunderstanding you, though.
Even the RC has gay and lesbian outreach programs. The UCC is very gay -friendly as a good chunks of Methodists, Presbyterians, and Lutherans. Those are three of the major denominations. There are even gay friendly Baptist congregations. I would guess that the welcome would largely depend on the surrounding community. In Chicago, I'd bet the chances of a gay person being welcomed to church are at least as good as being welcomed to the neighborhood bar.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
