NBC News1 From UK - England, joined May 2001, 324 posts, RR: 0 Posted (14 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 1885 times:
A memo from the Salvation Army (a faith-based group that "helps" people in need, around the world) to the White House, was leaked today. In it, the group stated it would support Bush's faith-based initiatives as long as it was able to not hire gays and not get punished for it.
WHAT YEAR IS THIS?
How could this still be happening? If this was black people, everyone would be screaming all over the place. How does the president expect gays to feel about paying taxes that go to a group that hates them and is trying to keep them down?
I am not gay, but am jewish, and feel that we all have to stick togehter. This is a clear injustice that is not defendable. These groups CAN feel any way they want to about gays, but they CANNOT if they receive any taxpayer money. This is why we have the separation of church and state.
JetService From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 4798 posts, RR: 10
Reply 1, posted (14 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 1824 times:
I don't see the point of this and frankly I don't believe it one bit. If its true, Bush will never support it. So before you start ranting about faith and Bush trying to eradicate gays, I'd get your facts straight first.
Blink182 From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 5498 posts, RR: 14
Reply 4, posted (14 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1807 times:
Bush AND the Salvation Army suck. My school does some work with the Salvation Army and because of this, I may go to the head master and request that my school has NOTHING to do with this "helping" organization.
Give me a break, I created this username when I was a kid...
Mbmbos From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2700 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (14 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1792 times:
July 10, 2001 | WASHINGTON (AP) --
Urged on by the Salvation Army, the White House is considering new regulations that would allow taxpayer-funded religious groups to bypass local and state laws that bar discrimination against gay people.
The Salvation Army pressed for the change when asked by White House officials to name the barriers churches face in working with government. In return for making the regulatory change, the Army agreed to lobby Congress to pass legislation opening more government programs to religious charities, according to an internal Salvation Army document.
According to the document, the administration had made a firm commitment to make the change once the legislation moves through Congress, though White House and Salvation Army officials said Tuesday that no final decision had been made.
At issue are increasingly popular state and local laws that bar discrimination against gays and lesbians. Some ban discrimination in hiring; 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 Army, a Christian church that operates a national network of social services, wants federal regulations to bar state and local governments from enforcing these laws toward religious organizations when they do accept government money, said Salvation Army spokesman David Fuscus.
But President Bush could rewrite a federal regulation to ban enforcement of these laws for religious groups that get federal dollars, which often pass through local and state government.
The Salvation Army internal report suggests that its chances of seeing the regulatory change will improve with the passage of legislation pending in Congress. That legislation, often called "charitable choice," gives churches, synagogues and other religious groups the right to compete for government money without divorcing themselves from their religious character.
"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. "The White House has already said that they are committed to move on the Army's objectives when the legislation carrying the charitable choice provisions passes the House of Representatives."
The report said the Salvation Army would enlist more than 100 of its leaders to lobby members of Congress for the legislation "in a prearranged agreement with the White House."
It report added that White House officials want to move the legislation first "and use the political momentum of this" to push through the regulatory change. It said the White House had made a firm commitment to act on the issue after the legislation was approved.
The White House denied Tuesday that there was a relationship between the Salvation Army's support and the change in regulation. Asked if there was a trade-off, spokesman Ari Fleischer said, "Oh no, absolutely not." He added that there never has been a deal and that the author of the report misread the administration's position. "They've been advised of that."
But the White House did not deny that it believes religious groups should be allowed to discriminate in hiring, even if they take taxpayer dollars. "The administration fully supports the civil rights law, which allows religious organizations the right to hire people in keeping with their own faith's traditions," said spokeswoman Karen Hughes.
The Salvation Army said Tuesday that the report overstated the strategic relationship between the two issues.
"The bottom line was that the Army was talking with the White House about this. The White House was looking at the issue. They had made no commitment to act," Fuscus said. He said that passages in the report linking the legislation and the regulation were "someone's opinion. That was not a strategic plan from the White House."
But he said the issues are related in content because local anti-discrimination laws could discourage the Salvation Army and other religious groups from taking government money to provide social services.
"As long as there is a debate out there about these issues, this is a very good time for these issues to be addressed," Fuscus said.
He added that the Salvation Army has no interest in even asking about sexual orientation in hiring staff for most of its 55,000 positions. But it does believe it should retain the right to reject gays for ministerial positions.
"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," he said.
The Salvation Army report was first reported in The Washington Post Tuesday, and Fuscus confirmed its content.
The administration came under immediate attack for its plans. "The administration appears to be engaging in back-room deals to ensure that federally funded discrimination remains legal," said David Smith of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights group.
N400QX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (14 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1791 times:
OK-- I figured that if I checked the wacko left-wing tabloids I might find the story. I admit I still doubted I would find it, but, alas, the Washington Post today ran a story claiming that Bush was going to cut a deal with the Salvation Army. If anyone would have bothered to watch the White House press briefing this morning you would have learned the whole thing was not true and the President is not involved in any "deal".
Blink, I'll be waiting for you to tell us that the headmaster laughed you out of his office...
John Edwards From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 20 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (14 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1784 times:
Jetservice, go to cbsnews.com or any other American news website, they have the facts.
I don't really have much to say other than that it's wrong. This whole faith-based thing concerns me because as was suspected when this idea pooped up in January, these groups are going to be using their taxpayer money (if it passes congress) to further their religious agenda.
