Conservatives

[outlaw]

No worse than the typical bimbos in bras that get trotted out...every day on "straight advocate websites". Besides your comment is deliberately misleading. There is no nudity on that site. Though I'm sure you've thoroughly checked it.

Thanks for pointing that misleading statement out.

I’m looking at the page now and there are ads for a cruise ship, wedding rings and a dating service…none of which contain nudity

 

[ChristianCenturion]

No worse than the typical bimbos in bras that get trotted out...every day on "straight advocate websites". Besides your comment is deliberately misleading. There is no nudity on that site. Though I'm sure you've thoroughly checked it.

If someone posted a moronic link to Maxim or whatever else would be considered "straight", I would have made a similar comment. There may be a gay site out there that doesn't have a barrage of "love connection" and sex focused ads/articles, but they seem to elude those that link on the gay advocacy side... just a happenstance I guess.

ETA:And I'll pass on the psychic hotline routine in trying to tell me what I did or didn't do as "deliberate", I can speak for myself and you are free to quote where I said there was nudity. If underwear around the ankles has that Oh-so-deep meaning, it must have been too sophisticated for little ol' me.

Ephesians 5:8-14
8For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Live as children of light 9(for the fruit of the light consists in all goodness, righteousness and truth) 10and find out what pleases the Lord. 11Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. 12For it is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret. 13But everything exposed by the light becomes visible, 14for it is light that makes everything visible. This is why it is said:
"Wake up, O sleeper,
rise from the dead,
and Christ will shine on you."

That might have been the original intent of Governor Schwarzenegger; sort of a "throw em a bone and hope they'll shutup tactic". But apparently Arnold got more than he bargained for when he hired Kennedy because he got and excellent chief of staff.

LOL. Ooh, there is a qualification, spectacularershipness.
I'll be sure to put that on my resume... "I'm qualified for this job because I excel at being spectacular."
Oh, wait...

 

[Henaynei]

In other words, you wouldn't hire anyone who sins.

You might be able to get bonobo chimps to do your packing and shipping, but I wouldn't leave them alone in the mail room.

AS I said: "knowingly" - If I was hiring and I *knew* the applicant was a liar, a thief, and adulterer or a murderer, etc.... then I would NOT hire them, period. If I was hiring for a ministry and I *knew* the applicant was any of those or was actively participating in or supporting the homosexual agenda or lifestyle, I would also not hire that person. Happily, I plan to keep my business well under 15 employees and am therefore exempt from some of the more draconian hiring laws.

 

[LogicChristian]

AS I said: "knowingly" -

What if the person in question say... touched the skin of a dead pig?

 

[outlaw]

AS I said: "knowingly" - If I was hiring and I *knew* the applicant was a liar, a thief, and adulterer or a murderer, etc.... then I would NOT hire them, period. If I was hiring for a ministry and I *knew* the applicant was any of those or was actively participating in or supporting the homosexual agenda or lifestyle, I would also not hire that person. Happily, I plan to keep my business well under 15 employees and am therefore exempt from some of the more draconian hiring laws.

Interesting…you say you wouldn’t hire a lair cause lying is BAD… but apparently you would hire a homosexual…as long as he/she was willing to lie. So you would cheerfully discriminate against an honest homosexual but you would not discrimination against a lying homosexual…. I guess you don’t think lying is so bad after all….

 

[outlaw]

What if the person in question say... touched the skin of a dead pig?

Or people marked with the curse of Canaan? Is discriminating against them morally ok?

 

[TeddyKGB]

AS I said: "knowingly" - If I was hiring and I *knew* the applicant was a liar, a thief, and adulterer or a murderer, etc.... then I would NOT hire them, period.

I guess I'll ask what "etc..." includes. And if you consider all non-blasphemic sins of essentially equal offensive value.

