Tax funded Christian colleges in California are whining because they no longer can discriminate
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My pop got the "lefty" beat out of him. 1927-2000, He said, "that's what they did, now I have the use of both hands". He also change his last name because "Are you kidding, they wouldn't buy from a Pollock back then".
over all, what's better? things working together for a common goal? national or religion? you pick. or each "group" pulling only for that group? Marginalized running the show? or majority running the show. It's not pretty, feel good, or even right.
And I don't have an answer. I know what I see in america is not the answer ... On either side.
When in doubt, go left.
When in doubt do not discriminated against your brothers and sisters.
When in doubt, hold hands.
When in the dark, turn on the light.
How come those people in scary movies never turn on the light? They never listen to me when I scream out in the movies. But, that has nothing with my children refusing to sit next to me at the movies. Nothing at all.
Our common goal is civil rights for every person regardless of sexual identity, race, religon, and gender. Everyone means everyone. One side. One goal.
I cannot imagine the left being beat out of me. In school, some tried to tie my hand down. My piercing, endless screaming stopped them. The following day, my parents stopped them. Problem solved.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,922,771 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by mensaguy
Does anybody know what this CA bill actually says? We've been thru 77 posts, but the OP link didn't actually have any information about what the bill would actually do.
If I had not choice, and two gay men adopted my grandchild, we would become family. They would have my full support, and I would be an awesome Grandmother. The child would have at least three sets of Grandparents and triple the love.
Children need love. Children need to be nurtured. Children need family.
Your argument falls flat. Men have been raising their children without their mother. Mom dies, leaves, get sick. None of that is the baby's fault. That leaves the upbringing to Dad.
Are men that incapable in your world?
Men, straight or gay are quite capable of raising great children. I think it is sad that men believe other men are incapable when it comes to children. The only thing they cannot do is breast feed. But, there are ways to purchase Mother's Milk through organizations.
Do you have the same concerns for two women adopting a child?
I believe if a couple puts their children first they are capable of shared custody. Shared custody is becoming more common, because men are tired of not having access to their children. It is a terrible emptiness for both men, and women who do not have access to their children.
Once you have children, you are family forever even if you divorce.
If I had a choice, my children, or my grandchildren would not be adopted. They would live with us among their loving family.
A loving family is what is important, not gender identity.
We are a multi-cultural family, with more than one type of gender identity. We do not abandon family when divorce happens. We just get bigger.
If you marry into my family, we are family. If you divorce, you are still family, and your new family is our family, too.
These religious colleges get taxpayer funds, yet want to discriminate based on sex.
Christian educational institutions are vehemently opposed to the bill, saying it would mean that "they would no longer be able to determine for themselves the scope of their religious convictions as applied in student conduct policies, housing and restroom/locker facilities, and other matters of religious expression and practical campus life," according to the website Oppose 1146.
Hey, you, Christian colleges/universities. Here's the deal. You don't take tax payer dollars, and you can keep doing most of what you have been doing. You take Buddhist, Zoroastrian, Taoist, Muslim and atheist dollars, you follow the rules all other tax funded schools of higher learning do.
What a bunch of whiners!
"The scope of their religious convictions" really? Why the hell does this secular government underhandedly support religion with monetary breaks and public benefits?
If it's not an officially secular school (accepting all religions and lack thereof equally, as in accordance with common law), then why would they not reserve the right to be private and work for themselves by themselves?
Truly underhanded ways to steal money from the ignorant (not for lacking capability of thought) in order to push a specific mythological agenda.
And when that day comes, I'm afraid my church will lose their tax exempt status. It will severely harm our ability to operate. I believe God is in control and Christianity will not cease to exist.
Of course it won't. But it will be a lot purer once the "money" game is out of it. It's not fair for an institution that does everything in its power to affect elections gets a tax break. Are there any LGBTQ groups getting tax breaks? No? Why not--if you think they are a religion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
So you think that the mythical LGBTQ rights take precedence over 1st Amendment rights?
LGBTQ rights are the same as yours. What's mythical about yours?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
I get it that we cannot use our rights to walk on the rights of others...but why is it ok to do the opposite? Why are other rights more important than our 1st Amendment rights?
No one is walking on the rights of christian colleges. I went to an SBC college in the late sixties, early seventies. They had a policy of requiring co-eds to be in the dorm by 11:00 PM on weeknights and 12:00 PM on Friday and Sunday. No such policy for the boys, because our retarded directors believed controlling the girls would control the boys. It didn't happen.
Eventually--while my wife and I were still there--the college had the epiphany of allowing no restrictions for any student because so many young women complained.
It did not change the college in its unfair treatment of co-eds in other ways. For instance, when a male student (from the local town) was caught in the dormitory room of one of the co-eds--no hanky panky, feet on the floor deal--the male student was harshly warned. The female student was expelled from college. Some of us (I was on the student judiciary council) complained that it was unfair treatment. Administration wouldn't even respond to their perfidy in this action.
So, the world will be a much better place when christians stop placing some on pedestals above others for any reason whatsoever. A few colleges/universities like Baylor, are doing what they wish and have basically told the SBC if it doesn't like what the school's policies are--go fly a kite. Last year they made a step in the right direction:
Quote:
Earlier this year, Baylor University made a discreet change to its sexual misconduct policy by removing a line regarding “homosexual acts.” While some may see this as a small step toward equality at the world’s largest Baptist school, the university has not expressed their approval of gay and lesbian couples. The school’s 2007 policy said certain actions — including sexual abuse, sexual harassment, sexual assault, incest, adultery, fornication and homosexual acts — could prompt disciplinary action.
But on May 15, 2015, the school’s board of regents endorsed a different policy that does not mention homosexuality — or any act of sexual misconduct — explicitly.
In an email to USA TODAY College, university spokeswoman Lori Fogleman says that “an organized effort to review and keep current Baylor’s policies began to ensure that the university has the necessary policies and processes in place to comply with the many legal and ethical mandates to which universities are subject as institutions.”
As of now, the new school policy says: “Baylor will be guided by the biblical understanding that human sexuality is a gift from God and that physical sexual intimacy is to be expressed in the context of marital fidelity. Thus, it is expected that Baylor students, faculty and staff will engage in behaviors consistent with this understanding of human sexuality.”
“These changes were made because we didn’t believe the language reflected Baylor’s caring community,” Fogleman says. “We are pleased with the recent changes to the policy language and that it states more plainly the expectations of the university.”
"The scope of their religious convictions" really? Why the hell does this secular government underhandedly support religion with monetary breaks and public benefits?
If it's not an officially secular school (accepting all religions and lack thereof equally, as in accordance with common law), then why would they not reserve the right to be private and work for themselves by themselves?
Truly underhanded ways to steal money from the ignorant (not for lacking capability of thought) in order to push a specific mythological agenda.
Thank you! I'd forgotten what the thread was about.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
