Some very well thought out and articulated rebuttals. Well done. ---------- Post added 2nd Feb 2015 at 09:48 AM ---------- WOW. Your anger and hatred really shines through. I was not defending the fire chief by posting this. I agree that he should be fired. That is not the issue I was bringing up. I am merely making the very rational point, based on past historical accounts, that as constitutional interpretations change, we need to be careful to not through the baby out with the bath water. However, based on your narrow minded assertion that I somehow "self-identify with bigoted oppressors" and that if I agree with everything the far left says I will suddenly find a "more enlightened path". I will have to concede that there will always be those from both sides incapable of mature rational debate. You are right though. Christianity and bigotry do not go hand in hand. HOWEVER, being gay does not mean that I must live my life feeling as though I am a victim.
There was no anger or hatred in my post. I felt neither as I wrote it. I was simply making an analysis of what was written. This was not clear at all from what you had written. That is why I made the assumptions that I did later in the post. This is the problem. It is not a "very rational" point. It is not rational at all. It is a point that seems to be based out of fear. In other words, you are essentially making the argument that we should be afraid of a giant Christian backlash against us for advocating that bigoted individuals are not qualified to lead diverse organizations--especially government sponsored organizations. That is not even a radical point of view. It is already socially accepted that we can and would fire individuals who are racist, even if they claim their racism stems from their religious beliefs. I am simply arguing that whether or not someone is bigoted against someone for their race or for their sexual orientation, it is functionally equivalent because both are immutable characteristics of individuals. As I have said, and as you agree with, Christianity and bigotry do not go hand in hand. In my view he deserved to be fired for being a bigot. It had nothing to do with his Christian beliefs, he is simply using his religion as a shield to hide his bigotry. If we were to allow this then any form of discrimination and bigotry becomes acceptable so long as someone can find a religious justification. You are making the argument that we have to be careful--why? Because Christians will rise up against us? That is what you are saying. I am saying that if Christians WERE to rise up against us, then Christians are thereby standing united and declaring their religion is inseparable from anti-gay bigotry. My position is that not only is it separable, but I stand with the Christians who view such individuals as wholly incompatible with Christianity. No one is encouraging you to be a victim. Victims are powerless individuals. I stopped being a victim a long time ago, the moment I started to fight back. These people, like this former Fire Chief, are not our friends. They do not deserve our pity or our sympathy. We are actively fighting a culture war. On one side there are individuals like this former Fire Chief, who see us as deviants, abominations, and perverts. People like him have had a huge influence over our country for a long time, and they have worked to oppress us. If they had it their way, we would remain oppressed. On the other side are those of us fighting for equal rights to straights and cis-people. There is no way for us to achieve equality without upsetting the status quo, and removing individuals like this man from positions of power. As we ascend in power, the balance of the scale shifts in our favor and against the other side. This is unavoidable if we desire equality. In order for us to be equal, people in society must see us as equal. As this happens, people like this former Fire Chief will be seen as bigots. People--STRAIGHT people who are primarily Christian--will see this man and what he espouses and be repulsed by him. They will be offended by his words and beliefs, and as a result they will seek to marginalize him by distancing themselves from him. This pushes him to the social fringe. Every social victory we achieve is a loss for people like him, and he is pushed further and further to the fringe. Eventually, we will reach a point socially where saying the things he said will repulse the overwhelming majority of people. There will be few if any Christians rallying to his side, and numerous more openly condemning him. The social values of our culture will change. This is the consequence of our victory. Is it fair? Maybe not. However, for people like us we know all to well that life is not fair. It was beaten into us at an early age. The desire for fairness is not a virtue if it comes at the expense of justice for oppressed people. ...and so, individuals like this man have a choice. They can choose to join the new social order, or they can be marginalized and reviled by holding to the old one. They have the ability to make a choice, and the choice they make and the resulting consequences are on their heads--not ours. There is no hatred in my words here. Just a blunt assessment of the situation.
