Christians sue schools for right to bash gays.

Christians are claiming tolerance policies are infringing on their freedom of religion They say they have the Constitutional right to publicly denounce and ridicule gays and lesbians.

Large, well funded Christian organizations are funneling money into high power legal efforts through organizations like the Christian Legal Society, Focus on Family and the Campus Crusade for Christ to file lawsuits that establish gay bashing as a "right".

They claim anti-harassment rules infringe their "Right to be Christian".

What these Christians really want is what Islam has - the right to publicly execute anyone they please to call a "heretic" - anyone who has a different lifestyle or different opinions from their own (and no doubt especially Christian sects that misinterpret the Bible).

Long article in the Los Angeles Times today (4-10-06 front page).

[link|http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-christians10apr10,0,6204444.story?coll=la-story-footer|LA Times]

The Rev. Rick Scarborough, a leading evangelical, frames the movement as the civil rights struggle of the 21st century. "Christians," he said, "are going to have to take a stand for the right to be Christian."

Notice the casual bias. It's not freedome of speech or religion. It is her right to be Christian.

Critics dismiss such talk as a right-wing fundraising ploy. "They're trying to develop a persecution complex," said Jeremy Gunn, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief.

Trying to develop? He hasn't been paying attention.

"What if a person felt their religious view was that African Americans shouldn't mingle with Caucasians, or that women shouldn't work?" asked Jon Davidson, legal director of the gay rights group Lambda Legal.

Christian activist Gregory S. Baylor responds to such criticism angrily. He says he supports policies that protect people from discrimination based on race and gender. But he draws a distinction that infuriates gay rights activists when he argues that sexual orientation is different \ufffd a lifestyle choice, not an inborn trait.

Apparently he thinks a person's religion is an inborn trait.

By equating homosexuality with race, Baylor said, tolerance policies put conservative evangelicals in the same category as racists. He predicts the government will one day revoke the tax-exempt status of churches that preach homosexuality is sinful or that refuse to hire gays and lesbians.

He is right on the first. They do put them in the same category, and they do so correctly. His persecution complex is showing on the second, and it's obviously well developed.

They will lose this suit. But I'm sure they will get a lot of press out of it along the way.