 

[philN]

I think it's presupposing alot for someone to say the homosexuality is inherently wrong in the first place. The bible is ambiguous at best when it comes to the topic. So I really see no reason to desire her to be fired except a few uptight conservatives are insecure and think the presence of a homosexual in an office is going to magically turn the state of California gay or something.

If the best person for a job is a homosexual, it seems somewhat stupid to not want to have them working for you.

 

[Henaynei]

Interesting…you say you wouldn’t hire a lair cause lying is BAD… but apparently you would hire a homosexual…as long as he/she was willing to lie. So you would cheerfully discriminate against an honest homosexual but you would not discrimination against a lying homosexual…. I guess you don’t think lying is so bad after all….

I never said the homosexual had to lie , I never said anyone had to lie.

I said if *I* knew that someone who was applying for employment was a liar, murder, thief, adulterer, homosexual, etc - then I would not hire them --- it is true that ANY of those folks could lie and say they were NOT one of those - and I'm not about to grill each applicant with a list of this sort, so it is possible that their deception would be reveled later, or not at all - the attempt to imply duplicity of standard where there clearly and deliberately is none is ineffective.

In certain positions I have held I was mandated by the law to investigate the background of applicants rather stringently.... in that case certain of these issues might then come to light - but I'm not about to run a background check on each applicant in my current line and if I don't do it on all then I can do it on none.

b'Shalom
Henaynei

 

[philN]

I said if *I* knew that someone who was applying for employment was a liar, murder, thief, adulterer, homosexual, etc - then I would not hire them

How can you lump homosexuality in with murder, theft, etc.?

Murder, theft are both things that are not only condemned in various religions, but also are harmful to others. Homosexuality is not harmful to other people. In fact, I can't really think of a good moral argument to say that homosexuality is sinful either.

 

[Henaynei]

How can you lump homosexuality in with murder, theft, etc.?

Murder, theft are both things that are not only condemned in various religions, but also are harmful to others. Homosexuality is not harmful to other people. In fact, I can't really think of a good moral argument to say that homosexuality is sinful either.

because G-d does.

 

[UberLutheran]

If she supports the radicals who attack the Boy Scouts of America, sue to drive the Christian faith out of the public square, mock Catholics by lewd displays on the steps of their Cathedrals, force gay propaganda on other people's children in public schools in the name of "tolerance"; if she is in favor of radical equalitarianism, situational ethics and moral relativism, fire her for her political beliefs.

If not, let her stay.

So then -- I should be able to fire a Christian fundamentalist simply because they're a Christian fundamentalist and therefore most likely a conservative Republican, who believes that other people should pay for the lifestyle they enjoy, who demands special rights for themselves that they aren't willing to grant others, and who uses the Bible as a rulebook that OTHER people are supposed to follow (but not themselves)?

I know how conservatives hate this, but there is a little thing called Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act which (among things) prohibits discrimination on the basis of politics, creed, or belief.

I can no more fire a Christian fundamentalist for being a Republican than you could have someone fired for her political beliefs.

You know what else, Voegelin: I'm glad it's that way, too!

 

[beechy]

I'm sure some feel that it is satisfying to go to a Christian Forum and link sites that have banner ads for Valentines Day in the form of a guy with his drawers down around his ankles, but I guess that is to be expected from a gay advocate website.

Here's an excerpt from your link~
"The governor hired Kennedy in November (story) in an attempt to show a moderate image as he prepares for November's election."

It must be so easy on the brain to support the ideology that hires people based on who they have sex with or want to have sex with rather than having to decide which of the candidates are best qualified for the position, but I'll have to pass on the bliss.

If this is the representation, California shouldn't be surprised about not resolving any if not most of their problems.

Here's a link that doesn't have any of those "icky" gay ads.

As for your implication that Schwarzenneger hired Kennedy based solely on her sexual orientation, first of all, there's no basis for believing that the only reason this woman was picked is because of "who she sleeps with" -- it's not as if she was a gay department store clerk in San Francisco plucked from obscurity to sit in the Capitol because she has short hair and a rainbow sticker on her car. Kennedy has been a player in California politics for many years, as a former deputy chief of staff and cabinet secretary to Gov. Gray Davis, the state Democratic Party Executive Director, and a Commissioner on the California Public Utilities Commission.

