bigot co-workers

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
97
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
that is seriously fucked up
Yes, it is. I'm not sure, but I think the intent of at-will laws in most states is to cover for discrimination that would otherwise be illegal. For instance, if you are hired by a company, and the manager later finds out that you are Jewish and he wants to fire you, then he can do so at-will, but not "officially" because he's a bigot.

I'll go with your hypothetical for a moment. (Hypothetical because I've never worked retail.) If some guy walks in, who I don't know, and wants to buy something in the store, of course there's no problem.
Working in retail requires that you sometimes put your personal beliefs aside. If you are unable to do that, you should not work in retail. It's that simple. If you hate driving, you shouldn't work as a cab driver. If it violates your beliefs to drink alcohol, you shouldn't get a job as a wine taster. If you are Jewish or Muslim, you shouldn't get a job in a seafood restaurant, then harass the customers for ordering shellfish.
If the guy, though, advertises himself in some way as living a lifestyle I find particularly objectionable, I might have a problem serving him. If he were gay, probably no problem -- even the Andy Bell/Lea Deloria in-your-face types I've dealt with without a problem. If it becomes a situation where the person decides that he needs to detail his sex life in front of me or swap spit with his bf, then I'm not too happy and I'm probably clearing the scene.
Does it bother you if a hetero couple swaps spit in front of you?
Surfer boy was unclear in his original post how his objectionable co-worker knew that the guys who came in were gay. I've been assuming that they were quite flaming. I don't know if their conversations were on sex or not -- if so, I could definitely see why the co-worker wasn't comfortable.
If you don't understand what's wrong with this, think of it this way - it's not much different than if a black person is told by the Walgreen's clerk "I don't like niggers, so I don't want you in my store. Go away. Go to Rexall."
 

Kevbo

Sexy Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2007
Posts
378
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
248
Okay, GoneA, surferboy, DC_DEEP have replied -- appreciated -- and rather than prolong the thread with even more quoted material, let me try one last time to clarify my intent. In my original response, I was simply trying to make surferboy and other interested parties understand things from Drew's perspective. A mile in his moccasins, and all that. I tried to communicate that flaming homosexuality can be deeply uncomfortable to some Christians. I tried to come up with a similar (example) revulsion that a homosexual might feel, such as that against pedophiles or bestialists. I was not equating homosexuals with either of these two classes of people. I think my second go-around (Bible-thumping Christians) may have gotten the point across better. (But clearly not good enough.)

As far as working retail, I'm sure that you have to deal with things as best as you can, regardless of the customer. Given what's been said about the scenario, could Drew have acted better? Yes. But I do not subscribe to any holy writ that says that all customers, regardless of what we know about them, deserve absolute impartiality in the name of a nondiscriminatory sale. What if a woman works as a cashier, and a guy comes in and creeps her out because of the way he looks at her? And he comes in multiple times a day? Would anyone seriously have a problem with her dodging the sale, even though technically he's guilty of nothing?

For the gays here, I'm sorry to tell you that some folks are never going to be comfortable around you. It is not even necessarily religious-based. If you grant that your feelings (in favor of expressing and embodying your homosexuality) are legitimate, then I hope you will grant their feelings the same level of legitimacy. Even if you don't understand how they could feel that way. Many probably don't understand how you could possibly be attracted to the same sex.

I'm happy to discuss further in email, if anyone wants to continue, but as I said I don't want to prolong the thread since it's a bit off-topic from the original question.

Kevin

P.S. Thanks, BlkIron.
 

GoneA

Sexy Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2005
Posts
5,020
Media
0
Likes
38
Points
268
Working in retail requires that you sometimes put your personal beliefs aside. If you are unable to do that, you should not work in retail. It's that simple. If you hate driving, you shouldn't work as a cab driver. If it violates your beliefs to drink alcohol, you shouldn't get a job as a wine taster. If you are Jewish or Muslim, you shouldn't get a job in a seafood restaurant, then harass the customers for ordering shellfish.

Great analysis!! 'Nuff said.

