It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

After Orlando, time to recognize that anti-gay bigotry is not religious freedom: Neil Macdonald

page: 19
50
<< 16  17  18   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 11:15 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Tell that to the women and girls harassed and assaulted by men in ladies' rooms.

Oh, wait, I forgot, they aren't trans, so they don't matter.

I see you totally ignored the link I posted. What, nothing to say there??




posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 11:26 PM
link   
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Again, you're totally missing the point of the thread and side stepping the issue, trying to deny that there is a right wing Christian political agenda to deny basic human rights and personal dignity to the LGBT community.

After Orlando, it's time to recognize that anti-gay bigotry is not religious freedom!



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 11:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: windword

Tell that to the women and girls harassed and assaulted by men in ladies' rooms.

Oh, wait, I forgot, they aren't trans, so they don't matter.

I see you totally ignored the link I posted. What, nothing to say there??


Pedophile's aren't locked into preference with a specific gender.

If he wasn't molesting girls in the girls room, he'd likely be in the boy's room molesting boys.

Girls being his "preference", he went there.

I see no increase in "bathroom crimes" since this debate started. They're just being used as fodder in a broader, and rather unimpressive political discussion.
edit on 17-6-2016 by DeadFoot because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 01:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Again, you're totally missing the point of the thread and side stepping the issue, trying to deny that there is a right wing Christian political agenda to deny basic human rights and personal dignity to the LGBT community.

After Orlando, it's time to recognize that anti-gay bigotry is not religious freedom!


No, I asked for your opinion on exactly what hat agenda is, and you can't even say. Yours, not that of some liberal website.



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 01:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes




Let's make this simple. It isn't discrimination to not agree with someone else. If someone is so fragile they need laws to force others to agree with them, they have a problem.


Yeah? Tell that to The Human Rights Campaign, The ACLU, Disney, PayPal, the NFL, Marvel, Intel, Apple, AMC Studios, Starz, Dow Chemical, SalesForce, Live Nation, Time Warner, Viacom, 21 Century Fox, Lyon's Gate, Sony, The Weinstein Company, Comedy Dynamics, Yelp....just to name a few corporations and organizations threatening boycotts and bring on lawsuits over these laws.



Yay Fascism! I would call their bluff.



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 01:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: DeadFoot
Pedophile's aren't locked into preference with a specific gender.


How about guys that assault women? Women and girls can be easily targeted via these new policies. Plus, depends on the pedo. Some are, some aren't.


originally posted by: DeadFoot

I see no increase in "bathroom crimes" since this debate started. They're just being used as fodder in a broader, and rather unimpressive political discussion.


I have seen an increase. That sort of thing is always news, and it wasn't common before. Now, seems like it's a new case a week or more.



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 03:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Again, you're totally missing the point of the thread and side stepping the issue, trying to deny that there is a right wing Christian political agenda to deny basic human rights and personal dignity to the LGBT community.

After Orlando, it's time to recognize that anti-gay bigotry is not religious freedom!


What basic human rights are they being denied?

www.eeoc.gov...



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 08:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: VivreLibre

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Again, you're totally missing the point of the thread and side stepping the issue, trying to deny that there is a right wing Christian political agenda to deny basic human rights and personal dignity to the LGBT community.

After Orlando, it's time to recognize that anti-gay bigotry is not religious freedom!


What basic human rights are they being denied?

www.eeoc.gov...


In several states an individual can be denied housing or evicted because they are LGBT. As well, these individuals can be refused employment or fired for being outed as LGBT, or even if their employer thinks maybe they're LGBT! They can be denied government benefits and entrance into government social programs, like foster parenting. Doctors can refuse to serve them and their families and restaurants and groceries stores can refuse to sell them food, simply because of their sexual orientation.



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 08:07 AM
link   
a reply to: VivreLibre

the question isn't so much what rights they are being denied as it is what rights would SOME CHRISTIANS like to deny them if the laws would let them...

and there's really quite a few from the right to adopt to the right to life itself.
and, if we expand it out to other areas outside of the LGBT community, it could go from the right to expect that the tow truck service actually gives you a tow once he gets there instead of stopping halfway in the middle of doing his job and saying how sorry he is but he is christian and can't in good conscious give your a tow... or being denied the most humane and acceptable treatment and having your health and maybe life endangered when a pregnancy goes into crisis mode.

some one asked above just what that right wing Christian political agenda was. I would say it is much like that of the fundamentalist muslim agenda. to make the world APPEAR to be christian, or muslim. to have the laws line up perfectly to enforce that the appearance is believable. to put lipstick on the pig and proclaim to all that it's not still a pig! there is two problems with this approach..
one is that it will do more to create hypocrites that true believers who are actually seeking god.
and two, those hypocrites will then proceed to use the laws to their advantage to do some of the most horrible deeds to those the religion proclaims to be weaker, less worthy, subservient. and in the end they just manage to paint a giant stain of blood onto the religion. which, I believe is the agenda of the power that is behind both the fundamentalist christians and the fundamentalist muslim.

the war that should be fought, is a war of words and doctrines within the two religions themselves. the factions are not following the same "god"... and one of those gods is using part of their flocks to destroy their religions.
as well as many of us non-believers.