Jay

Post #251,577 by Andrew Grygus 4/10/06 1:45:23 PM Reply	Christians sue schools for right to bash gays. Christians are claiming tolerance policies are infringing on their freedom of religion They say they have the Constitutional right to publicly denounce and ridicule gays and lesbians. Large, well funded Christian organizations are funneling money into high power legal efforts through organizations like the Christian Legal Society, Focus on Family and the Campus Crusade for Christ to file lawsuits that establish gay bashing as a "right". They claim anti-harassment rules infringe their "Right to be Christian". What these Christians really want is what Islam has - the right to publicly execute anyone they please to call a "heretic" - anyone who has a different lifestyle or different opinions from their own (and no doubt especially Christian sects that misinterpret the Bible). Long article in the Los Angeles Times today (4-10-06 front page). [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #251,579 by jb4 4/10/06 1:53:31 PM Reply	And if I choose to call these fundie right-wing whackjobs "heretics", can I publically execute them? If the answer is 'yes', I might consider a street-corner conversion.... jb4 "Every Repbulican who wants to defend Bush on [the expansion of Presidential powers], should be forced to say, 'I wouldn't hesitate to see President Hillary Rodham Clinton have the same authority'." &mdash an unidentified letter writer to Newsweek on the expansion of executive powers under the Bush administration
Post #251,581 by Andrew Grygus 4/10/06 2:01:37 PM 4/10/06 2:03:51 PM Reply	No By definition, if you are not a fundie right-wing whackjob you are a heretic who should be executed immediately. However, if you are a fundie right-wing whackjob it's open season on fundie right-wing whackjobs that mistakenly hold a slightly different Truth, just like in Iraq. Iraq must look like a vision of Heaven to fundies - with only the flaw that it's Islamic and not Christian. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx] Edited by Andrew Grygus April 10, 2006, 02:03:51 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #251,582 by jb4 4/10/06 2:04:06 PM Reply	Damn! (Oops! I blasphemed!) jb4 "Every Repbulican who wants to defend Bush on [the expansion of Presidential powers], should be forced to say, 'I wouldn't hesitate to see President Hillary Rodham Clinton have the same authority'." &mdash an unidentified letter writer to Newsweek on the expansion of executive powers under the Bush administration
Post #251,583 by jb4 4/10/06 2:05:37 PM Reply	So the last Pure Christian standing will be... The fundi right-wing whackjob with the biggest gun.... Hmmmm, you're right! It is just like Iraq! jb4 "Every Repbulican who wants to defend Bush on [the expansion of Presidential powers], should be forced to say, 'I wouldn't hesitate to see President Hillary Rodham Clinton have the same authority'." &mdash an unidentified letter writer to Newsweek on the expansion of executive powers under the Bush administration
Post #251,592 by hnick 4/10/06 2:18:30 PM Reply	It's the best solution to date... We're trying to make Iraq just like us. They aren't cooperating, so we change things on this side. The only fly in the ointment is that we are recreating the same sides as the Crusades and we already have an invasion force in place... Nah, they'll never notice... I sincerely hope I don't need the sign.
Post #251,611 by drewk 4/10/06 3:48:43 PM Reply	And remember, kiddies Just because it's sarcasm doesn't mean it isn't true. === Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link\|http://DocHope.com\|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats]. [link\|http://DocHope.com\|http://DocHope.com]
Post #251,645 by Ashton 4/10/06 7:53:59 PM Reply	Repetition.. shades of (last) cold war - Remember? (fondly??) how it was that the Muricans and Reds would become just like each other; save the trouble of 'prevailing' cha cha cha ie We Don't Learn Shit. or maybe, That's All We Learn. parsing meets in the middle Welcome to Ground Hog Day - in the XII Century
Post #251,637 by JayMehaffey 4/10/06 7:01:31 PM Reply	Article to go with this idiocy [link\|http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-christians10apr10,0,6204444.story?coll=la-story-footer\|LA Times] The Rev. Rick Scarborough, a leading evangelical, frames the movement as the civil rights struggle of the 21st century. "Christians," he said, "are going to have to take a stand for the right to be Christian." Notice the casual bias. It's not freedome of speech or religion. It is her right to be Christian. Critics dismiss such talk as a right-wing fundraising ploy. "They're trying to develop a persecution complex," said Jeremy Gunn, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief. Trying to develop? He hasn't been paying attention. "What if a person felt their religious view was that African Americans shouldn't mingle with Caucasians, or that women shouldn't work?" asked Jon Davidson, legal director of the gay rights group Lambda Legal. Christian activist Gregory S. Baylor responds to such criticism angrily. He says he supports policies that protect people from discrimination based on race and gender. But he draws a distinction that infuriates gay rights activists when he argues that sexual orientation is different \ufffd a lifestyle choice, not an inborn trait. Apparently he thinks a person's religion is an inborn trait. By equating homosexuality with race, Baylor said, tolerance policies put conservative evangelicals in the same category as racists. He predicts the government will one day revoke the tax-exempt status of churches that preach homosexuality is sinful or that refuse to hire gays and lesbians. He is right on the first. They do put them in the same category, and they do so correctly. His persecution complex is showing on the second, and it's obviously well developed. They will lose this suit. But I'm sure they will get a lot of press out of it along the way. Jay
