Signs of the Bush Administration...

[Lightning]

I thought I would include everyone in some signs that the Bush administration is going to screw things up for a lot of people, regardless of who is involved or gets hurt.

Charity Cites Bush Help in Fight Against Hiring Gays

It just amazes me that people can be so negligent to the fellow man. I figured that this information would have a tremendous impact with the sexually knowledgeable Literoticans.

Let's hope that it doesn't get as bad as we can imagine.

 

[stargazer76]

Is tolerance such a bad thing? I really don't understand why it is socially permissible to persecute people for ANY reason, much less their sexual orientation. And the fact that the loudest voices speaking out against homosexuality tend to come from a background steeped in a religion that preaches forgiveness, not judging others, and loving thy neighbor is just beyond my comprehension. Am I just naive to think that we all have our little issues, and if we're going to live together in this society, that we need to look past the circumstances of our individual lifestyle and embrace the beauty of our inner being?

 

[Lightning]

Agree...

Is tolerance such a bad thing? I really don't understand why it is socially permissible to persecute people for ANY reason, much less their sexual orientation. And the fact that the loudest voices speaking out against homosexuality tend to come from a background steeped in a religion that preaches forgiveness, not judging others, and loving thy neighbor is just beyond my comprehension. Am I just naive to think that we all have our little issues, and if we're going to live together in this society, that we need to look past the circumstances of our individual lifestyle and embrace the beauty of our inner being?

I totally agree, but it just seems that people are more focused on meeting their "agenda" then improving the lives of those around them. *sigh*

The only way to change anything, is to get yourself elected, and then beat off all of the others with a stick of dynamite. Hmmm.

Maybe Napolean, Alexander the Great, and Hitler, were just people trying to set things straight. Granted, they all went a little overboard, but I wouldnt' be surprised if that's how they got their start.

 

[FantasticJones]

Weighing in for a moment, I'm kind of okay with the Salvation hiring or not hiring who ever they like.

Don't get me wrong, I think they're being idiots but I've never been a fan of forcing anyone(see my sig?) to accept me or my sexual preference. For even if you win some small measure of enforced tolerance you often create backlash against you. By forcing groups(Boy Scouts, The Army, Catholics) to accept queers you don't deal with dicrimination but make believe like it's not there. You don't try to confront and fight the problem but you criminalize it. And we all know how well that works with weed.

 

[miles]

I don't know which is worse - George W. Dildo pandering to the religious right or S.A.'s "moral decision" not to hire gays. How loudly would they scream if one of their flock were denied a job because they were Christian?

Remember this next Christmas when you see them doing the donation ding-dong.

 

[Lightning]

Discrimination...

I don't know which is worse - George W. Dildo pandering to the religious right or S.A.'s "moral decision" not to hire gays. How loudly would they scream if one of their flock were denied a job because they were Christian?

Remember this next Christmas when you see them doing the donation ding-dong.

It truly is amazing how one-sided discrimination really is. You're right, Miles. They would holler and scream, and prolly bring it before the Supreme Court. Now Dubya starts this, and who knows how it will end up, except badly?

 

[WriterDom]

How loudly would they scream if one of their flock were denied a job because they were Christian?

Remember this next Christmas when you see them doing the donation ding-dong.

I've read about freedom of religion in the bill of rights but have seen nothing about homosexuals. I guess that's the difference.

 

[Lightning]

Bill of Rights...

I've read about freedom of religion in the bill of rights but have seen nothing about homosexuals. I guess that's the difference.

Yeah, you're prolly right. It still sucks.

 

[stargazer76]

Why should homosexuals be denied the same rights that heterosexuals enjoy simply because of who they love? If you want to bring the Constitution into it, I suppose I should probably ask what happened to that part in the Declaration of Independence about all men being created equal? At one time in our country's history, we denied rights to people on the basis of their color, and are now embarrassed to recall how our fear and prejudice ruled our government. How long will it take before the tide turns for those people persecuted for their sexual orientation?

 

[Texan]

I don't know which is worse - George W. Dildo pandering to the religious right or S.A.'s "moral decision" not to hire gays. How loudly would they scream if one of their flock were denied a job because they were Christian?

Remember this next Christmas when you see them doing the donation ding-dong.