You have a knack for getting directly to the heart of an issue ... I'm too wordy. :tongue:
 

Freddie53

Superior Member
Gold
Joined
Nov 19, 2004
Posts
5,842
Media
0
Likes
2,609
Points
333
Location
Memphis (Tennessee, United States)
Gender
Male
Kevin,

You make some points heer. But there still are some invalid comparisons here. Of course if a gay person comes in and is hitin on the 17 year old boy, Surfer boy would need to step in and complete the sail But that is not what happened. Just like the example you have about the straight guy hitting on the woman clerk. Sure, someone shoud come to her rescue if possible. But we wouldn't then deterjine that this lady sales clerk would not ring up sales from any striaght man, only gay men and women. That is farfetched.

Unless the customer threatens, hits on or does some other specific thing to the retail clerk, then ring up the damn slae, give the change and be done with it. I have worked in retail. It is a given that not everyone that walks in the door has an eevator that goes to the top. Some can't even make change or carry on a conversration, but we wait on them. I might not like people of the Islam fiath, oh that would be OK we are fight them in Iraq. So how about Christians. Say the clerk says to the customer sorry we will have to get someone else to wait on you. You are one of those religous right wing fundamentalists. I don't ring up sales for fundamenetalists. Come on where is the common sense here

Retaiil clerks ring up sales period. Only if the customer actually does something really wrong to the clerk is there a problem.

Suferboy, you did right. Whatever happens, you have your honor in this. That is more important than that job.
 

GoneA

Sexy Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2005
Posts
5,020
Media
0
Likes
38
Points
268
For the gays here, I'm sorry to tell you that some folks are never going to be comfortable around you. It is not even necessarily religious-based. If you grant that your feelings (in favor of expressing and embodying your homosexuality) are legitimate, then I hope you will grant their feelings the same level of legitimacy. Even if you don't understand how they could feel that way. Many probably don't understand how you could possibly be attracted to the same sex.

Kevbo:

I'll respect your wish to continue this conversation in private. In fact, I might even take you up on that offer. However, I want to speak to the notion you described above as an entirely separate issue.

If you're sorry to report to the gay-community that "some folks" will "never be comfortable around them," then we're equally as sorry to report to you that those same folks are self-loathing, insecure lame-brains...and as time progresses, we'll certainly loose even less sleep over their discomfort.

Also, again, I find you haphazardly equating homosexuality with an unequal prospect. That is, above you stated that if homosexuals have validated their own same-sex-attraction feelings as legitimate, then we should recognize people's discomfort with homosexuality as equally legitimate.

I vehemently disagree with your assertion. Discomfort with homosexuality, no matter how infinitesimal or subtle it might be, almost always translates to a form of discrimination, since anti-gay sentiments are (always) unreasonable and ill-conceived. Whether a person’s disdain for homosexuality is religious based or not, it doesn’t bode well for them either way. It only builds a greater ‘us versus them’ dichotomy between the two groups, than what already exists.


If gays sit back and accept the theory that says: the majority just doesn’t understand us, and never will, then, we’ve essentially become workers against our own cause.

That's why aversion to homosexuality won't gain an equal amount of legitimacy as does our right to be gay. I’m not trying to belabor this topic, but that’s a distinction I had to make clear.

A substantial part of our membership comprises of young, gay people, and I won’t allow them to fall victim to the mode of thinking you expressed above.
 

madame_zora

Sexy Member
Joined
May 5, 2004
Posts
9,608
Media
0
Likes
52
Points
258
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Kevbo, I find it disingenuous of you to post a long diatribe about how it's okay to be a bigot, but then offer to keep the replies private. Bullshit!

You can't come to a gay friendly group and drop bombs like that and expect to gain any respect at all among the members. If you are "uncomfortable" around gays, regardless of your reasons, then it is YOU who are out of place, and might want to be asking yourself what your straight ass is doing on a PENIS site. I have a real problem with religous conservatives preaching on a sex site, just call it an issue I have with hypocrisy.

You may be entirely unaware that the world is growing up around you, and your closed-minded thinking is simply getting left behind, but I guess it just sucks to be you. Just think if I substituted the word "Christian" for every time you posted "homosexual", how would that make you feel, if I did that at your church?

You are quite free to hold whatever opinions you choose, you are even free to post them here, but you are NOT free to refuse rebuttal, and your post really sucks.
 

