Hemant Mehta, the Friendly Atheist, defends the Washington School District for ending its student teacher contract with Arizona Christian University. It isn't because ACU is Christian, it's because it affirmation of traditional marriage is "bigoted," diversity and inclusion is, he thinks, consistent with excluding such "bigots."
22 comments:
Except for one thing. The ACU "antigay" position doesn't proscribe gay orientation. They just proscribe gay sex, which is an action, and a presumably chosen action. Gay people can fulfill ACU's conduct requirements. All they have to do is be celibate.
Victor. You're missing the point entirely.
The ACU teachers aren't qualified to fulfill the requirements of the Arizona School Board to teach elementary students how do LGBTQ+ sex. Just like they can't qualify to be altar servers for this guy
No surprise. California AB 1887 prohibits state employees from traveling to these states:
Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Mississippi
Montana
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
West Virginia
The law prohibits San Diego State University paying for their athletes to travel to the Final Four. Are there any states on the more conservative side that have cut themselves off from half of their fellow Americans? The Democratic party is insane and the nation's biggest hate group.
I do business with churches and I'm pretty ecumenical. Some of these churches have beautiful buildings and will loan them out for weddings. The sick and twisted Democratic party ended that. Because some Churches won't loan their building for a gay wedding, they can't loan them to anyone. I can understand a Christian not wanting anything to do with the Republican party. I can't imagine a Christian supporting the anti-christianity Democratic party.
A question came to mind as I was thinking about the insanity of the CA Democrat party, do they ban travel to foreign countries who have much more restrictive social policy then say Texas? As far as I can tell they can still go to Saudi Arabia. I spent time in Saudi Arabia and it's no gay paradise.
Personally I don't mind travel bans on state employees. I think most of what they do is a burden on the taxpayer without much to show for it. I would ban them from traveling on taxpayer money for pretty much everything. So I guess there's that going in my favor.
Dave,
Sorry. But I think my state should issue a travel ban on Californians period. ;-)
As always Miller, I do enjoy your sense of humor.
I have heard that some people support the idea of Califexit.
David Duffy,
The sick and twisted Democratic party ended that. Because some Churches won't loan their building for a gay wedding, they can't loan them to anyone.
To stand against discrimination is "sick and twisted"? To require churches to follow the law is "sick and twisted"?
Victor Reppert,
All they have to do is be celibate.
Perhaps they should be forced to sew a scarlet "H" on their clothing.
I have heard that some people support the idea of Califexit.
2 questions:
Where do I vote?
How do we get this going for DC?
Truth is truth no matter who says it.
One Brow,
"To require churches to follow the law is "sick and twisted"?"
What is the law and what power has the authority and discretion enforce it?
Victor Reppert,
"I have heard that some people support the idea of Califexit."
If we can't get along with Iowa, we deserve to die alone in all our self-righteous liberal hate.
"Liberal" was the wrong word. I'm fine with liberals. I should have said the Left.
David Duffy,
What is the law and what power has the authority and discretion enforce it?
In this case, the law is that if you deal with the general public, you have to treat all members of the general public equally. In this case, the law is enforced by the civil court system, at the discretion of the judge and/or jury.
One Brow,
You have to treat individuals in the public equally. You do not have to treat behavior or choices equally. The church owns it property. They should, actually must, have freedom to refuse weddings to anyone: a satanic themed wedding, a polygamist wedding, a secular wedding.
The law is enforced by the police, who are given a lot of discretion arresting people. The accused is prosecuted by the district of attorney, who has a lot of discretion in whether and how to prosecute. A judge is given broad powers in his ability to dismiss a case. I know you pretend to be an absolutist when it comes to the law, at least against those you disagree with, but it’s a very human enterprise with many unknown motivations from the arrest to sentencing.
Dave,
You're on the front lines so you're seeing this first-hand.
Bolsheviks aren't the "live and let live" type. It's precisely because those churches won't allow satanic services that they must be forced to.
Miller,
Suppose 36 years ago, Miss Olson and I were looking for a space to be married. The first chapel we went to was a Free Will Baptist Church. They required us to sign off on their statement of faith to use their building. I'm good on one through 16 of their statement. Number 17 reads "The book of Genesis is literal. The Earth was created in 6 days 6,000 years ago." I'd say, "I'm good on everything but 17." They reply "well you can't be married here."
I'd walk away and look for the next church. The Left is totalitarian.
But the Left is not going to walk away from people like you once they find out you don't agree with them. And they're not going to let you walk away. What are you going to do about that?
"What are you going to do about that?"
The first step is refusing to accept their insanity. The next is I will speak freely as long as I'm allowed.
David Duffy,
I agree that the church can be as discriminatory as they like within their own membership. If they want only certain church members to marry and not others, they can pick and choose s they please. A polite society recognizes that all of the general public is allowed equal treatment (also, since polygamy is illegal, no venue would be required to host such a ceremony).
There are no police that arrest church leaders for discrimination when dealing with the public. There is no prosecution of such leaders. There are no jail sentences. The only judges involved are civil court justices. It's all handled in the civil court system, where the worst punishment is fines.
I'm not sure what "absolutist" means here. I have a deep distrust of law enforcement (for example, I would not be surprised at all that Bragg has upcharged Trump's bookkeeping from misdemeanors to felonies, prosecutors do that every day).
Post a Comment