You know, come to think of it, maybe gay and lesbian organizations should be forced to hire fundamentalist Christians to work in their offices. Or maybe Islamic organizations shoud be required to hire Jews and Christians to work for them. Maybe Gun Control Inc. should not be allowed to discriminate against NRA members when hiring. Stranger yet, maybe the NAACP should be required to hire more whites than blacks to accurately represent the make up of our society.

The difference is, that most "groups" don't want to push their own differences down the throats of people who have strongly held feelings. Some people in the gay and lesbian community are different in this respect. "Unthinking" politically correct people jump to their defense in an effort to demonstrate how "progressive" they are. Just like in this thread, these people condemn "religious" people as bigots for not wanting to compromise their belief systems.

 

[Lightning]

How Long?

Why should homosexuals be denied the same rights that heterosexuals enjoy simply because of who they love? If you want to bring the Constitution into it, I suppose I should probably ask what happened to that part in the Declaration of Independence about all men being created equal? At one time in our country's history, we denied rights to people on the basis of their color, and are now embarrassed to recall how our fear and prejudice ruled our government. How long will it take before the tide turns for those people persecuted for their sexual orientation?

Probably too long, and it may haunt us all before it gets any better. As it is, there are only a few places online or in real-life that are accepting and open to people being who they really are. That is why Literotica is such a haven for so many.

 

[FantasticJones]

You know, come to think of it, maybe gay and lesbian organizations should be forced to hire fundamentalist Christians to work in their offices. Or maybe Islamic organizations shoud be required to hire Jews and Christians to work for them. Maybe Gun Control Inc. should not be allowed to discriminate against NRA members when hiring. Stranger yet, maybe the NAACP should be required to hire more whites than blacks to accurately represent the make up of our society.

The difference is, that most "groups" don't want to push their own differences down the throats of people who have strongly held feelings. Some people in the gay and lesbian community are different in this respect. "Unthinking" politically correct people jump to their defense in an effort to demonstrate how "progressive" they are. Just like in this thread, these people condemn "religious" people as bigots for not wanting to compromise their belief systems.

This may just be me, Mr. Texan but I believe the issue at hand is whether or not the SA should be able to discrminate freely while taking dolla's from the government. I'm all for not forcing private institutions to hire who I think they should but if any of the groups you mentioned above fed at the big government trough than I would have a serious problem with them discriminatin' the way they'd be allowed to as private organizations.

The Boy Scouts are different from this because your Supreme Court ruled that as a Private organization they could do as they please. This is about Government money and reveals why Bush's faith based programs suck so hard. A lot of the groups who want to take this money aren't going to like cozying up to the feds and jumping through the hoops they need to for the money. The SA is trying to have it both ways, Boo Hoo for them.

 

[stargazer76]

Fantastic.....couldn't agree more!

 

[Texan]

This may just be me, Mr. Texan but I believe the issue at hand is whether or not the SA should be able to discrminate freely while taking dolla's from the government. I'm all for not forcing private institutions to hire who I think they should but if any of the groups you mentioned above fed at the big government trough than I would have a serious problem with them discriminatin' the way they'd be allowed to as private organizations.

The Boy Scouts are different from this because your Supreme Court ruled that as a Private organization they could do as they please. This is about Government money and reveals why Bush's faith based programs suck so hard. A lot of the groups who want to take this money aren't going to like cozying up to the feds and jumping through the hoops they need to for the money. The SA is trying to have it both ways, Boo Hoo for them.

I replied to a specific question that was asked in a "righteously indignant" tone by miles. The question was, "How loudly would they scream if one of their flock were denied a job because they were Christian?" That question has nothing to do with government funding.

As a separate issue, I can understand the delimas created by the idea of government funding of religious groups' efforts to meet the basic human needs of the poor. I have mixed feelings/thoughts on the subject. Government is such a poor administrator of programs. They create so much unnecessary bureaucracy and increase the administrative costs associated with the delivery of services. Religious and other private organizations are already active in efforts to meet the needs of the poor, and they have more "honorable" motives behind their efforts. From a practical standpoint, it would seem logical to augment the efforts of existing private/religious organizations rather than trying to compete with them. It is also obvious that many poor people have other problems that can't be met by simply feeding them. Government can never address those other problems, some private/religious organizations have that ability.

On the other hand, I can understand that there are those in our society that strongly disagree with the basic beliefs of religious organizations. These people pay taxes too, and should not necessarily have to have their tax money used to support religious organizations.

Personally, I think that if an organization can adaquately separate its religious functions from its charitable functions, then it should be allowed to compete for federal funding for those exclusively charitable functions.

