Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Bush/Salvation Army To Ban Gays  
User currently offlineNBC News1 From UK - England, joined May 2001, 324 posts, RR: 0
Posted (13 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1258 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.

This is crazy.


23 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineJetService From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 4798 posts, RR: 11
Reply 1, posted (13 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1197 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.


"Shaddap you!"
User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (13 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1192 times:

Good for them. Although I'm pretty sure the PC Gestapo will get on their case real quick.

Charles


User currently offlineN400QX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (13 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1187 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.


User currently offlineBlink182 From Azerbaijan, joined Oct 1999, 5482 posts, RR: 15
Reply 4, posted (13 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 1180 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.
rgds,
blink182



Give me a break, I created this username when I was a kid...
User currently offlineJetService From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 4798 posts, RR: 11
Reply 5, posted (13 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 1176 times:

OK Blink, don't bother waiting for facts.  Insane


"Shaddap you!"
User currently offlineMbmbos From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2601 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (13 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 1165 times:

Quotation below:
=========================================
LAURA MECKLER

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.




User currently offlineN400QX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (13 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 1164 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...


User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39920 posts, RR: 75
Reply 8, posted (13 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 1161 times:

I don't like the Salvation Army because there thrift stores stop selling 8track tapes.  Sad


Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineJohn Edwards From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 20 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (13 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 1157 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.

Not hiring because of sexuality, is wrong.


User currently offlineWN boy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (13 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1150 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.


User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (13 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 1134 times:

>Not hiring because of sexuality, is wrong<

Therefore, you are saying that Hiring because of sexuality is right.

Sounds like you are promoting discrimination to me.

Charles


User currently offlineJohn Edwards From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 20 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (13 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 1131 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.

There is a middle-ground.


User currently offlineBlink182 From Azerbaijan, joined Oct 1999, 5482 posts, RR: 15
Reply 13, posted (13 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 1124 times:

N400QX- shut up  Smile Besides, do you really think I have the guts to go up to him and say that? Of course not.
rgds,
blink182



Give me a break, I created this username when I was a kid...
User currently offlineCicadajet From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (13 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 1121 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.


User currently offlineBlink182 From Azerbaijan, joined Oct 1999, 5482 posts, RR: 15
Reply 15, posted (13 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 1124 times:

Cfalk- Honestly on the application, do you think it should have a question "Gay/Straight/Bisexual, circle one" I don't think sexual preference should have anything to do with hiring.
rgds,
blink182



Give me a break, I created this username when I was a kid...
User currently offlineWe're Nuts From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5722 posts, RR: 19
Reply 16, posted (13 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1108 times:

It isn't an issue, as hiring based on racial conditions is illegal.


Dear moderators: No.
User currently offlineJm-airbus320 From Jamaica, joined Aug 2000, 304 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (13 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1107 times:

To each his own.

User currently offlineAiric From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (13 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 1106 times:

This is like the Moy Scouts. It's okay for them to bar gays. But of course, it isn't okay for schools to bar the Boy Scouts.

User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (13 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 1101 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.


User currently offlineAviatsiya From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (13 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 1096 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.

What do I talk of?

http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm

Read Article 2.

I know some people will try to pull....but look at Article 18, to which I say...look at Article 30 (the last article in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights).

It is kinda like certain American and European factions bashing China over their human rights record, but not being able to take criticism over their own record.


User currently offlineMx5_boy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (13 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1066 times:

Hey Scotty,

Nice post.

mb


User currently offlineTWA From Iran, joined Sep 2010, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (13 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1059 times:

Then whats the policy for Bi-Sexuals???

TWA


User currently offlineIluvmen2much From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (13 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1060 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:

iluvmen2much@altavista.com

thanks,
~Alex


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Congress Sends Bush Bill To Ban Contact With Hamas posted Fri Dec 8 2006 18:42:31 by RJpieces
Bush 35 Years To Late For Vietnam posted Mon Nov 20 2006 23:11:00 by Bushpilot
Dutch Present Legislation To Ban Burqas posted Fri Nov 17 2006 23:38:11 by SaturnVRocket
Brits Believe Bush Is A Danger To World Peace posted Fri Nov 3 2006 08:07:13 by Cosec59
Time To Ban Trick Or Treat? posted Sat Oct 28 2006 15:28:08 by Cosec59
GOP Group Wants To Bash Gays In Ohio-Again posted Sun Oct 1 2006 18:17:25 by Falcon84
Schools Looking To Ban Playing Tag. posted Tue Jul 11 2006 03:25:58 by Mdsh00
Ohio Looks To Ban Most Abortions posted Wed Jun 14 2006 17:12:56 by Falcon84
Green Party Wants To Ban SUVs In Switzerland posted Sun May 21 2006 10:56:33 by ManuCH
Bush Missed Chance To Get Al-Zarqawi posted Fri May 19 2006 00:34:35 by Tbar220