Second, this is politics. Schwarzenneger just had a disastrous November special election and is now trying to broaden his support base. Why are you surprised that he (or any other politician in this country) is making strategic staffing choices that take public perception into consideration? In another earlier post you said you saw no indication that Kennedy "beat out" any competition. She didn't apply for this post in response to a monster.com ad. The way you "beat someone out" for a political appointment is to know or catch the eye of the guy who's going to appoint you. Do you have "evidence" that Karl Rove "beat someone out" to become the Special Advisor to the President? Do you think his resume and typed application were picked out of thousands of hopefuls who responded to the "Special Advisor" posting on craigslist?

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Here's a link that doesn't have any of those "icky" gay ads.

I would think not... since it doesn't seem to be a gay website. And not that I need more information on that dead horse, but thanks for the link. I found your article far more to my liking.

"Icky"
1. sticky: disgustingly and messily sticky
2. nasty: generally nasty or unpleasant

I could have used a multitude of other adjectives to describe what is found on gay websites or to reference the immoral act of same-gender relations, but I suppose icky can fit if you like it.

As for your implication that Schwarzenneger hired Kennedy based solely on her sexual orientation, first of all, there's no basis for believing that the only reason this woman was picked is because of "who she sleeps with" -- it's not as if she was a gay department store clerk in San Francisco plucked from obscurity to sit in the Capitol because she has short hair and a rainbow sticker on her car. Kennedy has been a player in California politics for many years, as a former deputy chief of staff and cabinet secretary to Gov. Gray Davis, the state Democratic Party Executive Director, and a Commissioner on the California Public Utilities Commission.

If you say so; however, I don't see partisan switch hitting as commonplace as this attempted defense may require. Then again, Mr. Schwarzenegger isn't exactly known for being predictable, Conservative, or a few other things that come to mind. From the very beginning, I personally have considered him to be unpredictable, if not a risk for the Republican Party.
However, regardless of any shallow or obviousness in the immediate, I see only advantage with this strategic assignment for the Democratic party if not the GLBT community. It is a win-win on their part.

Second, this is politics. Schwarzenneger just had a disastrous November special election and is now trying to broaden his support base. Why are you surprised that he (or any other politician in this country) is making strategic staffing choices that take public perception into consideration?

Pardon?
Did I say that I was surprised?
Reading my comments again, it might actually be said that I was the opposite of surprised.

In another earlier post you said you saw no indication that Kennedy "beat out" any competition. She didn't apply for this post in response to a monster.com ad. The way you "beat someone out" for a political appointment is to know or catch the eye of the guy who's going to appoint you. Do you have "evidence" that Karl Rove "beat someone out" to become the Special Advisor to the President? Do you think his resume and typed application were picked out of thousands of hopefuls who responded to the "Special Advisor" posting on craigslist?

Although I am tickled by the attempt to "bring me up to speed" with regards to what happens in politics or how the game is played, I think this from the article you gave puts it well enough regarding the Republicans:

"Susan Kennedy is a convenient chew toy for people to get a hold of," said Schroeder, a Corona del Mar attorney who was state party chairman from 1997 to 1999. "But she is simply a catalyst for things that have built up for a while."

 

[philN]

because G-d does.

Or at least that's how you have interpretted things.

As I have said before, the bible is ambiguous at best on the subject.

 

[beechy]

I would think not... since it doesn't seem to be a gay website. And not that I need more information on that dead horse, but thanks for the link. I found your article far more to my liking.

"Icky"
1. sticky: disgustingly and messily sticky
2. nasty: generally nasty or unpleasant

I could have used a multitude of other adjectives to describe what is found on gay websites or to reference the immoral act of same-gender relations, but I suppose icky can fit if you like it.