If I were part of a religious organization that was considering accepting federal funds, I would be very reluctant to do so.

 

[shadowsource]

bigotry is bigotry, and Bush is a shrub!

None of this should surprise anyone, least of all the gays who supported the Bush-Cheney ticket, grateful that Cheney got his daughter a gig fronting for Coors to the gay community (since when does this gang not take care of their own, regardless of ideology?).

What's really interesting - and typical - is that Bush tried to achieve his nasty little discriminatory goal surreptitiously. He didn't make any statements, no goofy jokes. He just told the Salvation Army that the US was going to turn Civil Rights law into a cover to allow them and others to discriminate. And then HE DENIED IT! Watch the White House weasel around on this one.

They are not gay-bashing psychos. But they are bloody-minded hypocrites who believe in nothing but privilege and trading nods and winks for the political support they so desperately need. if Jenna gets knocked up, you can bet your Right-To-Life membership card that she'll very quietly dispose of it.

Thankfully there is now a formal opposition to these clowns!

 

[Purple Haze]

This whole thing is as stupid as the Boy Scouts.

It's just political bullshit, and who's gonna get the short stick? The poor, of course. The people that are going to get a lot less from now on.

If I was going to apply for a job with the Salvation Army, why the fuck would they even have to know who I sleep with? I'm hetro, but why the fuck do they need to know this? It's my business, and it should stay that way.

More political bullshit.

 

[miles]

Texan

"I replied to a specific question that was asked in a "righteously indignant" tone by miles. The question was, "How loudly would they scream if one of their flock were denied a job because they were Christian?" That question has nothing to do with government funding."


I'll be polite.

1. It should be SELF-righteous indignation.

2. You got one thing right - my statement about Christians has
nothing to do with gov't funding because it wasn't intended to.

3. Where did I say anything about forcing the SA to hire anyone?
I asked for the time and you told me how to build a watch.


You also said:

The difference is, that most "groups" don't want to push their own differences down the throats of people who have strongly held feelings. Some people in the gay and lesbian community are different in this respect. "Unthinking" politically correct people jump to their defense in an effort to demonstrate how "progressive" they are. Just like in this thread, these people condemn "religious" people as bigots for not wanting to compromise their belief systems

If that isn't self-righteous indignation I don't know what is.

All I said was that the SA's (and Bush's) decisions sucked. You made up the rest.

Give me a break.

 

[Laurel]

You know, come to think of it, maybe gay and lesbian organizations should be forced to hire fundamentalist Christians to work in their offices. Or maybe Islamic organizations shoud be required to hire Jews and Christians to work for them. Maybe Gun Control Inc. should not be allowed to discriminate against NRA members when hiring. Stranger yet, maybe the NAACP should be required to hire more whites than blacks to accurately represent the make up of our society.

If Clinton had negotiated a deal allowing GLAAD to receive Federal funds while refusing to hire people simply because they happened to be fundamentalist Christians, would you support that? I certainly wouldn't. Religious bigotry is just as evil as any other bigotry.

If an Islamic group takes Federal money, it should be held to the same standard as any other group on the dole. If the NAACP receives funds from the Feds, it should also comply with the rules. Private citizens who receive welfare from the government do so under certain conditions. Organizations receiving grants and such must also abide by certain rules. You don't like the rules, then change them - but don't make exceptions for organizations who happen to donate money to your compaign.

 

[Lightning]

Whoa There...

Okay, boys. I started this to get some thoughts going on the discrimination being aimed at the gay/lesbian/bi-sexual/alternative commmunity. I didn't mean to start an all-out mud war. Let's keep this fun and post our views without letting it get out of control and mean.

Let's focus our aggression towards the views and not each other. That's what the trolls are for, and let's not take away their only function here at Lit.

 

[Lightning]

Laurel...

Great point. For some reason, it sounds kinda like those lessons that we all receive from "Mom" when we're growing up. If the world was really that simple, so many things would be a lot better for us all.

 

[WriterDom]

If Clinton had negotiated a deal allowing GLAAD to receive Federal funds while refusing to hire people simply because they happened to be fundamentalist Christians, would you support that

why would a trash bag company care what religion you are?

 

[WriterDom]

Feds Back Off Religion Exemption

By LAURA MECKLER
.c The Associated Press


WASHINGTON (AP) - In a fresh controversy over President Bush's ``faith-based initiative,'' the White House backed away from a proposal that would have allowed religious groups to receive federal funds even if they discriminated against gays and lesbians.

