PDA

View Full Version : Society Should ‘Not Tolerate Private Beliefs’ That ‘Adversely Affect’ Homosexuals



megimoo
01-18-2010, 03:25 PM
Obama Nominee: Society Should ‘Not Tolerate Private Beliefs’ That ‘Adversely Affect’ Homosexuals

"Another Queer Czar For OBummers Cabinet !"

'Identity liberty' versus 'belief liberty'

"Feldblum does recognize that elements of the homosexual agenda may infringe on Americans’ religious liberties. However, Feldblum argues that society should “come down on the side” of homosexual equality at the expense of religious liberty. Because the conflict between the two is “irreconcilable,” religious liberty -- which she also calls "belief liberty" -- must be placed second to the “identity liberty” of homosexuals."

- Chai Feldblum, the Georgetown University law professor nominated by President Obama to serve on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, has written that society should “not tolerate” any “private beliefs,” including religious beliefs, that may negatively affect homosexual “equality.”

Feldblum, whose nomination was advanced in a closed session of the Senate Health Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee on December 12, published an article entitled “Moral Conflict and Liberty: Gay Rights and Religion” in the Brooklyn Law Review in 2006.

“Just as we do not tolerate private racial beliefs that adversely affect African-Americans in the commercial arena, even if such beliefs are based on religious views, we should similarly not tolerate private beliefs about sexual orientation and gender identity that adversely affect LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender] people,” the Georgetown law professor argued.



http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/59965

AmPat
01-18-2010, 03:30 PM
Quick, archive this so that we can shove this back down all those liberal DIMWITocRAT "TOLERANT" throats.

lacarnut
01-18-2010, 03:35 PM
This queer loving bitch does not get it. Blacks do not support gay marriage or homosexuality by a larger proportion than whites do. This retard can go to Canada if she does not like it here.

obx
01-18-2010, 06:11 PM
My freedom of religion trumps your sexual peversion. Now shut up dyke.
________
Buy bubblers (http://bubblers.net/)

NJCardFan
01-18-2010, 06:49 PM
This queer loving bitch does not get it. Blacks do not support gay marriage or homosexuality by a larger proportion than whites do. This retard can go to Canada if she does not like it here.

I guess these people didn't pay attention to the Prop 8 vote in Cali. They focused all of their anger at the Mormons when in fact it was the black vote that killed it.

PoliCon
01-18-2010, 07:46 PM
I guess these people didn't pay attention to the Prop 8 vote in Cali. They focused all of their anger at the Mormons when in fact it was the black vote that killed it.

Ah! But blacks are a protected minority. Mormons aren't. It's safe to target them. Besides - lets not credit these guys with an excess of courage.

Bubba Dawg
01-18-2010, 07:47 PM
I thought they believed in a right to privacy....:confused::D

Constitutionally Speaking
01-18-2010, 08:11 PM
Scratch a liberal, find a fascist. EVERY TIME.

PoliCon
01-18-2010, 08:12 PM
I thought they believed in a right to privacy....:confused::D

They do. for them. Not for anyone else silly. :rolleyes:

PoliCon
01-18-2010, 08:13 PM
Scratch a liberal, find a fascist. EVERY TIME.

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html most people don't even know what fascism was.

Constitutionally Speaking
01-18-2010, 08:30 PM
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html most people don't even know what fascism was.

How right you are.

Swampfox
01-18-2010, 11:59 PM
You know, if gay marriage supporters just fought for the right to marry and stressed that it is also the right of churches not to perform the ceremony if they disagree with it then I think they'd get more support.

Swampfox
01-19-2010, 12:21 AM
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html most people don't even know what fascism was.

That was a great read. Thank you.

Speedy
01-19-2010, 01:16 AM
Be sure and run that by a few mosques. Run in and trample a few Muslims at prayer. See what kind of reception you get.

You know, I would gladly buy what these stupid assholes are selling. All of them. The ACLU, the Queers and every other loopy group out there. I would jump over to their side if they ever pulled their shit at a mosque or included Muslims in their little fucking rants. Like that would ever happen.

Articulate_Ape
01-19-2010, 02:06 AM
When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'


Walk carefully, my friends, walk carefully.

That is all I have to say.

PoliCon
01-19-2010, 09:17 AM
You know, if gay marriage supporters just fought for the right to marry and stressed that it is also the right of churches not to perform the ceremony if they disagree with it then I think they'd get more support.

They do have the right to marry and that's one of the ways that they have twisted the argument. There is not one single state in the union that bans gay marriage. But they paint a lack of endorsement as a ban and we let them get away with it.

