Reason number eleventy-hundred why I like living in Massachusetts.
Gordon College in Salem, Mass., wants the government to allow it to discriminate against people based solely on their sexual orientation. The mayor of Salem says no, you can't discriminate based on sexual orientation.
At one time people with "sincerely held religious beliefs" discriminated against interracial couples, and Jews, and Mormons, and Catholics, and anti-slavery groups. However, religious beliefs do not give people the right to deny other people their Constitutional rights.
Bravo to Mayor Driscoll and the city of Salem, Mass. (where my children were born).
"The mayor of the city of Salem, Massachusetts doesn’t regret her city’s decision to sever its ties to Gordon College, the Christian university that asked the federal government to grant it a religious exemption from workplace protections for LGBT employees.
In fact, in a letter she posted to the city’s Facebook page, Mayor Kimberly Driscoll pledged to donate five dollars to an LGBT youth charity for every angry phone call her office gets from conservatives bent on harassing city employees over the decision.
In the wake of the Supreme Court’s historic decision in the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby case, Gordon College President D. Michael Lindsay joined a group of other Christian leaders who sent a letter to President Barack Obama insisting that their “sincerely held religious beliefs” compel them to demand exemption from federal nondiscrimination laws.
Gordon College, Lindsay argued, is “an explicitly Christian institution,” and as such, should be allowed to fire or to refuse to hire individuals based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.
Some students and faculty reacted angrily, saying that Lindsay was making their school sound bigoted and backward.
The New England Association of Schools and Colleges announced earlier this week that it is considering pulling Gordon College’s academic accreditation over its insistence on adhering to discriminatory policies, regardless of their religious foundations. Then came the city of Salem’s decision to cut all contractual ties with the college until its rules match the federal government’s."
***********
I've read many an essay about people who wish to discriminate against the LGBT community based on their sincerely held religious beliefs and how we who do not share those beliefs should be more understanding and respectful of their feelings on this specific issue.
I've also read that people with sincerely held religious beliefs love the sinner but hate the sin. How is discrimination against the LGBT community, which forces people into second-class status through shaming and rejection and limits their employment opportunities,"loving the sinner?" What some religious people see as loving the sinner and hating the sin other people see as bigotry. And their sincerely held belief is as legitimate as anyone else's.
This Is How Progressives Should Deal With a Post-Hobby Lobby America
15 comments:
well Massachusetts was the first to allow gays to be married, so it isn't a surprise that most people in the state would not look kindly at institutions that discriminate.
It would set a terrible president for any privately owned and run company/University to conduct themselves according to their own convictions.
The problem with this is the public would have to make a decision and if they don't agree with the companies/schools position they would have to not support them.
This requires someone to actually think for themselves and take responsibility for their own actions and we know that is frowned on.
"Some students and faculty reacted angrily, saying that Lindsay was making their school sound bigoted and backward."
There is no "making" about it. They ARE bigoted and backward...as long as Lindsay is president of the college.
Sorry, skud, but when it comes to securing American citizens their basic Constitutional rights, a private company, university, or any entity cannot conduct itself according to their "convictions."
If that were the case, we'd still have a segregated south. Is your memory of the Civil Rights era a bit foggy?
Remember how a governor of a southern state said "Segregation now! Segregation forever!" and how the citizens of that state supported that idea until the feds stepped in? Those citizens would NOT have refused to patronize the businesses and schools, public and private. And you damn well know it. The majority of southern states wanted to keep segregation and Jim Crow laws in place. Those states had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 20th century where all citizens enjoyed their guaranteed rights.
Your comment is no different from the arguments used by people who see nothing wrong with depriving American citizens of their Constitutional rights because someone's religion doesn't like something someone else does.
And where do we draw the line? Should doctors be able to withhold blood transfusions from dying patients in an ER because of their religious beliefs?
And since when does one religion get preferential treatment over other religions? The Rastafarians believe, sincerely, that smoking marijuana is a sacrament, but the feds say sorry, no!
Did you worry about a religious groups' sincere religious beliefs being trodden upon when the Rastafarians were denied their sacrament because of federal laws that prohibited the use of marijuana?
Did you feel the same way when federal law prohibited polygamy? That is still a sincerely held religious belief in some fundamental Mormon groups.
It appears that people get all hot under their collars when Christian businesses and other entities are expected to comply with federal law.
Sorry skud, but we already tried your solution. It does not work. That's why we have the regulations in the first place.