Freddie53

Superior Member
Gold
Joined
Nov 19, 2004
Posts
5,842
Media
0
Likes
2,609
Points
333
Location
Memphis (Tennessee, United States)
Gender
Male
I'm happy to discuss further in email, if anyone wants to continue, but as I said I don't want to prolong the thread since it's a bit off-topic from the original question.
I have to disagree. What you consider off topic is at the heart of the problem here. Retail clerks should notbe deciding which customers that will ring up sales for and which customers they will refuse service or have another employee ring the sail up based on:

hair color
race
gender
member of the Catholic Church
not a member of the Catholic Church
member/non member of any other religious organization
dick size in males
breast size in women
age
those with irritable bowel syndrome
those who do not have irritable bowel syndrome
the address where the customer lives
And the list could go on for ever

And sex orientation is right there along with dick size. Sure if a guy wanted to show his dick to the clerk that would be a reason to get someone else to handle the sale.

And the convicted pedophile. If one comes into the store, doesn't make any contact with a child, and is behaving himself. By all means, ring up his purchases. The guy/gal has to buy food somewhere.

I can see it now. May I see our driver's license. Sir may I ask the size of your dick. Barely made it. I only check out guys with at least six inches. May I asked your sexual orientation? Not gay, Great. One final question then I can accept your check. Is that your natural hair color or do you use hair coloring? Oh I'm so sorry. Our church doesn't believe in using dye on your hair. Wait a minute, I'll get Gail to ring thisse up. She's a hair dyer too. Going straight to hell in a hand basket too.

When Gail gets through ringing up your purchases, do you have a few minutes so I can "witness" to you. I have these tracts.......
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
97
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
Okay, GoneA, surferboy, DC_DEEP have replied -- appreciated -- and rather than prolong the thread with even more quoted material, let me try one last time to clarify my intent. In my original response, I was simply trying to make surferboy and other interested parties understand things from Drew's perspective. A mile in his moccasins, and all that. I tried to communicate that flaming homosexuality can be deeply uncomfortable to some Christians. I tried to come up with a similar (example) revulsion that a homosexual might feel, such as that against pedophiles or bestialists. I was not equating homosexuals with either of these two classes of people. I think my second go-around (Bible-thumping Christians) may have gotten the point across better. (But clearly not good enough.)

As far as working retail, I'm sure that you have to deal with things as best as you can, regardless of the customer. Given what's been said about the scenario, could Drew have acted better? Yes. But I do not subscribe to any holy writ that says that all customers, regardless of what we know about them, deserve absolute impartiality in the name of a nondiscriminatory sale. What if a woman works as a cashier, and a guy comes in and creeps her out because of the way he looks at her? And he comes in multiple times a day? Would anyone seriously have a problem with her dodging the sale, even though technically he's guilty of nothing?

For the gays here, I'm sorry to tell you that some folks are never going to be comfortable around you. It is not even necessarily religious-based. If you grant that your feelings (in favor of expressing and embodying your homosexuality) are legitimate, then I hope you will grant their feelings the same level of legitimacy. Even if you don't understand how they could feel that way. Many probably don't understand how you could possibly be attracted to the same sex.

I'm happy to discuss further in email, if anyone wants to continue, but as I said I don't want to prolong the thread since it's a bit off-topic from the original question.

Kevin

P.S. Thanks, BlkIron.
Kevin, you are still missing the point. I understand that Drew hates homosexuals. That is a complete red herring in this discussion.

The point is that it is Drew's job to ring up a customers' purchases, not to pass judgement on their private lives. Regardless of how he feels about any group, if he cannot ring up their purchases, he should not be in that job. He is entitled to have any opinions he wants, and he is entitled to believe whatever he chooses; he is not entitled to refuse service to any person based on his assumptions, if he is in a retail position.

Personally, I don't really care if anyone is "uncomfortable" around me, or feels "revulsion" at what they imagine about my private affairs. But if it is their job to provide a service to me, which I pay for, they better damned well do it. When I have worked in retail or in customer service, yes, I had to attend to customers whom I didn't care for. I still did my job, because that was my job. Had it been more than I could bear, I would not have continued in that line of work. Simple. Should a Quaker or Buddhist enlist in the military, then refuse to go to the rifle range or refuse an overseas combat deployment because they find killing to be abhorrant?

I say again, if his religious beliefs preclude him doing his job, he should find a different job.
 

