The SDA Public Affairs & Religious Liberty campaign is
Approved by the Father, Son and Holy Spirit to represent gospel principles on the earth.
33%
[ 3 ]
The worldly-wise way to achieve and secure politically desirable advantages.
22%
[ 2 ]
A shamelessly transparent evil, barely covered with a thinly disguised pretext.
44%
[ 4 ]
Total Votes : 9
Author
Message
wwendydarlin is under review
Joined: 16 Apr 2003 Posts: 2 Location: San Francisco,CA
Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2003 4:16 am Post subject: Subtle as the devil this bill tries to make same sex marriag
I cannot believe the enormity of the consequences this bill will produce if it becomes law. I am from San Francisco Ca and am sure that all churches will become attacked and scrutinized by the state if this happens. Now, if you think I am being intolerant towards gays and lesbians, I equate judging people according to what my eyes see and not seeing Jesus in them by faith and loving them is slapping the Father in the face. However, I cannot sit idly by and accept this brutal assault on the rights of churches and individuals to practice what they believe unhindered and untainted by the world. I DO NOT WILL NOT SHOVE MY BELIEFS DOWN THEIR THROATS, WHY MUST THEY TRY TO SHOVE THEIR LIFESTYLE DOWN MINE??????????? Jesus said: "You resist not evil", we must resist this action in prayer and in resolve. God Bless you all. _________________ that if you confess with your mouth Jesus Christ is Lord and believe in your heart God raised Him from the dead you shall be saved
Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2003 10:04 pm Post subject: There are laws against hypocrisy
Chris,
You have a very nice sounding argument but it falls apart if you examine legal precedent. Reality is much different than you suggest.
In a ruling issued June 28, 2000, the United States Supreme Court said that the Boy Scouts of America may invoke their First Amendment rights of free expression and association to discriminate against gays. The reason that some organizations may discriminate legally and others can’t has to do with a sincerity test. This is a test that the court has traditionally applied to group’s trying to escape an anti-discrimination law.
Quote:
There are many instances where organizations have tried to invoke First Amendment freedom of association or expression in order to evade civil rights laws. During the 1960s, ’70s and ’80s, groups representing everything from amusement parks to private schools have attempted to exclude African Americans, based on the First Amendment. In the 1980s, the Jaycees and the Rotary Club made similar, ineffective use of the Constitution, arguing that they ought to be free of laws banning sex discrimination.
The U.S. Supreme Court soundly rejected these groups’ earlier attempts to discriminate, primarily because none of the organizations existed for the purpose of creating an exclusive forum for white people or for men. If that was their purpose — however racist, sexist and repugnant it might be — they would be protected by the First Amendment.
Quote:
The Boy Scouts is a truly massive organization which operates in the public marketplace. It has more than 4.5 million members recruited from the general public; hundreds of paid staff; many facilities, such as camps, which are available for use by nonmembers; and substantial income derived from a variety of sources, including sales of goods and services to the public at its many retail outlets and events. The Boy Scouts of America have an annual income in excess of $50 million. Much smaller organizations have been determined to be "businesses" by the Court.
‘While we deplore the Boy Scout’s desire to exclude gays, atheists, and agnostics from their membership, the Court has clearly said that such a policy is protected by the Constitution,’ said Linda Hills, Executive Director of the San Diego ACLU.
Recall The Merikay McLeod Silver Case. The leadership of the Seventh-day Adventist church chose to lie in court and defend its practice of paying less to women workers for the same jobs performed by men. The Church leaders in effect argued for their right to oppress women in their wages (Malachi 3:5, Galatians 3:28) and that the State had no right to interfere based on the First Amendment protection of religion. The court weighed the Church’s response and judged it as not passing the sincerity test.
If your denomination isn’t full of duplicity and hypocrisy, why should it feel threatened over any anti-discrimination law? And if there are numerous instances in your denomination where your churches are warmly embracing practicing homosexuals and a mealy-mouthed church leadership approves, then why blame the State? Clearly, there would only be a problem for churches if practicing gays were allowed to receive and possess church membership while church owned businesses seek to deny homosexual workers equal benefits.
Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2003 6:56 pm Post subject: Re: ATTACK ON CHURCHES, Distortion, California Assembly Bill
Come on, don't be a hypocrit. Government taxes us all the time and uses the money for things everyone at some point disagrees with. Don't use the excuse about how this will bankrupt business because all the gays will be including their partners. This is what is a sham. A partner is a partner is a partner. They are not going to bankrupt the system as I have never heard of gays having children! HELLO!! There will be no healthcare for nonexistant children. They are saving the taxpayers money in the long run. Homosexuality is not condemened specifically in the bible and the bible references to it and does not condemn it. Yes I would prefer that homosexualtiy was non existant but I am not going to lose any sleep over it. The less exposure it has in the press the better.