Post #251,650 by drewk 4/10/06 8:24:21 PM Reply	Too bad the obvious comeback never works But he draws a distinction that infuriates gay rights activists when he argues that sexual orientation is different \ufffd a lifestyle choice, not an inborn trait. And every time someone says that, I want to ask that person, "So you regularly find yourself attracted to other men, and it's only by conscious choice that you've never dated one?" === Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link\|http://DocHope.com\|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats]. [link\|http://DocHope.com\|http://DocHope.com]
Post #251,665 by boxley 4/10/06 9:19:35 PM Reply	too bad common sense does not prevail I know several gay people, a few openly, some not up for discussion. None of them would agressively insist on shoving their practices upon me and mine. Now I also say that I know evangelicals who know I enjoy a good natter on the bible vs beliefs. But they know better than to badger me on the subject. Now if the right reverend phelps would give some guy a blowjob I think the world might be a better place. thanx, bill Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 50 years. meep
Post #251,742 by tuberculosis 4/11/06 12:22:19 PM Reply	Help! Help! I'm bein' repressed! [link\|http://www.blackbagops.net\|Black Bag Operations Log] [link\|http://www.objectiveclips.com\|Artificial Intelligence] [link\|http://www.badpage.info/seaside/html\|Scrutinizer]
Post #251,744 by warmachine 4/11/06 12:37:17 PM Reply	Isn't it 'oppressed'? Considering the nature of the supposed victims, perhaps "Help! Help! I'm repressed!" is more appropriate. Matthew Greet Choose Life. Choose a job. Choose a career. Choose a family. Choose a fucking big television, choose washing machines, cars, compact disc players and electrical tin openers. Choose good health, low cholesterol, and dental insurance. Choose fixed interest mortgage repayments. Choose a starter home. Choose your friends. Choose leisurewear and matching luggage. Choose DIY and wondering who the fuck you are on a Sunday morning. Choose sitting on that couch watching mind-numbing, spirit-crushing game shows, stuffing fucking junk food into your mouth. Choose rotting away at the end of it all, pishing your last in a miserable home, nothing more than an embarrassment to the selfish, fucked up brats you spawned to replace yourself. Choose your future. Choose life... But why would I want to do a thing like that? I chose not to choose life. I chose somethin' else. And the reasons? There are no reasons. Who needs reasons when you've got heroin? - Mark Renton, Trainspotting.
Post #251,749 by jb4 4/11/06 12:59:23 PM Reply	Maybe more like 'suppressed' jb4 "Every Repbulican who wants to defend Bush on [the expansion of Presidential powers], should be forced to say, 'I wouldn't hesitate to see President Hillary Rodham Clinton have the same authority'." &mdash an unidentified letter writer to Newsweek on the expansion of executive powers under the Bush administration
Post #251,761 by imqwerky 4/11/06 1:46:22 PM Reply	How 'bout cross-dressed? :-D Stop looking at my signature!
Post #251,764 by Another Scott 4/11/06 1:56:09 PM Reply	No, no, it's "I'm being Depressed!" [link\|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Python_and_The_Holy_Grail\|Monty Python and the Holy Grail], or [link\|http://www.intriguing.com/mp/_sounds/hg/repress.wav\|Repress.wav]. ;-) Cheers, Scott.
Post #251,800 by jb4 4/11/06 4:53:15 PM Reply	I sometimes go out with my shirt unpressed... jb4 "Every Repbulican who wants to defend Bush on [the expansion of Presidential powers], should be forced to say, 'I wouldn't hesitate to see President Hillary Rodham Clinton have the same authority'." &mdash an unidentified letter writer to Newsweek on the expansion of executive powers under the Bush administration
Post #251,806 by imqwerky 4/11/06 5:14:39 PM Reply	Doesn't that make you stressed? Stop looking at my signature!
Post #251,864 by jb4 4/11/06 11:13:45 PM Reply	Yeah, and the wind also gets my hair messed.... jb4 "Every Repbulican who wants to defend Bush on [the expansion of Presidential powers], should be forced to say, 'I wouldn't hesitate to see President Hillary Rodham Clinton have the same authority'." &mdash an unidentified letter writer to Newsweek on the expansion of executive powers under the Bush administration
Post #252,933 by Andrew Grygus 4/21/06 5:49:53 PM Reply	Christians lost in San Diego. Court of appeals voted 2 to 1 to permit the school to ban gay-bashing T shirts. Strong contrary opinion by the third judge (Regan appointed) but he was overruled by the other two. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #253,197 by Meerkat 4/24/06 1:40:36 AM Reply	I'm glad sanity has prevailed. The fact that such a case has arisen in the first case, well I guess that's a different matter. Two out of three people wonder where the other one is.

Welcome to IWETHEY!