Is it okay for a catholic businessman to discriminate against gays?

[buffalo]

I’m sorry, that is just plain paranoid thinking IMHO. You could extrapolate that in a straight unmarried employee may want to work for you so he could get partner benefits for his straight cohabitating partner. Or an unmarried femaile wanting you to provide contraceptive coverage

DEFEATING “GAY” ARGUMENTS WITH SIMPLE LOGIC

The success of so-called “gay rights” is an amazing triumph of clever deception over simple logic. When
it comes to this issue, otherwise intelligent people routinely fall for arguments that just don’t hold up under
scrutiny. “Gay” sympathizers aren’t necessarily more gullible than other people, they are simply tricked into
accepting certain conclusions without first examining the underlying premises.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION
“Sexual orientation” is a highly ambiguous term loaded with hidden false assumptions.
An “orientation” describes the perspective of a subject toward an object. A sexual orientation therefore
describes a person (subject) by the object toward which they are sexually attracted: a homosexual is
someone oriented toward someone of the same sex, a bisexual toward both sexes, a pedophile toward
children, a sado-masochist toward giving or receiving pain, etc…
By definition, there are an unlimited number of potential sexual orientations. The “gay” movement,
however, arbitrarily recognizes only four orientations: heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, and
transgendered (i.e. transvestites and transsexuals). Why? Because to recognize other orientations –
pedophilia, for example – would draw attention to the importance of distinguishing between orientation and
conduct, when a major purpose of sexual orientation theory is to legitimize and protect homosexual conduct
by obscuring this distinction.
This is most clearly seen in anti-discrimination policies that include sexual orientation. Government and
corporate policy makers include sexual orientation in anti-discrimination policies in order to protect freedom
of thought and speech on the basis of the claim that sexual orientation is nothing more than a state of mind.
Americans rightfully cherish the First Amendment right to think and speak freely. The practical effect of
such policies, however, is to legitimize and protect any sexual conduct associated with an orientation. For
example, under such policies a landlord is expected to rent to homosexuals even if they admit they intend
to commit sodomy on the property and this is his sole reason for wanting to deny their application.
Why is this distinction between orientation and conduct so important? Because sexual conduct has serious
public health consequences which society has both a right and an obligation to regulate. In contrast, there
are no public health implications to sexual orientation, properly defined. Even a pedophile’s orientation,
abhorrent as it may be, is harmless to the public if he never acts upon it.

Policy makers could stop this end run around public health considerations by adding one sentence to
existing anti-discrimination laws: “This policy shall not be construed to legitimize or protect any sexual
conduct deserving of regulation in the public interest.” The right to claim a sexual orientation should not
automatically grant a license for sexual conduct.
Another purpose of sexual orientation theory is to create a context in which homosexuality and
heterosexuality hold equal status. The notion of equivalency between homosexuality and heterosexuality is
very important to “gay” arguments. For one thing it neutralizes health and safety arguments against the
legitimization of homosexuality.

 

[buffalo]

-then-

An anti-discrimination policy based upon sexual orientation is always the first step in the homosexual
takeover of an organization because it locks in pro-“gay” assumptions. From the adoption of this policy,
the organization must accept as fact that homosexuality is immutable, equivalent to heterosexuality, and
deserving of special protections without regard to public health considerations. Criticism of these positions,
or even failure to affirm them, can be considered violations of the policy. Where such a policy is enacted,
adoption of the rest of the homosexual political agenda is virtually inevitable. The conclusions are assured
by the premises.
The takeover process varies slightly depending on the type of organization, but is predictable and
easily recognized.
The takeover of local governments begins in the local media (where there is never a shortage of “gay”
political activists) with a campaign to raise awareness of discrimination against legitimate minorities. A call
then goes out to form a Human Relations Commission to study the problem and develop community-based
solutions. The commission is then formed with quasi-governmental authority. The anti-discrimination policy
comes next, often without mention of sexual orientation. That is usually added by amendment later.
Opposition is usually minimal because no one wants to be perceived as being in favor of discrimination. This is not a baseless fear. Pro-“gay” activists in both the media and the government greet any opposition with
widely-publicized accusations of racism and bigotry. Invariably, one duty of the commission is to gather,
analyze and report statistics on discrimination in the community. (This is probably where the concept of
“hate crimes” originated as a “gay” political strategy).
The use of a reporting plan assures two favorable outcomes for homosexuals. First, they gain a measure
of legitimacy merely by being listed together with true civil rights minorities (without having to justify their
inclusion among those whose status is based on morally neutral criteria such as skin color and ethnicity).
Second, the very nature of the reporting process virtually guarantees an increase of discriminatory incidents
from one reporting period to the next as people gradually become aware of the system. This appearance
of a growing problem bolsters their demands for additional concessions to their agenda.
The takeover of a corporation begins with the placement of an activist (usually in-the-closet) homosexual
into a hiring position. Other undisclosed “gays” are then hired to fill strategic positions in the company.
When the ability to control the process is assured, some of the activists come “out-of-the-closet” and form
a “Gay and Lesbian Employees Association.” That group then introduces an amendment to the company
anti-discrimination policy to include “sexual orientation.”
Democratically-run organizations (including political parties, labor unions and churches) are targeted based
upon their vulnerability to takeover by a unified bloc of voting members. Mass infiltration by activists
precedes elections, after which time organizational policy (and bylaws) can be controlled by the new activist
leaders, who may or may not disclose that they are “gay.” I have heard it said that this was how the
Metropolitan Community Church, an entirely homosexual-controlled “religious denomination” started,
beginning with the takeover of the original MCC, which was reportedly a genuine but struggling Christian
church. The so-called “mainstream” Christian denominations have been particularly targeted, not only
because many congregations have seen steeply declining membership in recent decades (i.e. fewer new
“members” are needed to gain a voting majority), but because these denominations have vast property
holdings and endowment funds which can be used for activist projects.
Every takeover is followed by consolidation of “gay” power within the organization, starting with some form
of “sensitivity training.” Sensitivity training employs proven psychological coercion tactics (i.e.
“brainwashing”) to indoctrinate members of the organization in pro-“gay” thinking. By the very nature of
the manipulative tactics used, few dare to openly dissent. Those who do are duly noted by the control group
and if they are considered a real threat, they are marginalized and may in time be forced out. Sensitivity
training is usually mandatory for all members of the organization.
Once the control group has consolidated power, the organization is plundered for its available resources.
These include tangible resources such as money and property, but also intangibles such as advertising and
vendor contracts and even community goodwill. Charitable giving, too, is exploited, as gifts and grants are
diverted away from previously-favored beneficiaries like the Boy Scouts to “gay”-controlled organizations.
While some resources benefit the internal control group (i.e. domestic partnership benefits and employee
7
perks), most are focused strategically outside of the organization to further the “gay” political agenda in the
community.
All the processes described above are made possible simply by the acceptance of sexual orientation as a
theory of human sexuality.