Amid intense criticism, officials abruptly ended a review of a proposed regulation that would have exempted religious groups that get taxpayer dollars from state and local anti-discrimination laws.

The decision came late Tuesday afternoon, hours after Vice President Dick Cheney and other administration officials said that churches and other religious groups should be allowed to stick to their principles in running secular programs with government money.

White House spokesman Dan Bartlett said senior administration officials reviewed the matter over the course of the day and concluded that religious groups do not need overt protections in order to bypass gay-rights hiring laws.

Legislation now pending in Congress - and being pushed hard by Bush - makes it clear that any religious group that gets government money may consider religion in making hiring decisions. The courts have said this includes one's religious practices - and for many religions that could mean rejecting job applicants because they are gay.

``That's when you get into definitions that will ultimately be decided by the courts,'' Bartlett said.

He added that the administration was not backing off Cheney's statement that a group should be allowed to be faithful to its ``underlying principles and organizing doctrines'' even when it accepts government money.

The legislation as written, he said, provides ``adequate protections'' for groups that might object to hiring gays.

David Smith, a gay rights advocate, agreed that the legal issues are unresolved. He said the solution is for Congress to explicitly bar discrimination against gays and lesbians. ``Federal funds should not be given to organizations that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation,'' he said.

The issue was raised by an internal report from the Salvation Army, the nation's largest charity, which suggested the White House would put forward the regulation in exchange for support of its initiative to open government programs to religious groups, now pending in Congress.

White House officials denied the quid pro quo, but said they were considering the regulation, which would allow religious groups to bypass local and state laws that bar discrimination against gays when the groups take federal dollars.

Gay rights groups, Democrats and civil rights organizations reacted strongly, and by day's end, it was clear that the issue would mean a new round of controversy for Bush's overall legislation.

``President Bush regularly talks about seeing into the good hearts of people. Does he think that gay people do not have the same good hearts and moral values as others? How else could he support, in the name of faith, taking a position that values gay people less than others?'' said a statement from Kirsten Kingdon, executive director of Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays.

``It will just deepen opposition and make many of my colleagues more skeptical,'' Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., said before the White House changed course.

Later, Lieberman's spokesman welcomed the change. ``This is a reassuring signal after a very disturbing signal and hopefully it means we can now kind of refocus on finding common ground and strengthening rather than weakening civil rights protections,'' said Dan Gerstein.

Some state and local laws bar discrimination in hiring gays and lesbians. Others require employers to offer health insurance and other benefits to the domestic partners of gay employees. Typically, these laws do not apply to religious groups. But it's not clear whether groups lose that exemption once they accept taxpayer dollars.

The Bush administration was considering issuing guidance from the Office of Management and Budget banning enforcement of these laws for religious groups that get federal dollars, which often pass through local and state government.

The Salvation Army report explicitly linked the regulatory action with the legislation, now pending in the House.

``It is important that the Army's support for the White House's activities occur simultaneously with efforts to achieve the Army's objectives,'' said the document.

It said White House officials wanted to move the legislation first ``and use the political momentum of this'' to push through the regulatory change. And it said White House officials believed a regulation was better than trying to move separate legislation on an exemption, ``which is more time-consuming and more visible.''

It added that the Salvation Army, which operates a national network of social services, would enlist more than 100 of its leaders to lobby members of Congress ``in a prearranged agreement with the White House.''

The Salvation Army said the report overstated the strategic relationship between the two issues, though spokesman David Fuscus said the regulation is needed. ``As a church, the Army does insist that those people who have religious responsibilities, who are ministers, share the theology and lifestyle of the church.''

 

[Laurel]

why would a trash bag company care what religion you are?

LMAO!

 

[Oliver Clozoff]

In a fresh controversy over President Bush's ``faith-based initiative,'' the White House backed away from a proposal that would have allowed religious groups to receive federal funds even if they discriminated against gays and lesbians.

This is perfectly illustrative of why I think Bush's funding for faith-based social welfare programs is misguided. I agree with Laurel nd the others on this thread who correctly point out that organizations receiving taxpayer dollars shouldn't receive any special exemptions from abiding by all the usual regulations required by government.

However, I strongly agree with Texan in his belief that religious organizations are far better suited to caring for the social needs of communities than bloated and disconnected government beaurocracies.