What word would you have chosen? I was just trying to pick one that might resonate with you.

If you say so; however, I don't see partisan switch hitting as commonplace as this attempted defense may require. Then again, Mr. Schwarzenegger isn't exactly known for being predictable, Conservative, or a few other things that come to mind. From the very beginning, I personally have considered him to be unpredictable, if not a risk for the Republican Party.

I didn't say anything about Schwarzenegger being predictable or conservative, and I'm not endorsing Kennedy. I was just responding to your contention that Kennedy was picked because of who she sleeps with without regard for her qualifications. And you don't have to take my word for it in terms of her past positions. Here's a bio from the California Bay Delta Authority (which references a something I forgot, incidentially, that she was also the Communications Director for Senator Dianne Feinstein).

However, regardless of any shallow or obviousness in the immediate, I see only advantage with this strategic assignment for the Democratic party if not the GLBT community. It is a win-win on their part.

So? What would it prove if it was a lose-lose situation? I don't understand what you're saying here ...

Pardon?
Did I say that I was surprised?
Reading my comments again, it might actually be said that I was the opposite of surprised.

Your comments were critical of a candidate chosen with political motives in mind. I was pointing out that in politics, lots of candidates are chosen with political motives in mind ... so what?

Although I am tickled by the attempt to "bring me up to speed" with regards to what happens in politics or how the game is played,

No problem.

I think this from the article you gave puts it well enough regarding the Republicans:

"Susan Kennedy is a convenient chew toy for people to get a hold of," said Schroeder, a Corona del Mar attorney who was state party chairman from 1997 to 1999. "But she is simply a catalyst for things that have built up for a while."

And? Again, I never denied that Kennedy was a political choice ... how does Schroeder's comment contradict that? Also, I'm not a Republican and didn't vote for Schwarzenneger. I'd love to see him out of office.

 

[LogicChristian]

because G-d does.

Why aren't you lumping in people that touch the skin of a dead pig? G-d certainly does that too.

 

[LouTheWicked]

They can pretty much say it to my middle finger.

 

[Henaynei]

Why aren't you lumping in people that touch the skin of a dead pig? G-d certainly does that too.

I doubt many here would give much weight to the prohibitions of the OT - indeed there are those here who give no ground to any scripture at all.... but let us stick to the NT

1Cor 6:9 Don't you know that unrighteous people will have no share in the Kingdom of God? Don't delude yourselves - people who engage in sex before marriage, who worship idols, who engage in sex after marriage with someone other than their spouse, who engage in active or passive homosexuality, 10 who steal, who are greedy, who get drunk, who assail people with contemptuous language, who rob - none of them will share in the Kingdom of G-d.

now - this is fairly clear.... those who practice these things "none of them will share in the Kingdom of G-d" because they "have no share" in Kingdom of G-d. That is, those who practice these things have no righteousness and thus are not, nor can be whilst they continue to practice them, part of the Kingdom of G-d

any of us, me, you, .... any other... who practice these forfeit righteousness.... neither are we to support or encourage the same - but rather love and pray for those who do.

Thus this speaks to why I would abstain from knowingly employing those who practice these - but I would have (and have had) them to dinner, and would build and have built relationships with them.

 

[philN]

1Cor 6:9 Don't you know that unrighteous people will have no share in the Kingdom of God? Don't delude yourselves - people who engage in sex before marriage, who worship idols, who engage in sex after marriage with someone other than their spouse, who engage in active or passive homosexuality, 10 who steal, who are greedy, who get drunk, who assail people with contemptuous language, who rob - none of them will share in the Kingdom of G-d.

What version is that? That is one of poorest translations I have ever seen.

The actual phrase is not "active or passive homosexuality", but rather much more unclear. The actual Greek is more implicit of male prosititues and homosexual offenders. "Offenders" is a very ambiguous word; however, it is clear that it is not homosexuality itself that is sinful, but the abuses and perversions of human sexuality (homo or hetero) that are the real sin.