Originally Posted by fxashun

It's funny that "pro-family" can be called bigotry. But "pro-homosexual" denegrating of the bible isn't an attack on religion? That's utter BS.

Originally Posted by garysher

Apparently our topsy turvy society now thinks that discussing "Natural Family, Marriage, and Family Values" is hateful and discriminatory!

This case involves two African-American, Christian females employed in the Community and Economic Development Agency (“CEDA”) of the City of Oakland. They observed that employee organizations were allowed to use the City’s employee email system and bulletin boards to promote their activities, viewpoints and values.

This included the Gay Straight Employee Alliance, which aggressively promoted its views regarding gay sex, homosexual marriage, and other issues.

Among other activities, the Alliance sponsored “Happy Coming Out Day”, which stimulated discussions in the work place regarding personal sexual practices. A broad range of issues and viewpoints were exhibited on the employee email system and bulletin boards.

One email criticized Christians and the Bible, stating, “I understand that this is a difficult concept for some who feel the Bible teaches them that sexual identity as a gay or lesbian is wrong. The Bible also says “slaves obey your master” and “women obey your husbands”. I personally think the good book needs some updating.”

Other postings on the email system or bulletin boards discussed war and peace, racism, slavery, communism, Osama bin Laden, personal sexuality, sports, Jewish cultural events, Hispanic cultural events, and the first annual holiday mixer of the Gay Straight Employee Alliance.

Based on their Christian values, CEDA employees Robin Christy and Regina Rederford often did not agree with the email and bulletin board postings of other employees. But instead of complaining to restrict the freedom of others, they formed their own employee organization, the Good News Employee Association, which met regularly to pray and discuss their Christian perspectives on the major issues of the day.

Christy and Rederford were shocked when they were denied the same access to the employee email system for their announcements as other employee organizations. This reflected the hostility to their Christian values in the City bureaucracy.

The City of Oakland decided that the words “of a homophobic nature” that “were determined to promote sexual orientation based harassment” were “Natural Family, Marriage, and Family Values.” Hicks’ letter clearly indicates that use of these words violates AI 71 and is subject to the sanction of termination.

The letter also clearly indicates that if Rederford and Christy continued to use such language they would be terminated.

In other words, when Christians or others who believe in traditional moral values use these words, the communication involves anti-homosexual discrimination and hate speech.

This case consequently becomes a shocking precedent for limiting the free speech rights of Christians and other advocates of traditional moral values, and for punishing them for expression and advocacy of those Christian beliefs and traditional values, under anti-discrimination laws.

The precedent would not even be limited to public employees, as the ruling would bear on use of these words by others who hold to Christian and traditional moral values and whether their expression indicated violations of anti-discrimination prohibitions.

http://www.theacru.org/amicusbriefs/...s_argument.pdf


No doubt the more liberal, tolerant posters will be outraged at this blatant, unConstitutional discrimination.

Originally Posted by Fluffmeister

So criticising anything the bible says is an attack on religion? So if I condemn slavery, which is condoned in the bible, I'm anti-religious?

Wonder if anyone thought to tell the pro-abolition campaigners (who were all devout Christians) that 150 years ago?

Originally Posted by fxashun

Exactly what passages in the bible condones slavery.

Originally Posted by Fluffmeister

Lots of them, though the most obvious are Lev.25:44-46, where it's OK to sell your enemies' children into slavery if you defeat them, and 1 Pet.2:18 where Peter tells slaves to be obedient to their masters "with all fear", even the really cruel ones.

And indeed, Christians attempted to justify slavery biblically 150 years ago. It appears that the "unchanging word of God" has changed on that particular topic, though - most Christians today, unlike most Christians 150 years ago, now disapprove of selling one's fellow human beings into slavery.

Incidentally, the link you give is wrong when it says "The slavery in the Bible was not based exclusively on race. People were not enslaved because of their nationality or the color of their skin." The passage about selling one's enemies' children into slavery is exclusively based on the fact that they are a different nationality to the Israelites.

Originally Posted by fxashun

Slavery

I don't think "different nationality" is the qualifying term here. I think "enemy" is better. Such as if we had taken Japanese people as slaves after Pearl Harbor. It also fits into the rules for "obtaining slaves" in the lin provided.

If Black people had attacked the U.S. and been defeated, that would have made slavery okay according to the bible.

Again, slavery isn't a mandate. But it is allowed. And some cultures still practice it.

Homosexual behaviour is forbidden.

Originally Posted by tyreay

Oh my gosh, the shoe is on the other foot in this one! It doesn't makes up for the millions of cases of Christians discriminating against homosexuals.

Originally Posted by fxashun

Homosexual behaviour is forbidden.

Originally Posted by fxashun

Wellll...A homosexual family is not a natural family. A family consists of a mother father and their offspring. We have variations of a theme with divorce, adoption, etc. But when we lose sight of what qualifies as natural we are going down a path where we will lose sight of what is human.

Originally Posted by CrazyFlamingos

You keep saying this. And yet you have no credentials to say this.

You are not a Biblical scholar. I am assuming that you have never read the scriptures in their original languages.

The fact is that many Biblical scholars, people who have made it their life's work to study the Bible, disagree with your belief that the Bible forbids homosexual behaviour.

I don't see any point in arguing this with you as you have made it abundantly clear that your mind is closed on the subject. But I just wanted to make the point that your declaration is, by no stretch of the imagination, the final word on the subject.

Anyone interested in reading more on why many believe that the Bible does not condemn committed same-sex relationships can do so here:

Whosoever Magazine

Ms. Chellew, who has dedicated her life to Christian ministry, can explain it much more articulately than I ever could.