|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Christian Group has bank account removed due to "unacceptable views" | |||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
For "persecuting" people by calling sin sin. It's not so much the talking about sin that bothers us; it's the tying gay people to fences and beating them to death, then desecrating their funerals; it's the shooting abortion doctors with high-powered rifles and setting up kill-list webpages for people to keep track; it's the bombing government buildings; it's the stockpiling of weapons and suicide pacts that kill hundreds of children. It's the burning books and interfering with libraries. It's the funding of political corruption and blackmaining public officials to prosecute personal vendettas. It's mostly that stuff. Yeah, I know. Maybe we're a bit hypersenstive.
It is this sector alone that is now the fair target of discrimination and intolerance. Oh, shit! People are excercizing their freedom to not associate with you! You might have to - gasp - bank at another institution! God, your lives are hell. How do you stand it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
The ridiculous lying hyperbole and false accusations of such a post as yours are all part of what I'm talking about. Lying hyperbole? You may have noticed that I supported each of those assertions with links. Something that, apparently, you're never required to do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
You are tarring ordinary Bible-believers with fringe people. These are ordinary Bible-believers who followed, in your words, "the logical outcome of your trend of thinking, whether you recognize it or not."
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Not the Branch Davidians, not the murderers of abortionists, not the killers of Matthew Shepard. All misrepresentations. That's not what they say. How can I judge? You yourself have made it clear that I'm not equipped to truly understand the Bible. At any rate, it's clear that they've simply taken the hate-filled invective you continually spew here and translated it into action. Your attempt to distance yourself from the ultimate result is amusing, but nobody's fooled, faith. If you really want to distance yourself from these kooks, then you need to stop employing their rhetoric. It's your choice, but as long as you show up here and continually voice your support for the same justifications they used for these actions, we're going to rightly assume that you're with them. It's impossible to distinguish your rhetoric from theirs. The bank was right to disassociate with those who have made it pretty clear that violence is their next course of action.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Should banks be able to deny service to people whose beliefs differ from them? Yes. Employees, however, should not be able to deny service to persons their employer would have as customers. In other words, a bank can refuse service to (say) a pro-homosexual organization, but a teller can't refuse service to a patron just because he's gay.
How many of you would accept a bank known for keeping accounts from drug dealers, prostitutes, or perhaps pedophilic organizations? I would. But also I would support a bank for suggesting that organizations that promote illegal activities would be best served at another institution.
Well honestly that DOES include people who BELIEVE that others are wrong. Do you think so? I honestly believe that the mantle of tolerance doesn't extend to those who are intolerant. I don't see that as inconsistent, I guess.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Faith, if you feel that a class of person is bad and should be persecuted in some way for what they do, then you are by definition a bigot. I guess I don't understand. As written this suggests that a person who believes that criminals should be punished for misdeeds is a "bigot," a characterization that would be neither fair nor accurate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Interesting how willing you all are to smear me and support each other no matter how abusive any individual gets. No matter how abusive any of us get, you were there first with ten times the invective. You're in absolutely no position whatsoever to lecture anyone on their behavior.
Oh, and all men but one against a lone woman. And now you're hiding behind your sex? You're despicable. Clearly there's no depth to which you won't sink.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
The second point is that the UK is still quite a traditional country. Whilst the law and Government is supporting sexual diversity and equality, the general population is not. That's absolutely incorrect. What do you think is driving the shift in British policy towards gay equality? It's being driven by the people, not in spite of them:
quote: Home - Arador Many friends of mine (the majority) will not go drinking in the area of Manchester known as the village, despite the fact that some of the best clubs and bars are there, along with lower levels of threatening, drunken behaviour and violence. I'm sorry your friends are homophobes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Want a list of those who agree with me? Start with Christian Voice. And then add all those people I listed before. Abortion snipers. Branch Davidians. Timothy McVeigh. The corruption machine of DeLay and Abrahmoff. All absolutely confident in their course of action and that they were following the will of God to the letter. You're in some pretty good company, aren't you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I guess there's no talking to someone who won't bother to make basic disctinctions. Oh, I make the basic distinction, all right. They put their beliefs into action, and you just talk.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Pedestals not required, just basic respect. Why don't you try having some, first.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
My experience whilst not as scientific and widespread would lead me to believe that many people protest their open-mindedness in public yet privately cling to older beliefs about homosexuality. In other words, they advocate equality for homosexuals but do not want to partake in homosexual acts themselves. Well, duh. That's what it means to be a heterosexual who supports gay rights.
I am aware that this is a vague and probably not very constructive reply but I can only call as I see from day to day in Manchester. Here's a better idea - call it from the evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I apologise for getting snotty but my original point may be missed here in suggesting that whilst tolerance is seen in public as acceptable even admirable this is not reflected in their privately held views. Well, you're entitled to your view, but you'll pardon me if I don't find your seat-of-the-pants speculation about the internal lives of Britons to be more compelling than England's most comprehensive national survey of social attitudes. I mean, what are politicians supposed to do? Read minds? If the public is telling them publically that they're for gay rights, how are politicians supposed to know that, privately, they're not?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I would point out that gay parades make the lives of many unpleasant. Hey, there's a pretty easy way to make that go away. Just give them the damn equal rights, already. I mean you don't see too many women holding parades for the right to vote anymore, now do you?
It is true that I haven't read the entire Christian Voice site but what little I did read suggests that Stephen Green is simply an advocate against allowing gay rights to make our lives more unpleasant Wait, what? I understand how the parades make your life unpleasant, but how does equal rights make your life unpleasant? And if the pleasantness of your life requires that a certain portion of the citizenry be relegated to second-class status, why are you entitled to it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Marriage is for heterosexuals. Why? Why do heteros need marriage? Why do we have it at all?
It has a specific cultural function for heteros, circumscribing and protecting the NATURAL sexual function and its NATURAL offspring. C'mon, that's clearly bullshit. Marriage as we have it now protects more than the natural children of a heterosexual relationship; it protects any children they choose to adopt from someone else's sex, and it protects couples that have no children, like me. Moreover, in what sense is homosexual sex not natural? If it was unnatural, it wouldn't be possible; moreover we wouldn't see it so often in the animal kingdom.
They have the same civil rights as everyone else, and if in some particulars in some cases they don't I'm for legal measures to grant them, such as next-of-kin rights or whatever, but I understand those are in fact not the problem some try to make out of them. There's over a thousand Federal legal rights and privleges extended only to married couples. That's a thousand rights you can't get any way else, and that's just at the Federal level. Now, we could either amend one thousand federal laws, or we could make just one new one. Your religion doesn't get to dictate the civil rights status of other individuals.
Legal adjustments, accommodations, fine, and whatever they want to do to officialize a relationship within their own communities, but not forcing a government redefinition of marriage on all the rest of the population. Nonsense. Why on Earth do you think that gay people give a fuck how you define marriage? Unless you're the government they have no interest whatsoever in what you think. You get to define marriage however you want, just as I did - to some, marriage is defined as a relationship where the man is steward of a family who submits to him. My wife and I define marriage as an equal partnership. Many people wouldn't consider my parents married because my mom married outside of the Mormon faith. Everybody gets to define marriage for themselves, Faith. Something you'll learn when you're older, I suspect. You don't get to decide the definition for everybody else. But the government has to apply the marriage laws fairly, and there's no legitimate reason to deny them to gay couples and much harm in doing so. These are real couples with children, and only a sociopath who places religious bigotry over the welfare of children would deny these couples the legal protections they need to raise families. Why do you hate families so much, Faith?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024