Fair enough. My assessment is not of some concern that there will be a backlash from the Christian denomination, or that they will rise up against us. My concern comes from not looking at the big picture when talking about individual freedoms. Some would argue that the drafting of our constitution was the first civil war for the colonies. There was much concern over the issue and rights of slave ownership, therefore certain articles are written to specifically protect it, without right out saying it. It really is a fascinating study. Our forefathers could not perceive what would transpire over the next two hundred years because of how they phrased something. And yet the wording caused more problems than solutions as times changed. The entire constitution is written with two reactive mindsets. 1. The colonies had a couple huge issues that they disagreed on, so the wording was ambiguous to keep the vocal parties happy. Less than 100 years later and thousands of men and women died on American soil to try and straighten out that ambiguousness. Look at the first amendment alone, it was put there because most of the colonists where illiterate. The only way that folks heard the news of the day was by going to the local pub and listening to the person in town that would share the news as a public reading. This was not allowed under King Charles. Just look at what we have done to that "right" today with social media alone. Freedom of speech and freedom of the press have been warped way out of proportion from their initial intent, but because there are no crystal balls to tell us what the future holds, there was no way for them to prepare the legislation for it. We however have a leg up on our founding fathers. We have the experience of history. Now remember that this fire chief was fired for a discriminatory act that he "may commit in the future." I know I know the official wording now is for "not following administrative policy" but that was just the legal line for what the real issue was. Like it or not, this goes beyond gays and Christians or even race, sex, cultural values or beliefs. This is about an interpretation of law that could leave anyone vulnerable. Now I understand that this sort of discrimination has been going on for years...."I don't like you so I'm going to figure out some way to get rid of you."......I get that, I know it exists. Don't bother arguing it with me. ....we have laws that protect people from that sort of discrimination. ok. I need to stop, I don't like when posts get too long. Thanks for debating with me. ---------- Post added 2nd Feb 2015 at 12:55 PM ---------- haha. I forgot to add my number 2. for the reactive mindset of our constitution. It was that they wanted to ensure that they would not let the new government have the same power or tyrannical influence that they endured under the British throne. sorry about that.
I read somewhere that rural farmers in colonial America were reading some quite difficult books (Plato, Locke and the like), so I checked out what the literacy rates actually were in those days, and it seems to have been confirmed. Literacy was relatively high and more so in the North. Frankly, I don't think that Benjamin Franklin's publishing house would have survived without some general literacy, nor would there have been such strong and intelligent debate on the rights of man, had there not been widespread appreciation of the writings of the enlightenment. No, The Fire Chief was not fired for a discriminatory act that "he may commit in future"; official words count: he disregarded instructions about keeping quiet during the investigation. He was a person in a position of power who has expressed opinions that essentially exposed the Fire Department to potential legal liabilities (that is also part of the official reasons given). These were the real issues that the Mayor had to deal with. Given the above, in what way could the first amendment be stretched or interpreted to threaten the civil liberties of others? As for having laws in the U.S. that protect people from discrimination, well, no, you don't. It is not in all states that there are protections for LGBT people who get fired simply because they are LGBT, and people generally find out they are LGBT because they have either expressed a favourable opinion about LGBT folk or have simply come out to their employers. From Wikipedia: The First Amendment is a great and noble part of your constitution, no less the provision that it prohibits the making "of any law respecting an establishment of religion".
The law you refer to has not passed in Congress. Not to mention, sexual orientation has not been placed in the Civil Rights act of 1964. The closest thing we have to date is the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes act (which is only applied if we are lucky), and the taking down of DOMA and DADT.
Just to add a bit more to this discussion... Read the full article here. Do not ask me how this is not offensive to other Christians. However, it seems that former Atlanta mayor and U.N. Ambassador Andrew Young, who is also a minister, pretty much puts him in his place. This type of divide will only grow in the Christian community, until finally, at long last, anti-gay bigotry falls out of the Christian mainstream and begins to be reviled as being un-Christian.
It can't come soon enough Aldrick. I pray every day for the hatred to stop and the love of Jesus Christ to be shown to everyone.
