FWIS3

....that one of your coworkers has as religious views "Surrendered to and following the Lord Jesus."

Now, I don't have any problem with someone being religious. The issue here is that he "liked" an article from someone slamming President Obama's executive order banning discrimination by federal contractors against LBGTQ people, allowing for no religious exemptions. It worries me because I wonder how he feels about my LBGTQ coworkers. I doubt he would ever make any comments or judgements that would affect their working relationship or performance. But I just do not like knowing that he could personally feel the hatred against them that religious fundamentalists spew, whether he ever says it or not. Hopefully he's not that extreme.

But in turn, I have to be a good human, and not discriminate against him for holding a belief that is against mine.

Or you can kick him in the balls.

some on the religious right claim to 'hate the sin but love the sinner'. i think that requires quite a high level of emotional flexibility and i really don't understand how that love is expressed. we love *you* but we won't hire you?

z, setting aside all thoughts about violence, especially violence in the workplace, i just don't think that would change that person's beliefs.

I just read an interesting piece some place (I think it was in the magazine The Week) about these religious exceptions to Federal laws - this piece was triggered by the Hobby Lobby decision, but it applies to the new Executive Order.

The writer pointed out the selective discrimination the Christian Right wants to "enjoy". For example, they invoke the bible in their opposition to abortion or LGBT rights. And the Supreme Court has been backing them up on this stuff lately. But the bible also mentions that gluttony is a sin. How come the Christian Right puts up with fat people? Should we prevent fat people from marrying?

Slavery is mentioned often in the bible, and there are passages that endorse it. How come the Christian Right doesn't advocate slavery? Should Hobby Lobby get an exemption to anti-slavery laws?

They pointed out something I figured out a long time ago - that most of the biblical stuff the Christian Right gets up in arms about has to do with sex, and they have some serious hang-ups on this stuff.

Hey, imagine what they'd do if they found out that there were gay sex slaves who earn a living doing it. lol

"...LBGTQ"...

I get the LBGT part?

Q?

Que pasa?

According to the Urban DIctionary, Q stands for "Questioning".

Y lo que pasa es que la banda esta borracha.

Sigma_Orionis wrote:According to the Urban DIctionary, Q stands for "Questioning".

Y lo que pasa es que la banda esta borracha.

OMFG!

Hey, lets make this simple.
Boys have a penis.
Girls have a vagina.
Everything else is optional.

BPGVO

DAMN!

Dumb As Male Neanderthals?

... I was going to say yes, but actually you're right in a way. Everything aside from the physiological characteristics of sex is indeed optional.

FZR1KG wrote:Hey, lets make this simple.
Boys have a penis.
Girls have a vagina.

It's not that simple because of intersex people, and because of transgender people.

It's not far off but it only deal with the physical component.
You have to make it some what simple because 50% of people will never get the reality.
Don't forget the average IQ and some things we have to target for the average, others for the lowest denominator.
Also, remember what we are dealing with here.
People that believe Jesus was around with dinosaurs. Mind fuck...

So long as you can teach people not to judge anyone for their sexuality or preference then you've solved most issues.

squ1d wrote:

FZR1KG wrote:Hey, lets make this simple.
Boys have a penis.
Girls have a vagina.

It's not that simple because of intersex people, and because of transgender people.

I make it simplier than that. The only people for who I care about sexuality and sexual hardware are myself and my partner.

Everyone else, please do whatever makes you happy, as long as it is consensual and among adults. I don't care what your hardware is or what you wish to do with it; I don't care how you perceive yourself internally. I don't care how you dress, I don't care who you are sexually attracted to. If you would like the relationship with your partner or partners recognized by the state, that's fine; not is fine too. Whatever works for you is fine by me and not really my business. What you do in the privacy of your own bedroom (or kitchen, or treehouse, or ...) is not my business and I would appreciate it if you kept out of my "business".

Simple.

You don't want to control what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom?
What kind of republican are you???

pumpkinpi wrote:... "Surrendered to and following the Lord Jesus."...

Surrendered? Hey, they don't call it the fear of gawd for nothin'...

FZR1KG wrote:You don't want to control what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom?
What kind of republican are you???

The worst kind.

Actually as you swing through the right side of Republican party, past the Wall Street Apologists, past the Cheney War Mongers, the Christian Conservatives, and the Tea Party, and approach the Libertarian side, you'll find a few conservatives that are in general agreement with what I said.

Swift wrote:

FZR1KG wrote:You don't want to control what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom?
What kind of republican are you???

The worst kind.

Actually as you swing through the right side of Republican party, past the Wall Street Apologists, past the Cheney War Mongers, the Christian Conservatives, and the Tea Party, and approach the Libertarian side, you'll find a few conservatives that are in general agreement with what I said.

I dispute that. Few means more than a couple.

I think the initialism is pretty simple and inclusive too.

FZR1KG wrote:

Swift wrote:

FZR1KG wrote:You don't want to control what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom?
What kind of republican are you???

The worst kind.

Actually as you swing through the right side of Republican party, past the Wall Street Apologists, past the Cheney War Mongers, the Christian Conservatives, and the Tea Party, and approach the Libertarian side, you'll find a few conservatives that are in general agreement with what I said.

I dispute that. Few means more than a couple.

I know you're probably being facetious, but what Swift said is correct. The core of the Republican party used to be about less government, whether it be fiscal policy or otherwise. There are quite a few Republicans who still hew to this ideal. Moderates, some call them. Unfortunately, they are also now labeled as 'too liberal' by the Teabaggers. Many have quit government service in the face of rising right-wing extremism.

geonuc wrote:I know you're probably being facetious, but what Swift said is correct.

After all that time on the boat and you still don't get my sarcasm?
Shame on you!!!

Oddly I am more conservative than democrat.
What I'm not however is this new bastardised Republicunt party. (tm TrueBlood)
The only thing that this new party has in common with the old seems to be the name.