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 08:55 AM
link   


Religious Liberty: Shield or Sword?

Religious Liberty: Shield or Sword?

Religious liberty is a treasured American value.
Unfortunately, laws originally designed to shield individuals’ religious freedom have been turned into swords that, in the name of religion, harm other people and undermine measures to promote the common good.

Religious liberty is a fundamental American value and a promise that is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. Protections for religious liberty have encouraged the development of peaceful pluralism and a vibrantly diverse religious landscape, including a fast-growing group of Americans who claim no religious affiliation. Today, however, “religious liberty” has also become an ideological rallying cry for a collection of culture warriors – and the linchpin of their legal and political strategies.

It hasn’t always been this way. Two decades ago, an extraordinarily broad coalition came together to strengthen legal protections for religious liberty by limiting the government’s authority to substantially burden an individual’s ability to exercise his or her faith. That law was a response to a Supreme Court ruling that threatened to undermine protections for religious minorities, and it reflected a strong, interfaith, bipartisan consensus. Today, however, that consensus has been shattered because social conservatives are trying to turn laws meant to shield individuals’ religious exercise into swords that individuals and corporations can use against anti-discrimination laws and other measures opposed by conservative religious groups.

With Religious Right groups crying “religious persecution” in response to the advance of marriage equality, and the Supreme Court’s conservative majority granting for-profit corporations the right to claim religious exemptions to laws that offend the owners’ religious beliefs, even when that comes at the expense of their employees’ interests, it is a good time to affirm some basic truths:

Religious freedom and equality under the law are both core constitutional principles;
Religious liberty, while fundamental, is not absolute, in the same way free speech and other constitutionally protected values are not absolute;
The government has a compelling interest in promoting public health and preventing discrimination;
Judges and other public officials regularly have to make difficult calls when constitutional and civil rights principles come into tension with each other;
Having your positions criticized in public discourse is not the same as being subject to persecution; neither is being on a losing end of a legal or policy dispute.

www.pfaw.org...


maybe when you weaponize the concept of religious liberty and use it to remove rights from those you don't believe with, some (on both sides) feel that you are declaring war on them. we've all seen the rhetoric on ATS... liberals are the enemies, women a murderers if they have abortions, gays are just looking for easier opportunities to rape little girls. ect. Islam might be worse with their rhetoric, but both are adding fuel to a fire that is gonna become uncontrollable at some point and the conceptual sword becomes a real life gun in the hands of the those in the furthest fringes?



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 03:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: VivreLibre

the question isn't so much what rights they are being denied as it is what rights would SOME CHRISTIANS like to deny them if the laws would let them...


Christians don't want to deny anybody their rights. They just don't want their own rights taken away.

There are things non-Christians don't understand about Christianity. So, they make all these ridiculous claims.

First of all, Christians believe that all men are sinners. That God allows men to sin. That while God tells man what is good and what is bad, God doesn't "prevent men from sinning."

If God doesn't "prevent" man from sinning, the Christian shouldn't try to "prevent" man from sinning.

Man has the right to sin, and take his chances, that God will deliver punishment for the sin.

Sometimes God punishes the sin right away, sometimes God defers the punishment to some future time, some punishment is reserved to the last days, and sometimes God even "forgives" the sin.

So, the Christian isn't trying to "overrule" God's judgment, by applying a judgment on others, concerning their sins.

If man punishes you for your sin, then what is God's job?

The Christian, however, has to judge his own actions, given the warnings found in the scriptures. Those warnings are just for the Christians. They are not for everybody else. Each person must turn to his own religion to see what is good or bad according to their own religion. The Christian never tries to tell a Muslim what to do. So, why would anybody believe that a Christian would tell any other non-Christian what to do?

Christians don't believe that everybody is destined to follow the rules in their scriptures. In fact, they believe that only those called and selected, chosen and saved, are relevant to the scriptures. Everybody else is going somewhere different at the end times. There's a place for each of us in the universe. All have an important place, already set out for them, that they will inhabit after time ends. Here's what the book says,

"But go thou thy way till the end be: for thou shalt rest, and stand in thy lot at the end of the days." -- KJV, Daniel 12:13


Each person has his own private "lot" allocated for him or her, somewhere in the divine plan, where they remain at the end of time.

For some people, that private lot is in a place called Heaven. For other people, it's somewhere else, where a true Christian would rather not be. That's why the Christian is mostly concerned with his own actions.

Now Christians do try to tell others what to do, but that's when the others say they want to be Christians. Then, like any Father does with his children, they explain the rules of the Holy Book, and correct the kids. They try to follow the example set by God,

"Behold, happy is the man whom God correcteth: therefore despise not thou the chastening of the Almighty: -- KJV, Job 5:17

"My son, despise not the chastening of the LORD; neither be weary of his correction: -- KJV, Proverbs 3:11

"For whom the LORD loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth." -- KJV, Proverbs 3:12

So, you see the Christian corrects the one's they "love". And that's good when those being corrected are Christians. But, whenever a Christian tries to correct a non-Christian, that "love" is interpreted as "hate". That's why the Christian should never try to tell the non-Christian what is right and what is wrong. They cannot understand the difference. They have their own right and wrong rule book. Their other rule book, takes them to another place at the end of time. They don't want to be hanging out with Christians for all eternity, that's too dull and boring.

