Trump's America

[RedDenver]

14 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

 

The short answer to the bolded part is probably yes. I hate to see that happen. I was disappointed when Skutt fired the gay teacher. But as a private religious-based institution, I think they have to be able to make those decisions.

 

1 hour ago, sho said:

 

Here's the question for you @Nebfanatic last year, in 6th grade, my daughter was coming home and telling me about her teacher, Mrs X.  She was telling me all about Mrs X, her wife and the her son.  Her wife and kids attended the class concert and other class functions.   The kids had all met her wife and her son.   My daughter goes to public school, so it's not a problem.  That said, if she went to any church based school where her teacher's orientation is viewed as a sin, a 'choice' against God, should that teacher be allowed to continue to teach there?  For my daughter's class, there was no talk about sexuality, but it was common to talk about her life outside of school.  What her and family did over the weekend or upcoming events that her family was attending etc. Her wife and child visited on occasion.   I can tell you, as open as she was, she would have been terminated from the schools I attended, and they have the right to do so.   What @Ric Flairis saying isright.  Not only with the gay baker, or the Skutt school teacher, but should Jewish owned business be forced to do business with a nazi group?  Should any minority be forced to do business with a group that promotes race separation/discrimination?  If no, they shouldn't be forced to, then the school should be able to terminate a member of the LGBTQ+ community as well, regardless of how well they teach.

 

Heck, there was a case in MN a few years back I can't remember all the details, but there was a health food/gym company that changed their policy to require all employees to be tobacco free.  They gave them a year to do so, and after a year, if they were not tobacco free, they were let go.  And they had random testing for verification.   If I remember right, that case held up in the state supreme court that allowed the company to fire employees for using tobacco, even if it was never during company time.

So do private religious institutions also have to fire people who are "sinners" in other ways? Why single-out gays if it's really just about following religious teachings? I'd think Christians would be more upset about swearing as it breaks one of the 10 Commandments instead of a minor sin that's not even in the big 10.

[BigRedBuster]

 

True Republican utopia.

 

[sho]

39 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

 

So do private religious institutions also have to fire people who are "sinners" in other ways? Why single-out gays if it's really just about following religious teachings? I'd think Christians would be more upset about swearing as it breaks one of the 10 Commandments instead of a minor sin that's not even in the big 10.

 

Swearing as a whole doesn't break a commandment.   Taking the Lord's name in vain does, but there are plenty of swear words that are "fine".   And out of the 10 commandments, all would be fireable offenses for the Christian school, in my opinion, some would be a fireable offenses period.   Others are harder to 'prove' coveting things/people, unless you are a stalker.  Taking the Lord's name in vain has been diminished, but I can remember getting detentions for saying 'God' or 'JC' etc in school.

 

As for firing sinners, Christians understand no one is perfect, and the goal is to make amends for mistakes, in the Christian viewpoint, living an openly gay lifestyle is not taking amends for 'choices' they view as sins.   

[RedDenver]

5 hours ago, sho said:

 

Swearing as a whole doesn't break a commandment.   Taking the Lord's name in vain does, but there are plenty of swear words that are "fine".   And out of the 10 commandments, all would be fireable offenses for the Christian school, in my opinion, some would be a fireable offenses period.   Others are harder to 'prove' coveting things/people, unless you are a stalker.  Taking the Lord's name in vain has been diminished, but I can remember getting detentions for saying 'God' or 'JC' etc in school.

 

As for firing sinners, Christians understand no one is perfect, and the goal is to make amends for mistakes, in the Christian viewpoint, living an openly gay lifestyle is not taking amends for 'choices' they view as sins.   

So they should be firing anyone who "is not making amends", which would include every teacher, administrator, coach, etc. who keeps using the Lord's name in vain. Yet we don't hear even a peep about that. It's clearly not about living virtuously or there'd be a whole lot of people getting fired.

[sho]

12 hours ago, RedDenver said:

So they should be firing anyone who "is not making amends", which would include every teacher, administrator, coach, etc. who keeps using the Lord's name in vain. Yet we don't hear even a peep about that. It's clearly not about living virtuously or there'd be a whole lot of people getting fired.

 

I think they have the right to do so, yes.  Whether or not they feel that is worth it, is there choice.  They have clearly drawn a line in the sand on sexuality, and that is there choice and belief, and they have the right to do so.    And for the record, through the 13 years of Christian schooling, I can remember exactly zero incidents where a teacher took the Lord's name in vain.

[RedDenver]

13 hours ago, sho said:

 

I think they have the right to do so, yes.  Whether or not they feel that is worth it, is there choice.  They have clearly drawn a line in the sand on sexuality, and that is there choice and belief, and they have the right to do so.    And for the record, through the 13 years of Christian schooling, I can remember exactly zero incidents where a teacher took the Lord's name in vain.

I think every coach I had in 12 years of Catholic school used the Lord's name in vain.

 

I don't agree they necessarily have the right to do so. Religious freedom is not above all other freedoms but rather all of our freedoms are a give-and-take between different people, and in this case I side with the freedoms of the employees to live their own lifestyles away from work over the freedoms of the employers to enforce their beliefs on others.

[Nebfanatic]

Sexual abuse of children is fine, just keep it quiet. But the openly gay people aren't welcome. Religious organizations are funny like that.

 

[commando]

 

 

[knapplc]

 

 

Among those people listed was John Brennan, CIA Director under Obama.

 

 

[BigRedBuster]

 

[commando]

10 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

erratic conduct and behavior with frenzied commentary.    i wonder if trump could pass that test?

[BigRedBuster]

1 minute ago, commando said:

erratic conduct and behavior with frenzied commentary.    i wonder if trump could pass that test?

 

Can I vote?

[BigRedBuster]

In reality, these security clearances mean nothing under Trump because he doesn't consult or listen to them anyway.  The next President can reinstate them and move on.

 

The fear is what happens between now and then.

[Danny Bateman]

Nothing to see here folks, just your everyday, average American president punishing his political adversaries (or rather just halfway decent people who have spoken out against him).

 

Used to be you could have opinions not dictated by the state. Guess that's in the past now.

 

 

[schriznoeder]