PoliCon
01-19-2010, 09:17 AM
That was a great read. Thank you.

No problem :) Always glad to share.

Gingersnap
01-19-2010, 10:08 AM
Scratch a liberal, find a fascist. EVERY TIME.

Absolutely. This woman is touting one of the primary beliefs of all totalitarian systems: individuals do not have the right to private opinions. If you can make the case that Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc. do not have the right to reject homosexuality, you can make the case that no one has the right to reject any social or behavioral acts deemed "good" by the State.

AmPat
01-19-2010, 10:09 AM
No problem :) Always glad to share.

Have you tried to educate our recent libertard, Bellows? He doesn't seem, like most things, to know how to correctly use the term.:cool:

PoliCon
01-19-2010, 10:11 AM
Have you tried to educate our recent libertard, Bellows? He doesn't seem, like most things, to know how to correctly use the term.:cool:

He's not interested in learning.

Apache
01-19-2010, 11:08 AM
Walk carefully, my friends, walk carefully.

That is all I have to say.

What does that verse have to do with the topic?

FlaGator
01-19-2010, 12:44 PM
What does that verse have to do with the topic?

I think that in a broad sense the verse states that we should be careful how we tread when dealing with people and that we don't cross a line mistreat the individual because of a disagreement with his or her ideology. For example the prisoner still should be treated with compassion (visit the prisoner in prison) even though his actions are antisocial (commiting a crime that caused his imprisonment). To tie that to the topic at hand, disagree with the actions and agenda of the homosexual community but don't debase the individual who is an image bearer and a sinner just like us.

At least that is my take on it... for what it's worth.

Apache
01-19-2010, 12:57 PM
I think that in a broad sense the verse states that we should be careful how we tread when dealing with people and that we don't cross a line mistreat the individual because of a disagreement with his or her ideology. For example the prisoner still should be treated with compassion (visit the prisoner in prison) even though his actions are antisocial (commiting a crime that caused his imprisonment). To tie that to the topic at hand, disagree with the actions and agenda of the homosexual community but don't debase the individual who is an image bearer and a sinner just like us.

At least that is my take on it... for what it's worth.Thanks FG, I want to see what the Ape's purpose for that was though....;)

Articulate_Ape
01-19-2010, 02:30 PM
I think that in a broad sense the verse states that we should be careful how we tread when dealing with people and that we don't cross a line mistreat the individual because of a disagreement with his or her ideology. For example the prisoner still should be treated with compassion (visit the prisoner in prison) even though his actions are antisocial (commiting a crime that caused his imprisonment). To tie that to the topic at hand, disagree with the actions and agenda of the homosexual community but don't debase the individual who is an image bearer and a sinner just like us.

At least that is my take on it... for what it's worth.


Spot on.

noonwitch
01-19-2010, 02:47 PM
One person's ideas or proposals don't make a policy or a law. She or her organization can suggest that society not tolerate criticism of homosexuality, she can propose this as a member of the government, but it still has to be approved by various people before it is the law, and it is open to legal challenge in the courts.


Realistically, there is no way to enforce any kind of law that would forbid criticism of homosexuality, at least not within a society that honors free speech, even unpopular speech.

lacarnut
01-19-2010, 02:59 PM
Realistically, there is no way to enforce any kind of law that would forbid criticism of homosexuality, at least not within a society that honors free speech, even unpopular speech.

It is a criminal offense in Canada for anyone to criticize homosexuals plus the law is being enforced. It would not surprise me if Obama's thought police want to do it here.

stsinner
01-19-2010, 04:08 PM
..... even unpopular speech.

This is the only speech that needs protected and the purpose of the First Amendment. If something said is fine with everyone, there's no reason to protect it.

coach
01-19-2010, 04:18 PM
Spot on.


Phred Phelps has reason to worry. People simply against same sex marriage do not.

AmPat
01-19-2010, 04:34 PM
One person's ideas or proposals don't make a policy or a law. She or her organization can suggest that society not tolerate criticism of homosexuality, she can propose this as a member of the government, but it still has to be approved by various people before it is the law, and it is open to legal challenge in the courts.


Realistically, there is no way to enforce any kind of law that would forbid criticism of homosexuality, at least not within a society that honors free speech, even unpopular speech.

The slippery slope of Hate Crimes legislation would suggest otherwise.

obx
01-19-2010, 07:21 PM
Hate crime legislation does not target crime, it targets thought. If you think that way, we will punish you. Tow the party line, comrad.
________
PRISON BREAK DICUSSION (http://www.tv-gossip.com/prison-break/)