JustAsking

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Posts
3,217
Media
0
Likes
33
Points
268
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Look, everyone will have a subjective response to this, because (a dangerous thing to say here, but I'll say it) the acceptability of the homosexual lifestyle is far from settled in this country. I'm a Christian and I can tell you that some Christians find "flaming" behavior and obvious transsexuality very unsettling. (The merits of this can and should be debated elsewhere.) You may argue that Christianity should be more accepting of "alternate lifestyles", but everybody draws the line somewhere. For many Christians, the fact that homosexuality is roundly condemned in both the Old and New Testaments, with the closest "positive" example being the open-to-interpretation tale of David and Jonathan, gives them most of the Scriptural endorsement they need for the discomfort they feel.

Thought experiment: let's say 3 known pedophiles, or 3 known animal sodomists, walked into your store and demanded service. Are you saying that you wouldn't have at least some issue with dealing with them? Because the revulsion you (probably?) feel is akin to how some Christians feel near flaming homosexuality. Unfair? Stupid? Unenlightened? Perhaps, IYO. But pretty much the way things are.

And, if you're wondering, I know and am friends with some homo/bisexuals, and I don't get in their faces or witness to them. But they know I'm uncomfortable with their lifestyles and understand. I hope the significant gay population here will take my comments above in the context of the original scenario.

Kevin

Kevin,
Consider that you and I both say we are Christians, yet my faith informs me such that I find homophobia abhorrent. I feel this way because of how it fits with what I think is the absolute core of Christianity. So its not a small thing with me. I am deeply religious, so this will not be an anti-religion rant.

Given that, you and I, both claiming to be Christians are the perfect example of why in the public sector, no special consideration should be given to a moral opinion derived from religious principles compared to opinions derived from other sources. A non-Christian is perfectly justified in looking at our polar opposite opinions and saying that moral opinions that are religiously derived are simply arbitrary, and most probably irrational.

So I have to say that given this particular work situation, religion is not a valid excuse for homophobia. Given your extended example of a known pedophile or a known animal sodomist walking into the shop, my faith informs me that I would also have to add homophobes to the list because I find them as abhorent as any of the others. See how arbitrary this exercise becomes?

What about this list: Suppose a well known white supremecist, and Pastor Fred Phelps, the well known rabidly homophobic Pastor of Westboro Baptist Church walked in. Is it ok for me to refuse them service because I abhor racism and discrimination of all types? Or should I give Pastor Phelps a pass because his homophobia is religiously motivated? If so, suppose you happen to walk in at the same time. I would have to group you in the same category as well, if I knew about your religous homophobia.

So I have to discard the religions motivation behind all this discrimination and examine it from a different point of view in order to form an opinion on the behavior of the store clerk in the OP.

From the point of view of the public sector, the American one, that is, there is a Constitution that guarantees equal rights for everyone, so we know what the law thinks about whether a gay person can make a purchase in a store or not. The bad news for all those who would want to discriminate or otherwise restrict the rights of any human being in our society, we have both the Constitution and we have hate crime laws.

In the light of civil law, then, your example breaks down because pedophilia, beastiality are both illegal in most states, but homosexuality is not prohibited in most states.

But ultimately this OP's scenario should be looked at as a work related event. Here we have an employee who refuses to perform his job function when it involves customers from some significant percent of the population (15% in Los Angeles, for example). I say this is a serious hardship for the employer, since this is a retail store and the main job of the employee is to sell merchandise to customers.

The fact that the employee claims that it is a hardship for him to do that would fall under the same guidelines as other hardships, such as a disability. In these cases, an employer is not obligated to hire someone with a disability if the disability would clearly interfere with the main function of the job.

For example, a hospital is not bound to hire a blind brain surgeon, or a comatose receptionist. However, if the disabilty would not prevent the employee from performing his main job function, the employer is expected to make reasonable accomodations. For example, a software developer in a wheelchair could surely develop software and he would be in his rights to request that the path from the car to his office be wheelchair accessible.

In summary, the employer is totally in his rights to fire the cashier for refusing to perform his job function when faced with customers of a certain demographic, be it racial, ethnic, gender, economic, or sexual preference. And an employer (or anyone else for that matter) is certainly not obligated to give any special consideration to an employees desire to discriminate for religions reasons.

Religious morality is especially suspect. The only times Christianity, for example, gets it right is when it bases its decisions on love. Morality from religious law is arbitrary and irrational. If it weren't then I would not be abhoring homophobia as much as you would be abhoring homosexuality, while both of us are deriving our theology from the same book.
 