Eugene. Because something has legal precidence does not mean it's right it just means it's legal. I have a problem with any goverment or government agency blackmailing an organization into accepting something that it finds not in keeping with it's beliefs. If an organization or a private employeer wishes to provide these benefits that's fine but as I said if it is not in keeping with the teaching of the organization or the beliefs of the employeer that is their right. IF people don't like it they don't have to work for the individual nor do they have belong to the organization.
I have to agree with wwendydarlin. I do not/will not shove my beliefs down their throats why must they try to shove their lifestyle down mine?
If I/we accept their sin as "normal or acceptable" behavior then aren't we sinning as well?
Quote:
If I do the exact same job as Bob Smith and he gets full medical coverage for two, then why shouldn’t I, as a single person, doing the exact same job, receive the same benefits? Where’s the injustice in me using one of two full medical plans for myself and giving away the second one to a deserving, unemployed friend or family member?
As was pointed out very few, if any, employeers give free medical care to the employee and their spouse and family. That is is thing of the past. Now the company provides part of the coverage and the employee pays part. If they want coverage for their family that is an additional cost on the individual. If you want to feel good about yourself and provide health care coverage to an unemployed friend or family do it out of your own pocket not that of your employer. Is it fair that the married person can get coverage for his spouse and you can't get it for a friend or relative? YES it is. Sorry but that's the way I feel. Remember that life is not fair. We need to understand that, get over it and move on.
Mike you said
Quote:
Homosexuality is not condemened specifically in the bible and the bible references to it and does not condemn it.
Please check Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them. (KJV)
I don't know about you but it seems to me that putting someone to death for something is a pretty strong condemnation of the act, not to mention calling the act an abomination, is also a pretty strong condemnation of the act.
Mike this has nothing to do with taxpayer money it has to do with blackmailing organizations to accept a lifestyle that is not in keeping with their beliefs. Just fyi, gays and lesbians do have children through adoption and artificial insemenation as well as embryo transplants, so there are healthcare costs for children of homosexual couples as well.
While certian portions of society see a partner is a partner is a partner, to use your words. The scriptures we base our faith upon does not see it that way.
Just for fun check what the cost of medical care for a HIV positive individual is. Also check the incidence of HIV/AIDS in the homosexual community vs. the heterosexual community. Then tell me the cost of healthcare for that company will not go up.
These costs will not bankrup companies who choose to provide those benefits to homosexual employees. They will just pass the cost on to the consumer. The same way they pass on tax increases, higher wages and all other costs of doing business. It's all passed on to the consumer. Check the cost breakdown for American made autos, then send a letter of thanks to the UAW. next time you buy a car.
Chris _________________ What you tolerate, will happen.
I think it’s obvious that your church is lying to you. There is no belief in the Seventh-day Adventist religion that says that, job for job, employees with spouses are deserving of greater benefits than unmarried workers with deserving yet unemployed friends or relatives.
You posted a link to the proposed bill. Why don’t you read it? The law would be satisfied if everyone on the same job, with the same experience and qualifications, received equal benefits.
Joined: 13 Apr 2003 Posts: 24 Location: St. Paul, MN USA
Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2003 9:44 am Post subject:
Eugene Shubert wrote:
I think it’s obvious that your church is lying to you. There is no belief in the Seventh-day Adventist religion that says that, job for job, employees with spouses are deserving of greater benefits than unmarried workers with deserving yet unemployed friends or relatives.
Chris didn't say that "job for job, employees with spouses are deserving of greater benefits than unmarried workers with deserving yet unemployed friends or relatives." And he didn't say anything about the church; he did note the UAW and used the genric term 'organization".
BTW, there is no such thing as the "Seventh-day Adventist religion". the SDA church is one denomination, among many, of the Christian religion.
What is stopping secular businesses and religiously affiliated entities from giving equal benefits to married and unmarried workers? If I do the exact same job as Bob Smith and he gets full medical coverage for two, then why shouldn’t I, as a single person, doing the exact same job, receive the same benefits? Where’s the injustice in me using one of two full medical plans for myself and giving away the second one to a deserving, unemployed friend or family member?
djconklin wrote:
Chris didn't say that "job for job, employees with spouses are deserving of greater benefits than unmarried workers with deserving yet unemployed friends or relatives."