Why not support Bush's proposal to fund these organizations then? The reason is not because religion will somehow corrupt government as is usually feared but because of the opposite. As PPman rightly noted in a previous thread on this same subject: "He who pays the piper calls the tune." Do we really want our religious organizations to be beholden to government, to be shaped by the same political BS that consistently poisons governmental social welfare programs?

I'm actually a bit surprised why so many obvious opponents of religion are opposed to this plan. Here is an opportunity for the Federal Government to finally wield some power over those intolerant religions. I'd think there would be more support for it.

I myself have have too great a respect for the good work done by religious organizations to wish them to sell out their ideals to become arms of an inefficient and misguided government social welfare scheme. Religious organizations' power lies in their moral authority, something the federal government sorely lacks.

Just say no, churches.

 

[KillerMuffin]

*shakes head* Interesting, that's not what I heard. The problem we're running into here is that most gay people are not Christian. Why would they belong to a religion that calls them evil and won't tolerate what they are naturally? The Salvation Army, a Christian organization, does not have to hire non-Christians. However, they cannot discriminate on whom to hire based on anything else. So, should a gay person somehow inexplicably find him or herself a Christian, then the Salvation Army must consider them for hire as equally as they would consider a non-gay Christian person. So, what percentage of gay persons do you think are actually masochistic enough to be a Christian?

http://www.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml;jsessionid=SJA0IOQVGZETYCRBAEZSFFAKEEATIIWD?type=topnews&StoryID=111676

Bush Refuses Gay Exemption for Faith Groups

July 10, 2001 07:02 PM ET

By Steve Holland

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -President Bush on Tuesday refused a request for a regulation exempting religious charities like the Salvation Army from having to hire homosexuals.

Aides said the White House had reviewed the Salvation Army request and decided that language in current law and as proposed in Bush's faith-based initiative already protect religious charities from hiring people who do not share their faith.

"These protections ensure that religious organizations have the right to hire individuals who share their religious faith. They also ensure that such organizations comply with civil rights laws," said White House spokesman Ari Fleischer.

The Salvation Army had wanted the exemption because of the increasing number of local governments that have passed laws requiring religious groups such as the Salvation Army to adhere to laws barring discrimination against gays in hiring, job promotion and benefits.

David Smith, spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign, which represents the gay and lesbian community, said the decision meant the status quo was maintained.

But he said the group still had concerns, and would work with Congress to address them, to ensure that civil rights laws that include sexual orientation protections in 12 states and 122 communities be respected in regard to the distribution of federal funds to religious charities.

"We firmly believe that federal funds should not be used by any organization, religious or not, that discriminates against gay and lesbian Americans," Smith said.

Rob Boston, spokesman for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, a leading critic of Bush's faith-based plan, said the whole controversy "underscores the inherent unworkability of the faith-based initiative."

"These questions of discrimination underwritten with public dollars are going to quickly become a flash point for litigation," Boston said.

The Bush decision was announced on the same day The Washington Post quoted from an internal Salvation Army document it said suggested a link between a White House pledge to issue such a regulation in return for the organization's support of Bush's faith-based initiative.

"Oh no, absolutely not," said Fleischer when asked if there was such a trade-off.

Fleischer earlier said the Salvation Army had misinterpreted the White House position, telling reporters: "Yes, and they've been advised of that."

Under Bush's plan, faith-based organizations would be able to compete for federal dollars to pay for projects to help tackle social problems like alcohol abuse and homelessness.

Faith-based groups are not prohibited by federal law from discriminating against gays in hiring.

In a statement, a Salvation Army spokesman insisted the group's hiring policies "fully comply with federal laws with respect to fair hiring on the basis of sexual orientation, gender, race and ethnicity."

"Federal law provides protections to religious organizations for the hiring of employees consistent with an organization's beliefs, values and practices," said Lt. Col. Tom Jones.

The organization made the case for the exemption during a recent meeting with White House officials about obstacles religious charities feel are blocking them from providing services.

"It really is a barrier to people seeking help," said Salvation Army spokesman David Fuscus.

"What's happening is local governments are putting restrictions on federal money passing through them requiring churches to give benefits to homosexuals. That is not consistent with the theology of the Salvation Army church. The Army would like to see federal money go to help people without this restriction."

The Salvation Army gets about 15 percent, or $330 million, of its annual budget from the federal government, and the rest from private sources, like the buckets of spare change collected by bell-ringing volunteers at Christmas time.