Principessa

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Posts
18,660
Media
0
Likes
138
Points
193
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
Just Asking, That was quite a post. Absolutely brilliantly written. That pretty much sums it up.

I concur.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I do have one question though. Why do people who don't approve of homosexuality always go to bestiality and pedophilia as equally abhorrent for comparison? :confused:

I would have no problem with homosexuals living next door to me. However, I would have a huge problem with people who engage in bestiality and pedophilia living next door to me. It's not like comparing apples and oranges. It's like oranges and steel rebar. Don't tell me it's because I'm a left wing liberal. I actually know the definitions of those words and they are in no way, shape, or form related. Perhaps the religious right should put down their bibles and pick up a dictionary.
 

IntoxicatingToxin

Cherished Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2006
Posts
7,638
Media
0
Likes
256
Points
283
Location
Kansas City (Missouri, United States)
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Female
Kevin,
Consider that you and I both say we are Christians, yet my faith informs me such that I find homophobia abhorrent. I feel this way because of how it fits with what I think is the absolute core of Christianity. So its not a small thing with me. I am deeply religious, so this will not be an anti-religion rant.

Given that, you and I, both claiming to be Christians are the perfect example of why in the public sector, no special consideration should be given to a moral opinion derived from religious principles compared to opinions derived from other sources. A non-Christian is perfectly justified in looking at our polar opposite opinions and saying that moral opinions that are religiously derived are simply arbitrary, and most probably irrational.

So I have to say that given this particular work situation, religion is not a valid excuse for homophobia. Given your extended example of a known pedophile or a known animal sodomist walking into the shop, my faith informs me that I would also have to add homophobes to the list because I find them as abhorent as any of the others. See how arbitrary this exercise becomes?

What about this list: Suppose a well known white supremecist, and Pastor Fred Phelps, the well known rabidly homophobic Pastor of Westboro Baptist Church walked in. Is it ok for me to refuse them service because I abhor racism and discrimination of all types? Or should I give Pastor Phelps a pass because his homophobia is religiously motivated? If so, suppose you happen to walk in at the same time. I would have to group you in the same category as well, if I knew about your religous homophobia.

So I have to discard the religions motivation behind all this discrimination and examine it from a different point of view in order to form an opinion on the behavior of the store clerk in the OP.

From the point of view of the public sector, the American one, that is, there is a Constitution that guarantees equal rights for everyone, so we know what the law thinks about whether a gay person can make a purchase in a store or not. The bad news for all those who would want to discriminate or otherwise restrict the rights of any human being in our society, we have both the Constitution and we have hate crime laws.

In the light of civil law, then, your example breaks down because pedophilia, beastiality are both illegal in most states, but homosexuality is not prohibited in most states.

But ultimately this OP's scenario should be looked at as a work related event. Here we have an employee who refuses to perform his job function when it involves customers from some significant percent of the population (15% in Los Angeles, for example). I say this is a serious hardship for the employer, since this is a retail store and the main job of the employee is to sell merchandise to customers.

The fact that the employee claims that it is a hardship for him to do that would fall under the same guidelines as other hardships, such as a disability. In these cases, an employer is not obligated to hire someone with a disability if the disability would clearly interfere with the main function of the job.

For example, a hospital is not bound to hire a blind brain surgeon, or a comatose receptionist. However, if the disabilty would not prevent the employee from performing his main job function, the employer is expected to make reasonable accomodations. For example, a software developer in a wheelchair could surely develop software and he would be in his rights to request that the path from the car to his office be wheelchair accessible.

In summary, the employer is totally in his rights to fire the cashier for refusing to perform his job function when faced with customers of a certain demographic, be it racial, ethnic, gender, economic, or sexual preference. And an employer (or anyone else for that matter) is certainly not obligated to give any special consideration to an employees desire to discriminate for religions reasons.

Religious morality is especially suspect. The only times Christianity, for example, gets it right is when it bases its decisions on love. Morality from religious law is arbitrary and irrational. If it weren't then I would not be abhoring homophobia as much as you would be abhoring homosexuality, while both of us are deriving our theology from the same book.

Can I just say that you're awesome?
 