The place they are going is hot and exciting. They get to meet and connect with alot of hot guys and gals. That's where they want to be. The Christians can't stand the heat there, so they would suffer if they ended up in that domain.

So, each group, Christian and non-Christian, should just leave each other alone.



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 09:56 PM
link   
a reply to: AMPTAH




So, each group, Christian and non-Christian, should just leave each other alone.


something like one in seven hospital beds are in catholic hospitals, and in some places that catholic hospital is the only hospital within 100 miles. it's kind of hard to leave each other alone if you are in the process of miscarrying and the only hospital close enough is going to replace what is thought of as standard care for the situation with a "oh, let's sit on our butts and do nothing till the fetal heartbeat stops even though we know that the fetus doesn't stand a chance anyway and the there's a good possibility that it already has caused and infection and the mother is becoming septic".

if your job is to provide medical care, or tow a car, or whatever and it will increase the danger to another person, then I am sorry, but your religious belief shouldn't give you justification to endanger that person!



posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 12:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: AMPTAH




So, each group, Christian and non-Christian, should just leave each other alone.


something like one in seven hospital beds are in catholic hospitals, and in some places that catholic hospital is the only hospital within 100 miles.


So, put up some Muslim hospitals, and atheist hospitals, and Protestant hospitals, and Jewish hospitals. Why only the Catholics have hospitals?



posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 12:38 AM
link   
a reply to: AMPTAH

Or the Atheists could just buy the hospitals in question. I hear Omamacare has made them profitable again.



posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 10:18 AM
link   
a reply to: AMPTAH
it's like so many other segments in the economy, the big fishies eating the little fishies, probably helped along with gov't cuts in funding in the past.





The key findings from the 2016 update of the Miscarriage of Medicine report are alarming:

As of 2016, 14.5 percent of all acute care hospitals in the United States are Catholic owned or affiliated.
Over the 15-year period 2001 to 2016, the number of acute care hospitals that are Catholic owned or affiliated grew by 22 percent, while the overall number of acute care hospitals
dropped by 6 percent.
One in every six acute care hospital beds is in a facility that is Catholic owned or affiliated.
There are five states (Alaska, Iowa, Washington, Wisconsin and South Dakota) where more than 40 percent of acute care beds are in hospitals operating under Catholic health restrictions. In another five states (Nebraska, Colorado, Missouri, Oregon and Kentucky), between 30 and 39 percent of the acute care beds are in facilities that are Catholic owned or affiliated. In Michigan, 24.4 percent of acute care beds are in Catholic owned or affiliated health systems.
There are 46 Catholic-restricted hospitals that are the sole community providers of short-term acute hospital care for people living in their geographic regions.
The largest Catholic health systems in the nation now control 384 hospitals, compared to 330 in 2011 and 259 in 2001.

www.eclectablog.com...



it's a matter of who has the most money I guess...





I know about these restrictions intimately, in part because I opposed a merger here in Western Maryland between the secular Memorial Hospital and Sacred Heart Hospital, owned by Daughters of Charity.* Part of the plan was to move women’s health to the Catholic facility—which would have meant that women who wanted to have a tubal ligation at the time of delivery would have had to travel a minimum of 1.5 hours over mountain roads to have their baby and surgery. For a safe abortion, I had to refer an indigent patient to Baltimore, three hours away, with no public transportation available. The end-of-life policy was changed to state, “Living wills will not be honored if in conflict with hospital policy”—but no one could tell me what that meant. As in Washington and elsewhere, affiliations or mergers are done behind closed doors and with little to no discussion with the affected community. Patients are often not aware of the restrictions on their care. In fact, despite looking carefully at one hospital’s website, I was unaware that my prospective employer was a Catholic-affiliated hospital until my privileges application asked me to agree to abide by the ERDs. Certainly there was no notice to patients, either, a far more critical issue.

The refusal to do tubal ligations during childbirth also means that a mother with a new baby has to have a second, unnecessary surgery and anesthetic risk, as well as the added recovery times, stresses and expense. Women often don’t have the option to go to another hospital. Sometimes they are limited by distance, or insurance restricts their choices. Leaving your home town to deliver your baby at an unfamiliar, distant secular hospital is prohibitively expensive, stressful and burdensome.

www.forbes.com...


like I said, it's kind of hard to leave them alone if the only hospital within a reasonable travel distance is going to expect you be sacrifice your life for the sake of a non-viable fetus because of the religious beliefs of the upper management!

wait, isn't right to life one of those basic rights granted by the constitution??? yep, but denied because of "religious belief".



posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 02:15 AM
link   
a reply to: DeadFoot

Oh I see and if your are not one of these "protected" classes you get to sit in the back of the bus?

Very 1950's of you guys that support this.

Just goes to show that your no different then the people you yell about.




top topics



 
50
<< 16  17  18   >>

log in

join