WN boy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (14 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 1777 times:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The White House on Tuesday denied cutting a deal to gain Salvation Army support of the president's faith-based initiative in exchange for a regulation protecting some religious charities' practice of not hiring homosexuals.
"No. Absolutely not," White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said when asked if there had been such a deal. "Never has been. Never has been."
At issue is a front-page story in Tuesday's edition of The Washington Post that asserts the Salvation Army vowed to lend its political support to the faith-based initiative in exchange for a new federal regulation that would protect it and other religious organizations from having to hire homosexuals or provide domestic partner benefits. Asked if the Salvation Army misread the administration's position, he said: "Correct. And they've been advised of that."
Fleischer said the administration supports pending House legislation that adheres to current federal civil rights laws.
"It's important to fully comply with the civil rights laws. And the faith-based legislation as passed by the Judiciary Committee, with hardly any Democrats voting against it, fully complies with civil rights laws," Fleischer said.
However, federal law currently allows religious groups to discriminate against homosexuals in hiring and in the awarding of benefits. And while the language in the House bill forbids religious groups from discriminating on the basis of race, color, sex, age or disability, it does not forbid discrimination against homosexuals.
Some states and cities, however, have passed ordinances or laws forbidding religious groups to discriminate against homosexuals in hiring and benefits.
According to the Post, the Salvation Army had suggested wording to the Office of Management and Budget on a new regulation that would prevent state and local governments that receive federal funds from requiring religious organizations to adopt hiring practices or create benefit programs that are "inconsistent with the beliefs and practices" of the religious group.
John Edwards From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 20 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (14 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 1758 times:
>Not hiring because of sexuality, is wrong<
Charles, Charles, Charles,
I am saying that an employer does not need to know and should not know whether a potential employee is gay or straght. I am not saying that they should purposely hire gays. I am saying they should not purposely not hire gays.
Cicadajet From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (14 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1748 times:
Well, if all sides are going to just cave in like they do so often maybe the compromise could be just like the Real Army; maybe there could just be a "don't ask, don't tell" policy. I don't see how the government can legitimately withhold $$$ from private religious organizations that follow the same policy as the Feds themselves,
anyway, NBC News1, the Govt may in fact dictate the *behavior* of various groups by dangling $$ with strings attached...but it can't dictate what the groups *THINK*... it's actually more scary that so many people are trying to criminalize politically incorrect *thought*; more dangerous perhaps than the politically incorrect types themselves.
Alpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (14 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1728 times:
Cfalk, you're a smart person, and you know better than to twist the words like that. You know very well what was being said-it's wrong to hire/not hire based on any sexual preference. It's wrong to hire just because someone is gay, and it's wrong not to hire just because someone is gay.
All the reports I've heard have mentioned that they want this deal, but now are denying it. sounds like someone spilled the beans beforehand. And it's amazing, anytime anyone reports somethng that's negative on Bush, it's because they're 'wacko liberals'. Which always make me laugh ,because it's a cop-out and it's just a boring line that conservatives have come to believe over the years.
If such a "deal" was ever agreed to, I'm glad to see that the Administration is backing away from it. I think Mr. Bush is a better man than to agree to such a deal.
Aviatsiya From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (14 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1723 times:
While I doubt the veracity of your claims, the Salvation Army has every right not to hire gays if they don't want to. And I don't agree with faith-based funding either. I don't believe in ANY Federal funding of private activities, whether it is charity or abortions.
Any business or organisation which receives public funding of any sort has NO right to deny employment or services to people based upon sex, sexual orientation, race or colour.
This includes the Salvation Army because they are in receipt of public money.
I would even go so far as to say that any private enterprise which is in receipt of public money has NO right to deny employment or service based upon sexual orientation. This includes airlines which receive government contracts to the mom-and-pop store which receives tax relief. This is public money being given to them, and as such, they do not have the right to discriminate how they want.
If they receive NO federal, state or local government funding, and are totally self-sufficient (which in all countries is very few businesses), then yes they have the right to do what they like in employment and service issues.
Well, if all sides are going to just cave in like they do so often maybe the compromise could be just like the Real Army; maybe there could just be a "don't ask, don't tell" policy.
I don't remember the "gay lobby" ever compromising with the "don't ask, don't tell" policy with the US Armed Forces. What I remember is that Clinton backflipped after he realised that certain factions in the US Senate refused to allow his proposed legislation through. What choice did the "gay lobby" have?
Also, "don't ask, don't tell", is one of the biggest cop-outs I have seen in my lifetime. WHAT A JOKE!!
OK....don't ask, don't tell.....when it comes to gaining employment. Fair enough. No-one needs to know who, and what sex, you sleep with.
However, what happens in the case, when there is a work function for employees, and their partners. The gay guy takes his partner of 10+ years along, and then gets discharged from the military for being gay.
Don't ask, don't tell....is stopping people from being who they are, and living their life with honesty and integrity, without fear of retribution. Hmmmm......honesty and integrity....sounds exactly what the armed forces look for in recruits, does it not?
Also, organisations such as the Salvation Army, can be very hypocritical at times. They are very outspoken on issues when it comes to human rights, but yet, they are ever so willing to deny human rights of a number of people in the community at large.
Iluvmen2much From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (14 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1687 times:
NBC News1, thanks for bringing this to my attention. It really gripes me. I knew Bush was a bad apple from the start. I jsut can't stand him anymore. Let me know If you find out anything else on the topic. Here's the address: