@JLindow"Okay or not?"Please see "Bob Jones University
vs. United States (1983)" for reference.The answer in that case
was "Sure, but you'll lose your tax-exempt status".
Meckofahess - “LOL - very funny. Your one-sided narrative does
little to promote a lasting solution where the rights of all citizens are
respected. You seem like a smart person - help work for a world where we can all
co-exist in fairness to each other without compromising..”Thank you for the accurate compliment. Uncertain what you believe is funny?
Possibly you can elaborate? Apparently you haven’t read the many posts
regarding “one sided narratives” pertaining to those which believe
“religious liberties” is freedom to discriminate against those
solely based upon sexual preference. Assure you I find nothing
“funny” whatsoever regarding the religious alt-right faction’s
belief that it is acceptable to treat my niece in such an archaic manner. At no
time have I “frowned” upon anyone practicing their religion. Are you
able to say the same regarding those which live a “gay lifestyle”?
We already know the answer unfortunately. Furthermore. Please cite specific
examples of your “religious liberties” being negatively impacted by
those which live this “gay lifestyle”. As my initial post
stated...Basic constitutional law. Apparently you are unfamiliar with this
topic. Thank you.
@Liberal On Planet Zion:LOL - very funny. Your one-sided narrative
does little to promote a lasting solution where the rights of all citizens are
respected. You seem like a smart person - help work for a world where we can
all co-exist in fairness to each other without compromising anyone's
beliefs or life-style friend. Nobody will get everything they want but we can
have a better world with a little give-and-take. You don't
like us frowning upon a gay lifestyle, we don't like you frowning upon a
religious life style. Got to find middle ground don't you think?
Legal? “Militant perversion...how long will it take before
"they" destroy our country”? Apologize for omitting
such a bigoted statement from my initial post. My thoughts were when you
mentioned “they” it was regarding the anti-equality, enabling
faction. If I’m mistaken please do elaborate whom specifically are
“they”. Furthermore. Thank you for supplying continued supporting
evidence regarding the much needed protections for all regardless of sexual
preference. “Militant perversion” was originally stated by Alex
Jones at Infowars. Fake news anyone? This is the same individual which
claims:*U.S. government involved with OKC bombing *Obama
being born in Kenya*Coming New World Order is a “demonic
high-tech tyranny” formed by satanist elites*Bill Gates is a
eugenicist attempting to wipe out minorities *The U.S. government is
controlling the weather *Hiliary Clinton was running a child sex
ring out of a D.C. area pizza restaurant *The U.S. government is
complicit in countless terror and lone gunman attacks*Millions of
undocumented illegal immigrants voted in the last election*Glenn
Beck is a C.I.A. operative How highly intellectual! Thank you.
@Red Corvette - St George, UT:You posit: "This is just yet
another example of the persecution complex that the so-called
"Christian" groups thrive on".I say hogwash - you
attempt to dismiss genuine concerns that exist with an over-simplified
clichÉ. Shallow thinking like that will never result in solving a real
need for balancing the rights of our LGBT friends/citizens and their religious
believing neighbors.Let's all work together to find a win-win
solution between these two groups. As a religious conservative, I really want
to get along and respect the rights of my LGBT friends, co-workers, and
neighbors (and especially family members) but I need these great folks to try to
walk a mile in my moccasins too.
After carefully considering the perspective of our LGBT friends, and feeling
empathy for their position I read this: "Our clients (told university
officials) they couldn't change their religious beliefs or have an
organization with leaders who don't support their beliefs,"Bam then it clicked. Business Leaders in Christ merely wants LGBT citizens to
respect their policy of the requirements to be a leader in their organization.
In my mind, this is tantamount to an LGBT club requiring that the president of
their club must meet certain criteria including that he/she "supports their
beliefs".I would respect the position of the LGBT club because
that is a requirement they have even if it excludes a conservative like me from
being selected to that position - I am OK with that. This is no
different than allowing Boy Scout Troops sponsored by Religious organization to
limit who they will permit to be leaders (in some cases this cannot be a person
living in a homosexual relationship).The University should take a
neutral position and not punish either the LGBT group or the Religious group -
otherwise it amounts to discrimation against one or the other - not good!
A quick mental exercise, change one sentence to this:"To be
eligible for leadership positions in the group, members must affirm that
relationships are reserved for members of the same race and that different races
should not mix."Okay or not?
“death threats, vandalism, anthrax hoax's, shaming, boycotts, putting
people out of business, ....all were directed towards opponents during prop
8”. “Again, another case of militant gay
activity”. “On campus groups get student fee monies all
the time for all kinds of stuff..”“But if a person
invokes their constitutionally guaranteed right of free speech to oppose
perversion, they are persecuted for it”.“No matter how
many lawsuits, or ”hissy fits” are make by the LGBTQ, I'll
never drink. Stop trying to make me”!The low information
demographic unfortunately on display once again. Any members of this
anti-equality faction that are familiar with basic constitutional law? You may
scream “religious liberties/freedoms” as done when faced with
factual information regarding the Supreme Leader and the rhetoric of “fake
news” begins. Facts..Public funds at a state university. If you disagree
with the factual information involved feel free to apply to the numerous private
and religious institutions throughout our country. Separation of church and
state. Regardless of the Faux News attempts at spin. Your “religious
freedoms” end at the discrimination of others. Period! Thank you
How long would released-time Seminary, even in Utah, exist if leadership in LDS
seminary classes was based on and contingent on the same charter criteria as
this student group in Iowa. Not long, I would think. Granted, the Iowa group
appears to be a public school group, not private church group. Still, to me, it
is not ones orientation, but ones actions that define who a person is and what
kind of leader they would be. Why can't the Iowa Student group simply
divorce themselves from public funds and facilities, and thereby, they might
have a greater chance of existing or at least co-existing. I would feel the
same if another group had a biased charter against straight individuals, or
green, purple, or martians.Another thing you might want President
Trump to get rid of in terms of regulations is protected classes. That would
allow blatant discrimination or bias much easier to get away with. Heck, lets
re-write the founding documents of our country and dismiss the notion that all
people are created equal.
Militant perversion...how long will it take before "they" destroy our
@NoNamesAccepted"So we are punishing the religious groups for their
honesty in being clear about who they will allow to lead their clubs."What honesty? They knew the rules for student clubs when they got their
charter, they get a reminder every year when they *renew* their charter, these
cases have been cropping up for decades. And they chose to violate those
agreed-upon rules *anyway*.That's not honesty."I can see them trying to pack the club meeting where elections are
held."Possible? Sure. But it doesn't actually happen."Seems the homosexuals can't stand a church club even existing.
Religious students leave homosexual clubs in peace."If having a gay
person on a ballot destroys a "church club", then their faith is
weak.@Chessermesser"The Iowa issue is about a gay, who
wants to impose his set of values on a religious group."It's
about a student club that violated it's agreement with the university to
have all leadership positions open to all students."How about if
the conservative Christians join the gay club, and run for office, and destroy
the club subsequently? Is that ok? Is that in the nature of fair play?"Yep. That's how student clubs work.
I have seen way too many emotional comments in support of LGBT point of view,
which ignore the real issue. Is it illegal to discriminate? No, everyone
discriminates all the time, in the broadest sense of the word. There is some
discrimination which is illegal. The Iowa case is going to be a benchmark, no
matter who wins.The word discriminate is used inappropriately and
too often by Gay militants. My religion defines me and I have a right, as
afford by the Constitution, to live it. The Iowa issue is about a gay, who
wants to impose his set of values on a religious group. Whose rights trump
whose?The militant gays continue to push their agenda into every
avenue of society. It is tiring. I say, live and believe what you want, but
give me the same right. And the militant gay reply is always something about
discriminating. How about if the conservative Christians join the gay club, and
run for office, and destroy the club subsequently? Is that ok? Is that in the
nature of fair play?
Tolerance only applies to those on the left. If you are a member of the
majority, it is ok to be discriminated against...
Religion is quick to switch from creating victims to becoming one.
@EscherEnigma: "But you have to understand the difference between letting
someone try and fail to win a leadership position (which is what would happen to
an anti-gay student that tried to get a leadership position in an LGBT group),
and just banning someone from trying (which is what the "Christian"
group in question did)."The former is permissible. Necessary
even. The second is impermissible and gets your club charter revoked."So we are punishing the religious groups for their honesty in being
clear about who they will allow to lead their clubs.It is ok to
demand club leaders have a particular viewpoint or lifestyle as long as I
dishonestly pretend anyone might have a chance?Punishing honesty
while rewarding deceit seems a bad idea. But that is just what you advocate and
celebrate.Religious folks don't bother to try seize control of
a club hostile to their beliefs. But individuals opposed to religious standards
areoffended they are not embraced as leaders of church clubs. I can see them
trying to pack the club meeting where elections are held.Seems the
homosexuals can't stand a church club even existing. Religious students
leave homosexual clubs in peace.
@TAS"[...] don't religious students of the U of Iowa have the
same rights as those who are non religious?"Sure. But you have to
understand the difference between letting someone try and fail to win a
leadership position (which is what would happen to an anti-gay student that
tried to get a leadership position in an LGBT group), and just banning someone
from trying (which is what the "Christian" group in question did).The former is permissible. Necessary even. The second is impermissible
and gets your club charter revoked.
@Christmas;It's pretty arrogant to issue a "proclamation to
the world". The *only* people who really care about it are Mormons. The
*only* people it applies to are Mormons.
@Christmas wrote, "The Family, a Proclamation, is addressed to
the world. It outlines the best way, we..can.. live. Where do you get
"discrimination" out of this?"I don't. I get
discrimination when you try to enact laws to force non-members to live by your
rules. If your church tells women to wear abayas and the police department
enforces that rule (as is the case in Saudi Arabia), that is discrimination.
If you believe that same sex marriage is wrong, no problem, just marry an
opposite sex person or don't get married. But it's discrimination
when you try to pass a law which prohibits same sex marriage for
everybody--members and non-members.
@Tas;Of course they have the same rights; neither can discriminate
against the other on the taxpayer's dime.
@ TAS"...don't religious students of the U of Iowa have the
same rights as those who are non religious?"There is no right to
discriminate on the public dime. This group can have its beliefs and act on
them, but they aren't entitled to use public money or accommodations to do
so when some of those acts constitute discrimination under Iowa law.The problem with the beliefs that some hold about homosexuality is that 1)
they aren't supported by the evidence; and 2) they lead to actions that
cause actual harm - not just to LGBT individuals, but to their families and
society as a whole. If these beliefs were benign, there'd be no problem.
But they contribute to harm and for no good reason. That's why
they're met with increasing intolerance. Harming people out of mere belief
is unacceptable in a decent society.
Ranch, don't religious students of the U of Iowa have the same rights as
those who are non religious? I am sure they all pay the same amount of tuition,
and the University has made provisions for organizations of students with common
interests, then they are being discriminated against for their beliefs.
@TAS;They're not telling anyone what to believe. They're
just saying that if you discriminate against other students, you won't be
allowed to receive tax funds (as those being discriminated against are also
taxpayers). They can believe and practice whatever they want to - on their own
Isn't the University of Iowa a state supported and funded institution?
Since the U S Constitution prohibits state supported religion, how can the
university tell a religious organization what to believe and what not to
believe? The University of Iowa is obviously in violation of the law.
@ sashabillYou seem to be arguing that it's mere political
correctness to fail to apply anti-discrimination law against a religious person
who HASN'T been accused of discriminating, but does happen to be gay, but
it's being mean and hypocritical to apply this law when a complaint HAS
been made against religious people who don't happen to be gay.You also seem to be arguing that, in order to consider myself tolerant and
inclusive, I am obligated to protect groups that are intolerant and exclusive
(and out of mere belief, not a reason that is evidence-based).I
disagree on both counts.
Karen R,"Or they're following their own law. Novel
concept"Exactly. It appears that people are entitled to the
benefits of pluralism, tolerance, inclusiveness, diversity, and minority rights
-- provided that they belong to a minority or a constituency that the
politically correct crowd happens to approve of. Otherwise, they're on
Leadership positions in student c clubs are determined by democratic vote. So
you only *need* to ban someone from a position if a majority of your cohort
would *vote* for them.That is to say, a "ban" served one of
two purposes. (1) Publicly condemning someone that has no chance of winning
anyway, or (2) the current leadership trying to force their opinions on future
@ sashabill"In other words, the university is now picking and
choosing ( discriminating) between various forms of Christianity -- favoring
some over others?"Or they're following their own law.
Karen R," Stories elsewhere report that he has started his own
Jesus-centered student organization and that it is recognized by the university
. . . because it doesn't discriminate."In other words, the
university is now picking and choosing ( discriminating) between various forms
of Christianity -- favoring some over others?"There are about
as many definitions for "true Christian" as there are Christians."
If it is all just a matter of "opinion", then where (or on what grounds)
does the university get off with favoring one Christian opinion over another
Christian opinion?In actual practice,"Non-discrimination" is
apparently designed to benefit those groups and perspectives that the
"politically correct" community happens to take a liking to. This is
the very definition of discrimination -- and hypocrisy.
I compare this to any organization on campus. I would look at how does the
university treat any atheist, Muslim, Jewish, Christian.. organization that
limited parties from joining or participating due to an individual’s
belief system. Do any of the other student organizations limit
leadership to their own beliefs, or to their academic major? If so, those
organizations will need to be banned also.
Chessermesser said:"This sort of anti-religious activity is
going to continue until some judge says ‘enough’."--- The ONLY LGBT people who would even WANT to join this group are LGBT
Christians; so they're clearly not "anti-religious".@sashabill;As I pointed out to CM;--- The ONLY LGBT
people who would even WANT to join this group are LGBT Christians; so no,
they're not being hypocrites in their attempts to join.@NoNamesAccepted;These people are not "avoiding events they
find offensive"; they're excluding PEOPLE they find offensive. There
is a difference - especially when those PEOPLE are Christians themselves. These
LGBT Christians are NOT asking this group to engage in gay relationships.@Christmas;California almost had a ballot initiative
allowing CHRISTIANS to KILL LGBT citizens in cold blood. Yes, that was actually
proposed by a "Christian". We've had our homes and properties
vandalized. We even had YOU people voting on our civil rights!! Yes, that was
what you did in prop-8. Now we have CHRISTIANS trying to enact laws to
DISCRIMINATE against us in public. You have no right to complain.
RE: Karen R. "But I'm happy to change my mind if you can prove that
your definition is THE definition."OK'(John 3:7) (Jesus)
“You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You must be born
again(anothen /From above).Amazing Grace. “For it is by grace
you have been saved through faith, and this not from yourselves; it is the gift
of God not by works, so that no one can boast.” (Eph 2:8-9-)He
has saved (Christians)us and called us with a holy calling, not because of our
own works, but by His own purpose and by the grace He granted us in Christ Jesus
before time eternal.( 2 Tim 1:9)
I personally can not see a need to get upset about who a person loves... it
seems the hate part is the problem.Official-unofficial ying/yang does it
matter?I cannot officially go in the men’s locker room. Is that
exclusion based on sex? Yes!VisaVersa. Not everyone is going to be
treated fair. This is not a fair world. If the core belief is Only brunettes
have brains club, somebody is going to be excluded. That is the nature of clubs,
to get together and focus on a core belief. Sometimes with that belief
concentrated on you realize that it isn’t true...or not. It is a matter of
individual choice and the process of learning. Talk, don’t yell.
Communicate, don’t attack or defend. Was the dress blue/black or
white/gold? Perception is an individual issue. You shouldn’t have to
This group isn't being prevented from existing and no one is telling them
they can't believe what they do. The group is only being prevented from
dipping its hand into the public till or using publicly-funded facilities while
discriminating against others. This is what certain religious folk are seeking:
to have their cake and to eat it too. Which is why I support two organizations
that fight for church-state separation.@ stanfunky"But when a gay non-religious man..."The student that
filed the complaint is a Christian. Stories elsewhere report that he has
started his own Jesus-centered student organization and that it is recognized by
the university...because it doesn't discriminate.@ Christmas"...any true follower of Jesus Christ..."There are
about as many definitions for "true Christian" as there are Christians.
That sounds like a strong case for "opinion" to me. But I'm happy
to change my mind if you can prove that your definition is THE definition.
Ranchhand, death threats, vandalism, anthrax hoax's, shaming, boycotts,
putting people out of business, ....all were directed towards opponents during
prop 8. Can you provide a citation where conservatives, and religious people
showed this kind of display when same-sex marriage became law across the nation?
"Conservative Christians spent DECADES denying rights to LGBT
people."Can you provide citation's that show this is true?
gay marriage was not even an issue up until five years ago. "The religious want to be able to discriminate against LGBT citizens ,
they just don't want to face discrimination themselves."
Do you really believe this is the reason why certain religious organizations
oppose lgbt issues, or could there be another explanation? An LDS example: The
Family, a Proclamation, is addressed to the WORLD, not one specific group.
It outlines the best way, we as Spirit children of God, can safely and healthily
live in a society the way God intended. Where do you get
"discrimination" out of this?
If people would just treat people respect these type of arguments could be
This article talks about "identities", but fails to point out that any
true follower of Jesus Christ, who believes the Bible to be the word of God,
acknowledges that every person who has lived, is living, and will live on this
earth, is a Spirit Child of God. That is our true identity. The world teaches
you can invent your own "identity" based on "feelings", outward
appearances, whatever is "popular". This is false. Numbers 16:22 ...."God of the spirits of all flesh"Job 32:8...
" There is a spirit in man"Ecclesiastes 12:7... " the spirit
shall return unto God who gave it"Ephesians 4:6..." One God and
Father of all"Laura Bilington"are you saying that
somebody has the right to overrule the majority?"Who do you
think overruled the majority in California over prop 8? If it's okay for
somebody on the left to do it, then it must be okay....
@NoNames, I don't know any Democratic student club that requires that
members sign a loyalty oath. Do you? And if a Republican member of a
Democratic student club gets the majority of the votes, why shouldn't s/he
be president? The majority voted him in; are you saying that somebody has the
right to overrule the majority?"Avoiding events one finds
offensive is not discrimination."What "events" are
talking about avoiding? This is a campus club announcing in advance that
someone may not be eligible to be an officer of the club--because said person
refuses to discriminate against LGBT people. How do you go from there to
"avoiding events"?I asked for examples of specific campus
groups who refuse to admit let people be officers if they don't meet a
particular racial or political or religions or sexual orientation. You
provided zero. Speculating vaguely about Hispanic student groups and who they
might elect is not documentation. Give me the name of the group and college
and dates. SWE is not a campus group, and I doubt that they have hangups about
admitting men anyway. Please provide documentation if you disagree.
@RanchHand: "The religious want to be able to discriminate against LGBT
citizens, they just don't want to face discrimination themselves."That isn't true. Avoiding events one finds offensive is not
discrimination. I afford that right to all. Expecting leaders of clubs to
support club beliefs is not discrimination.A homosexual club should
not be forced to accept into leadership someone who thinks homosexual conduct is
sinful, offensive, or harmful.@Laura Bilington: "Please give me
some examples."I did. Most college campuses host any number of
student clubs based on political beliefs/affiliations, race, or gender.Show me the SWE (society of women engineers) branch that has male leadership.
Or the Hispanic campus organization that has non-Hispanic leadership. Name the
campus democrats or young republicans club that has in leadership someone not
affiliated with and espousing the platform of the named political party.You will not find a homosexual club that has accepted into leadership
someone who thinks homosexual conduct is sinful or offensive.But
Christian groups get shut down for expecting leaders to live the values of the
club. That is discriminatory.
Religious belief later becoming widely acknowledged as discrimination is not
new. The details of faith have changed, over time.For example, if
you were to interview conservative Christians today if slavery was supported by
the Bible and the teachings of Jesus, it would be stunning if any agreed. Yet
that was the predominant view among Christians, leading up to the Civil War.Similarly, devoutly religious folks led opposition to the drive for
womens suffrage, based on Biblical understandings of the roles of men &
women, and what was best for families, and for society. If a religious person
today were to insist that women shouldn't be allowed to vote, most would
agree that would be advocating discrimination.(It doesn't make
these cases cut-and-dried to deal with today, but the general topic has been
dealt with, over & over, in our history.)
RanchHand, Discriminating against religious groups on campuses (while
professing to believe in pluralism, tolerance, diversity, and minority rights)
is the definition of "Hypocrisy."
@Fair Flower;This particular "hissy fit" (your words) is
being thrown by the Religious, not the LGBT community. You can believe whatever
you want, that still doesn't make you correct. And NOBODY is trying to
make you "drink" (i.e, become LGBT).@RG;Aren't you in favor of ACTUAL discrimination aginst LGBT customers by
so-called "religious" businesses?"Do you really treat
religious freedom and religious beliefs so lightly?"--- That is
what conservatives did when they DENIED churches the right to perform marriages
for their LGBT members by passing Prop-8 and other such amendments.@Chessermesser;Conservative Christians spent DECADES denying
rights to LGBT people. What do you have to say about that?
The religious want to be able to discriminate against LGBT citizens, they just
don't want to face discrimination themselves. Isn't that the
definition of the word 'Hypocrisy'?
NoNamesAccepted writes, "On campus groups get student fee monies all the
time for all kinds of stuff that would not be permissible otherwise."Please give me some examples. I'm fascinated about what you mean
by "stuff that would not be permissible otherwise" which, you claim, is
funded by student monies.And it's not just "student
monies". Every public college in this country receives state and federal
support. Tuition doesn't begin to cover the costs of running the
colleges.I've never heard of a Democratic campus club which
prohibited R students from holding office. Have you? Documentation, please.And Black Student Union groups have had white members AND white
officers. If they are voted in for an office, they're officers, regardless
of color. "But it seems we are no longer allowed to peacefully
hold religious beliefs that homosexual conduct is immoral or otherwise contrary
to God's commands. It isn't enough to peacefully disagree ...Anyone or
any group holding such beliefs must be banished from the public square."Believe whatever you want to believe. As long as you keep your hand out
of the public till.
"To be eligible for leadership positions in the group, members must affirm
that sexual relationships are reserved for heterosexual marriage and that people
should embrace their God-given sex"In other words, members must
uphold the teachings of the New Testament. What an idea.
@stanfunky wrote,"Funny thing - fraternities and sororities have
a Title IX exclusion and don't have to obey federal law."They also don't get public funding that the other student groups get.@RG wrote,"Do you really think that someone opposed to
the mission of the club should be able to be its leader?"The
stated mission of Business Leaders in Christ is to serve and support students
"of faith" who intend to have careers in the business world. The
implication of the statement of affirmation is that any person "of
faith" would automatically support that particular belief about gay and
trans people. This is obviously not true. Some Christians are
LGBT and some other Christians are straight people who believe in equal rights
for LGBTs. It sounds like neither of them are welcome in this group.Which doesn't mean the group can't exist. It just can't tap
the public coffers for money.
Again, another case of militant gay activity. The student wanted confrontation.
Gay rights have ascendency over all others. That is just plain wrong.
Playground bullying.Conservative Christians have rights, too. This
sort of anti-religious activity is going to continue until some judge says
‘enough’. It’s going to invade every walk of life.