Chris wrote:
Is it fair that the married person can get coverage for his spouse and you can't get it for a friend or relative? YES it is. Sorry but that's the way I feel. Remember that life is not fair. We need to understand that, get over it and move on.
Chris is saying that it’s just and fair for employees with spouses to receive greater benefits than unmarried workers. Isn’t that obvious?
Everyone is deserving of justice. Therefore, the clear injustice Chris calls fairness, in his opinion, is an inalienable religious right. Aren’t we deserving of our religious rights? If this isn’t a religious issue, why is the Seventh-day Adventist Church State Council involved?
I was hoping that Chris didn’t come up with this sophistry by himself but that he merely believed the lie so cunningly devised and promulgated by his church.
Eugene please note in my post I specifically said that's the way I feel.
First my church/denomination did not lie to me. The statements I made are my opinion based upon what I have read and researched for myself. The church has nothing to do with it.(So there went your hopes) If it were up to me I'd tell the state to keep their money. I don't believe the church (through it's academy and college/universites etc) should be accepting state funds to begin with. But that is a different topic. It's that separation of Church and State thing.
Where I see a problem is state based payment for the poor for medical care. IF the church based hospital (Adventist, Catholic or whatever) refuses to submit to the blackmail of the state and the speical interest group pushing this agenda how does the state intend to pay the hospitals when they treat people on medicaid or from the prisons or their own health insurance? I guess the state employees, the poor and others who receive state funds will have to go somewhere else for their medical care.
Eugene I'm sorry you feel discirminated against because a married person gets what you feel are more medical benefits than you do because their spouse is eligible and you have no eligible dependant. How about kids. If they have 5 kids and you have none they are getting more benefits than you too. So now do you want benefits for yourself and 6 others of your choosing to equal out to the man with a wife and 5 kids? At what point does it become fair? I'm sorry but that goes beyond the point of being ridiculous. What's the alternative pay you more cash in your pocket because you don't have as many dependents or allow you to get 5 friends who don't have health insurance covered under yours?
Justice isn't always fair either.
I believe we are deserving of our religous rights and I also believe the goverment has no business forceing us to accept a lifestyle as "normal" the Holy Scriptures tell us is wrong. _________________ What you tolerate, will happen.
Joined: 13 Apr 2003 Posts: 24 Location: St. Paul, MN USA
Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2003 1:22 pm Post subject:
Eugene Shubert wrote:
I was hoping that Chris didn’t come up with this sophistry by himself but that he merely believed the lie so cunningly devised and promulgated by his church.
I explicitly pointed out that Chris did NOT say "church" so why do you continue to claim that he did?
I absoulutely refuse to believe that you are either that thick-headed or stupid! I'm the thick-headed Irishman (not to mention the Greman half!) and even I saw it! Who could possibly be more thick-headed than that combination!!
Don’t call this going beyond the point of being ridiculous. This is a religious issue. The Seventh-day Adventist Church State Council says that equal benefits for equal work is a depravation of their religious rights! They said that in the 1970s and they’re saying it now.
djconklin,
Stupid is as stupid does.
Everyone,
Suppose I have the same job, qualifications and employer as Bob Smith and he receives full medical coverage for two adults plus 5 children for only x dollars per month. Where’s the injustice in the employer giving me the same deal, and I use one medical plan for myself and give away one to a deserving unemployed friend plus 5 needy children?
Chris wrote:
So now do you want benefits for yourself and 6 others of your choosing to equal out to the man with a wife and 5 kids? At what point does it become fair? I'm sorry but that goes beyond the point of being ridiculous.
The point at which it becomes fair is when everyone receives equal benefits for equal work.
Don’t call this going beyond the point of being ridiculous. This is a religious issue.
What is a religious issue is the acceptance or failure to accept Gay and Lesbian relationships as normal. That is a religious issue.
Equal pay or equal benefits is not a religious issue it is a human resources.
I don't know where you work but where I work. When Hired we negotiated for pay and benefits. What they offered and what I was willing to settle for were discussed and we met at a mutually agreed upon package. In the case of those companies I am familiar with at my level of management the benefits offered are the same while the pay is the biggest variable. My wife, daughters, son and son-in-law all shared the same experience with other employers. Part of the rules we work by with out employeer is we do not discuss our pay with other employees. Now I do know what some of the other employees make who do the same job as I do and I make more than they do. They are happy with their negotiated package just as I am with mine. There is as much as a 45% difference in pay between mine and others but it was what they were willing to accept in exchange for their labors. Raises are based on a point system which is the same throughout the company but the application and interpretation varies from supervisor to supervisor as they do your annual review. So much for equal pay for equal work.