Ms Shaw,
You must be referring to the democrat governor george wallace.
Let your pocketbook enforce your beliefs. You don't like the way a company behaves, don't shop there.
That is called free market, I know a swear word to liberals.
"You must be referring to the democrat governor george wallace." --skudrunner
You guys always try to deflect the conversation by pointing out that the racists in the south were all Democrats. Yes, they did belong to that party. And yes, the were CONSERVATIVE Democrats who left the "Democrat" Party when Liberal Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson passed the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Act.
You and others always leave that very important fact out. Why is that? The south is now solidly CONSERVATIVE, and when it voted for the Democratic Party, it voted for the Democrats who believed in "Segregation now; Segregation forever!" They wanted to CONSERVE their old ways, y'know, the old Jim Crow ways and the old anti-miscegenation ways, and the old lynching ways.
To deny or obscure these facts is dishonest.
The two major political parties once had conservative and liberal wings. The Republicans no longer have any liberals within their party. The Democrats still have conservative Democrats within theirs.
skudrunner: "Let your pocketbook enforce your beliefs. You don't like the way a company behaves, don't shop there."
That's just plain nuts, and you know it. You did not address the fact that the southerners were happy with segregation and Jim Crow laws. Are you suggesting that a country that brags about "Liberty and Justice FOR ALL" would have been an example for the world by letting the segregated south and its terrible record of racial killings continue?
In a country where its citizens prize FREEDOM above everything else, you are selling the idea that it's just fine for private and public institutions to discriminate against people they consider inferior to themselves.
Have you been hitting the bourbon today?
Pulling their academic accreditation would not be appropriate, unless they fail to meet academic standards required for accreditation.
Ms Shaw
You seem to be confused. Freedom for all is just that, freedom for all not just when a certain group deems it to be OK. If you restrict freedom for some isn't that selective.
At the time of the democrat Jim Crow legislation, they were democrats and they didn't change until years later so they did carry that title at the time of passage.
BTW, Bourbon or whiskey as we prefer is a winter drink, summer is beer or Tito's.
"At the time of the CONSERVATIVE democrat Jim Crow legislation, they were democrats and they didn't change until years later so they did carry that title at the time of passage."
There. Fixed that for you. I had relatives and friends who lived in the south during the Civil Rights era, and they were LIBERAL DEMOCRATS who did not support segregation or Jim Crow laws.
Your childish insistence on blaming segregation and Jim Crow laws on the "Democrat" Party doesn't fly, because the very same people who supported those laws became Republicans as soon as they realized the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts would pass.
THEY WERE THE SAME PEOPLE.
They were conservative Democrats who became conservative Republicans.
End of discussion.
PS. My closest friends who were from LOO-a-ville Kentucky drank Bourbon every summer when they visited me and when I visited them. She called it "cohn whiskey," using a Boston accent, and when I visited her and her husband in early spring, she and I drank mint juleps on her front porch to celebrate the "DARbey."
We always drank corn whiskey, even in the summah.
My favorite: Makers Mark or in Bostonian: "MAY-kahs MAHK"
"It would set a terrible president for any privately owned and run company/University to conduct themselves according to their own convictions. "
first, skud, it's precedent, not president, but the larger error is not one of spelling, but of thought. You seem to feel that anyone can exempt themselves from societal norms if they feel like it, or claim a consceinceous objection. But, whether a private or public entity, all benefit from the societal norms and governmental services. Does the said University have their mailed delivered? Does the fire department respond to alarms at their facility? etc etc etc....
an act of conscience is personal and not enforceable by whims or other contrived feelings. Personaly...I object to my tax dollars being used for defense spending...and as a strict religious Bokononist...I feel correct. Busy Busy Busy....don't work dat way, huh?
We all have limits placed on our conduct.
No OK I spelled it exactly how I intended, but thanks for the spelling lesson.
Shaw, You do have good taste in Kentucky Bourbon. If you haven't taken a tour you should before they move it to Japan. Maybe our elected elite will come up with a corporate tax reform and keep some American Industry in America.
As a protest against the sale I am switching to Jack Black. That's called free enterprise, if I don't like a policy I take my money elsewhere.
Why should we allow the "free market" to decide if a business or other institution should be allowed to discriminate instead of our Constitution? There is no "freedom" to violate another's Constitutional rights.
Also, Republicans like the idea of voting with our dollars, because then those with the most dollars get the most votes.
Post a Comment