IntoxicatingToxin

Cherished Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2006
Posts
7,638
Media
0
Likes
256
Points
283
Location
Kansas City (Missouri, United States)
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Female
I concur.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I do have one question though. Why do people who don't approve of homosexuality always go to bestiality and pedophilia as equally abhorrent for comparison? :confused:

I would have no problem with homosexuals living next door to me. However, I would have a huge problem with people who engage in bestiality and pedophilia living next door to me. It's not like comparing apples and oranges. It's like oranges and steel rebar. Don't tell me it's because I'm a left wing liberal. I actually know the definitions of those words and they are in no way, shape, or form related. Perhaps the religious right should put down their bibles and pick up a dictionary.

I totally agree. And I love your comparison of oranges and steel rebar. :tongue: For me, people are born gay. They don't get a choice in the matter of who they are attracted to. However, people are not born as pedophiliacs and beastialitists... (beastialiters??). Anyway. Homosexuals don't hurt other people (or animals). When they choose to be with a person, it's consensual. That makes all the difference for me.
 

JustAsking

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Posts
3,217
Media
0
Likes
33
Points
268
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
I concur.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I do have one question though. Why do people who don't approve of homosexuality always go to bestiality and pedophilia as equally abhorrent for comparison? :confused:

I would have no problem with homosexuals living next door to me. However, I would have a huge problem with people who engage in bestiality and pedophilia living next door to me. It's not like comparing apples and oranges. It's like oranges and steel rebar. Don't tell me it's because I'm a left wing liberal. I actually know the definitions of those words and they are in no way, shape, or form related. Perhaps the religious right should put down their bibles and pick up a dictionary.

yes, you could say that it is all arbitrary, however, both pedophilia and beastiality differ from homosexuality in that the first two are not consensual. The first two both represent an extreme imbalance of power when it comes to sex acts. They are more in the category of rape than anything else, where a more powerful party is "using" a less powerful party. So they don't make good analogies to homosexuality, even if you insisted that homosexuality was a choice.
 

NCbear

Superior Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2006
Posts
1,978
Media
0
Likes
2,622
Points
343
Location
Greensboro (North Carolina, United States)
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
NCbear:

Please marry me.

Thank you,

GoneA (who often wonders why he hadn't proposed earlier.) :tongue:

You're cuter than cute, GoneA. And I really enjoy reading your posts. (Miss your pics, though.)

In an alternate universe, one in which I were single, I'd take you up on that.

NCbear (who likes intelligent, warm-hearted, open-minded people)
 

NCbear

Superior Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2006
Posts
1,978
Media
0
Likes
2,622
Points
343
Location
Greensboro (North Carolina, United States)
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
[...]

This is a very slippery slope. What if an employee refused to ring a customer up because the customer were divorced?

[...]

My answer?

You'd never be able to serve evangelicals, the majority of whom have been married more than once.

NCbear (who's feeling just a tad bit bitchy at the moment re: "protection of marriage" by serial monogamists)
 

JustAsking

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Posts
3,217
Media
0
Likes
33
Points
268
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
My answer?

You'd never be able to serve evangelicals, the majority of whom have been married more than once.

NCbear (who's feeling just a tad bit bitchy at the moment re: "protection of marriage" by serial monogamists)
Absolutely! Excellent. And how about rich people? Jesus spends much more time on that topic than sexual practices. In fact, anyone who has enough money to buy something could be included in that category, in which case, the cashier should not provide service to anyone.

And suppose it was in India?
A local court in northern India Thursday issued arrest warrants for actors Richard Gere and Shilpa Shetty in connection with their kissing at a public function in New Delhi, news reports said. The additional chief judicial magistrate of Jaipur city issued the warrants while admitting a public interest litigation filed by a city resident Poonam Chand Bhandari, PTI news agency reported.
Bhandari had filed the suit complaining that Shetty and Gere had acted in an obscene manner in public.

This is what happens when religion strays into "law" instead of "love" and when there is no separation between church and state. Religion is too important and personal for the government to interfere with it, but it is also too dangerous for it to interfere with government.

Serial monogamists. Good one NCBear.
 

Kevbo

Sexy Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2007
Posts
378
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
248
Well, I guess what I'm finding is that I'm a poor writer. I thought I was better than that, but almost no one seems to "get" that I'm just trying to get people to see things from the other side.