As far as benefits every company I have ever worked for require that those who receive benefits specifically health benefits are your legal dependents. Insurance companies require that the beneficiaries covered by their policy provided by the companies be your LEGAL dependents (spouse and children and sometimes parents and in-laws if they are your legal dependents). What you are suggesting of insuring friends and relatives won't fly with employeers nor do I believe will it fly with the insurance companies or HMO's
Lets go back to the employee with a spouse and 5 kids. He is paying additional money out of his paycheck for his spouse and each child to be covered under the policy. Are you willing to pay out of your check for the 6 friends or relatives you have listed as your dependent to be covered by the policy? What happens if the guy with a wife and five children quits and they hire a single person. Now in order to be fair they should either cut you back to just you being covered or now give him the opportunity to cover 6 homeless people under his insurance. OR the next employee has 8 children so now do y ou get to go out and find two more people to cover under your policy or does the compnay say we're just going tocover the individual and the rest can just go fend for themselves. As I said it quickly goes beyond rediculous.
The letter from the conference is not as much about insurance coverage, as much as you would like to make it. It is about the state forcing an organization like the SDA church and it's affiliate universities, academies or hospitals or the Catholic church and their affiliates or the Boy Scouts and others into accepting an alternate lifestyle, not in keeping with their fundimental beliefs, as a normal lifestyle and the state punishing those who will not bow to the desires of the speical interest groups who sponsored the legislation. As I said this is blackmail plain and simple. It is the New Thought Police saying you must Think as we tell you to or we will punish you.
I suggest you read two books "The New Thought Police" and "The Death of Right and Wrong", both by the same author Tammy Bruce. She, being part of the liberal left, NOW and a lesbian, has some significant insight to proposals similar to AB17.
The easiest way would be for the employeer (like the SDA Church and it's affiliates) to say they will only cover the employee, if he or she wants benifits for the rest of his/her family he/she will have to fund it all by him or herself.
As an individual if one believes so strongly in the homosexual agenda and that individual works for a company that only gives medical benefits to legal dependents (spouse and children) I suggest that individual find a job with a company the will accept his/her life style and give him/her the coverage he/she wants. There are apparently many companies that are willing to do so judging by the list of supporters of the bill. But do not expect me as an employeer or an organization to compromise my beliefs and my faith to accomodate that individual's lifestyle if it is in conflict with scripture.
As I said life is not fair, we need to get over it and move on.
If what your looking for is a world where everyone is equal I suggest you read George Orwell's Animal Farm. Man will always mess it up and some animals will always be more equal than others.
You will never see a world where everyone is equal until the Lord Returns. Even then it won't be exactly equal. each will have a crown but some will be more ornate than others but each will be satisfied with what they have received.
There are more important issues in the world today than equal health benefits for homosexual couples and heterosexual couples living together. Spreading the Gospel, Mission Work, Preparing for the Lord's return, The coming time of trouble, and more so many more that we should be concerned about.
Chris _________________ What you tolerate, will happen.
Joined: 21 Jun 2003 Posts: 21 Location: On my computer!! how else would i be typing!!
Posted: Sat Jun 21, 2003 10:59 pm Post subject:
i agree as with japansong when it refers to a BUSINESS not a church
it should be fair for those to have equal chances in the job market
BUT IM SO AGAINST HOMOSEXUALS
THE CHURCH ANY CHURCH SHOULD NEVER BEND TO THE RULES OF THE STATE-NO MATTER HOW RADICAL U THINK THEY ARE-UNTIL THEY BREAK ANY LAW SUCH AS MURDER, ASSAUALT ETC. CRIMES THEN U GO AGAINST INDIVIDUAL NOT CHURCH!!!!!!!!!!!!
THE CHURCH ANY CHURCH SHOULD NEVER BEND TO THE RULES OF THE STATE
I have to agree with you. If this means no funding from the state of California, then so be it. Not that Calfironia can afford to pay it's bills anyway since Gray Davis took over. (But that's another topic for another thread and time)
By making this demand on all churches the State IS violating the constitution of the US. By requiring the church to accept homosexual or unmarried heterosexual couples to be equal with married heterosexual couples which is not in keeping with our religion/faith/denomination, California is enacting a law which may be interpreted as prohibiting the free exercise of our religion and in a way also establishing secular humanism as the preferred religion of the state. The first ammendment to the constitution clearly states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,: This is clearly a violation of both freedom of religion and freedom of speech. _________________ What you tolerate, will happen.
All times are GMT - 5 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2, 3Next
Page 2 of 3
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in
Chris