On campus groups get student fee monies all the time for all kinds of stuff that
would not be permissible otherwise.The college Democrats are not
going to let Republicans or Libertarians hold office in their club. The
Republicans are not interested in Democrats being in leadership positions in the
campus GOP club.The on campus Black Student Union is probably fine
if a few white guys want to attend their meetings or parties. But you're
not going to find a white or Asian man serving as an officer in that
organization.The on-campus pro-choice organization is not going to
have a pro-lifer as its president.Christian organizations often
exclude Mormons from leadership as they do not consider LDS to be Christian.
I've never heard of a Mormon suing or filing a complaint. The Mormon just
joins the LDS Student Association.But it seems we are no longer
allowed to peacefully hold religious beliefs that homosexual conduct is immoral
or otherwise contrary to God's commands. It isn't enough to peacefully
disagree and perhaps disassociate. Anyone or any group holding such beliefs must
be banished from the public square.
The student group requires more than the affirmation about sex and identity
which was written about here--they also require a statement of belief in
Christian doctrine. In other words, a religious requirement. How
is that different from a church? The groups receive taxpayer money. Should the
good citizens of Iowa pay taxes to subsidize churches?The group says
it serves persons "of faith"---as long as they belong to the same faith
as whoever wrote that requirement. There are millions of LGBT persons who
believe in Christian doctrine, but they are apparently not the right variety of
Christian. I suspect this particular group would not accept an LDS student,
No, Red Corvette, you got that wrong. This story was not about someone's
fantasy of being discriminated against, it was about actual discrimination.
Therefore, not a "persecution complex." Do you really think that someone
opposed to the mission of the club should be able to be its leader? Do you
really treat religious freedom and religious beliefs so lightly?
If the groups was a Muslim group also seeking to push their own agenda would the
same people here be supporting their religious rights?
This is just yet another example of the persecution complex that the so-called
"Christian" groups thrive on.
It's like taking a horse to water. You can't make them drink. Because
of my religious beliefs, I'll never think that gay behavior and marriage is
right. I, also, believe that I should follow the law of the land. Therefore, I
have no desire to be cruel or unkind to anyone. No matter how many lawsuits, or
hissy fits are make by the LGBTQ, I'll never drink. Stop trying to make me.
Can't go wrong with freedom of speech and freedom of religion, its just
what the founders envisioned. Way to much thought and speech police in this
great country of ours. hope they win!
Obviously this is crazy, but I have a simple solution: stop funding these stupid
clubs. How many of these Students-Who-Identify-as-Popcorn clubs
would exist without funds mandated [extorted] from tuition? If the students in
the club had to foot the bill the market would decide which ones survive and
which ones were merely propaganda.
If a religious group's statement of faith is in conflict with a university
code of conduct, they may not be able to meet as an official group or receive
funding from the school, but they can meet informally. When I was in college,
our LDS student group refused to sign a similar statement of non-discrimination,
so for years our group was unofficial. After some leadership changes permitted
us to become "official"--nothing changed. We got a token amount of money
that we used to throw an open house event, and that was it. Still met in the
same place for Institute that we did before. People would be viewing
this very differently if a Muslim student group was refused recognition for the
same reason--there probably wouldn't be a peep about it from these folks
who are raising a ruckus now.
It is OK to stomp religious freedom( a constitutionally guaranteed right) into
the ground. But if a person invokes their constitutionally guaranteed right of
free speech to oppose perversion, they are persecuted for it. How is this
fair or just?
This is an example of why I contribute in support of the Becket Fund for
Religious Liberty, and will continue to do so.
Funny how the argument would be viewed very differently if reversed:If a straight Christian male, highly religious, wanted to be a president of a
rollicking campus fraternity without pledging or abiding by their rules, he
would be shown the door and it wouldn't make a bit of noise in the
media.But when a gay non-religious man wishes to head up a Christian
religious club, and is turned down, he sues and it goes all over the media as a
constitutional and legal brouhaha.Funny thing - fraternities and
sororities have a Title IX exclusion and don't have to obey federal law...