First things first. Why am I here? Answer: because I have a thicker-than-average penis, though unfortunately not as proportional in length, and have had trouble with condoms. I thought the "Large Penis Support Group" was the place to go. As far as I know, there is no "Large Penis Support Group, but conservative points of view are given fair weight" website. If there is, someone please point me to it.

Madame Zora: Religious conservatives can't have concerns about their penis size? Religious conservatives can't be allowed to learn how to be better lovers with the equipment God gave them? I'm the bigot? Bigotry can be a relative term, n'est-ce pas? As for "refusing rebuttal", that was not my intent -- I offered email -- I was simply trying to get out of the main thread, which I perceived to be whether surferboy could be fired for reporting Drew.

DC DEEP: you make more sense than anyone else who has replied to me. I respectfully disagree on the sort of absolutist terms you imply on working retail (I think there can always be exceptions) but I think you make a good point that Drew might be a happier lad working somewhere where he will not be put in a situation he obviously doesn't handle within the best interests of the business.

JustAsking: you wrote what a lot of folks here wanted to hear, and you definitely are a better fit with the demographic here than me, apparently. But I must wonder what your reading of the Bible is to endorse homosexuality without endorsing all the other things that the Bible usually speaks ill of. Please drop me some email if you care to discuss. I'm with you that love is very important for a Christian, and Jesus had a rep for hanging out with folks that the religious leaders of the day did not, but I don't see any evidence that he encouraged or endorsed continued sinful behavior.

njqt: you misunderstood my post and follow-ups. One more time... I'm not equating homosexuality with pedophilia. I was simply trying to find an example of a behavior people would find repulsive. You actually made my point for me when you said you would not feel comfortable living next to a pedophile.

TattooedMamaMeg: you think gays are born, but not pedophiles? I'm seriously interested in hearing your theory of where pedophiles come from.

Let me sum up here by saying that I'm pretty discouraged from posting further (great applause erupts). I don't know if it's poor writing on my part or willful misreading on others' part, but apparently many folks here don't want to even contemplate the conservative side of things. Sorry if I rippled the pond too harshly here. (Sigh.)

Kevin
 

madame_zora

Sexy Member
Joined
May 5, 2004
Posts
9,608
Media
0
Likes
52
Points
258
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Kevin, you are on a gay-friendly site. You simply cannot post that you think homosexuality is inherantly wrong, regardless of your reasons, and have it go unchallenged. For what it's worth, we've had extensive conversations as to why even in biblical terms, Jesus himself had very little to say on the subject, and it's questionable as to whether the words translated as "homosexual" were not in fact referring to church prostitution, which of course was frowned upon at the time. Since we no longer have church prostitutes, there wasn't a good translation.

Even were this not the case, there are plenty of things in the NT, such as referring to slaves obeying their masters. We don't condone slavery anymore, does that mean we're in conflict with the Bible? Of course not! Nowhere did Jesus say that his words were to be the last things we ever considered as time went on, in fact- Jesus never even directed anyone to record his words at all, so the Bible itself is not of Jesus.

Jesus made a huge public spectacle of disobeying the current laws of the church, and to miss that is to not understand very well why he was moved to preach. He was a reformer, who continually came out on the side of Loving your brother, and seeing to your own heart. You are saying nothing new or controversial here, and in fact, had we not fairly recently had an exhaustive set of discussions on the subject, you wouldn't be finding so many of us feeling pretty strongly that it's just not worth discussing yet again.

http://www.lpsg.org/et-cetera-et-cetera/43038-the-council-of-nicaea-325-a.html

There was a better one about religion and homosexuality, but I can't remember the title or who started it. perhaps one of our other members can find it. Neither of these threads turned into bitch-fests, nor were they bible-bashing. I hope someone does find the other thread, I think you'll find the opinions of many different perspectives represented.

Sorry, but there's just no polite way of saying that you think over half of our membership is somehow less deserving of rights because YOUR interpretation of the Bible says so. The world really isn't flat, black people certainly are equal human beings, and eventually the church will have to concede that gay people are too. Every time the church has to make an adjustment though, they do so kicking and screaming. They still do it, so why waste the energy to protest the inevitable?


edit- I have to take exception to your redress of JustAsking. Did you not read anything the man wrote? "Just saying what people want to hear"? Clearly, he brought up other sins that Jesus spent far more time talking about than homosexuality, why are THOSE sins not more important, if He talked about them more? I really want an answer to this.