 

[buffalo]

and

DISCRIMINATION
Discrimination is a word whose political redefinition originated in the civil rights movement. In normal usage,
discrimination is synonymous with discernment, but as used in a civil rights context it means irrational bias
against a person. “Irrational” is the hidden qualifier in the term that distinguishes appropriate discernment
from prejudice. In an enlightened society there can be no rational basis for discrimination on criteria such
as race, skin color or ethnicity. However, as with multi-culturalism, the introduction of morally significant
criteria changes the analysis of discrimination. Discrimination against harmful conduct is entirely rational, and
in many cases necessary.
Discrimination is now synonymous with racial prejudice in the public mind. The “gay” movement has
exploited this association to legitimize its own claims by adding itself to the list of
minorities in anti-discrimination statutes.
In summary, discrimination has been useful to “gay” activists because the public is deeply conditioned to
associate this term only with prejudice, especially racial prejudice. The solution is to add the prefix “rational”
or “irrational” to discrimination whenever one uses the term. At minimum this tactic causes the hearer to
consider the significance of the prefix. It also sets the stage for a discussion about the standard for
determining what is rational vs. irrational discrimination.

 

[St_Francis]

How does one “flaunt” one’s lifestyle? I work with gay people…I ask them what did they do this week end? They and their partner went to a dinner and movie or went dancing…is that “flaunting” one’s lifestyle?

Seems what most her want is for every gay person to live a life of secrecy…lies…never discuss their personal lives in the work place…even if asked…and even if a not so “out” gay or lesbian person was to let it 'slip" that they and their partner were going on vacation together…or went to dinner an a movie…some seem to think if they were working for a conservative religious employer they should be terminated for “flaunting” their lifestyle…yet I wonder how the “straight” men and women who went out clubbing on the week-ends and then bragged of their conquests and one night stands…or how they and their girlfriend or boyfriend went away for the week-end to a bed and breakfast or went out and bought a new bed for the apartment they shared would fare?

I have my suspicions that a blind eye would be turned by the “conservative religious” employer…I doubt he’d have too many people working for him if he terminated each and every one of his employees who “flaunted” their “lifestyle”…interesting indeed.

I don’t think it’s appropriate for the “straight” people to talk about their sex lives, and I think that everyone should maintain discretion about their personal lives, esp in the area of sexual activity!

So, Miss X says, I went to the mountains with a friend. Mr Y says I went dancing with some friends. Neither has to elaborate on the precise nature of the relationship they have with their friends, esp at work with a bunch of people who are pretty much stuck with them, do they? Neither has to talk about how they were trying to pick up a member of their preferred sex, neither has to mention that the friend “has benefits,” all of that ought to be totally inappropriate in the workplace.

If you have an actual friend at work, then have those types of discussions, just not on the clock.

Luckily for me and apparently everyone else, I don’t run a business!

 

[april32010]

DEFEATING “GAY” ARGUMENTS WITH SIMPLE LOGIC

The success of so-called “gay rights” is an amazing triumph of clever deception over simple logic. When
it comes to this issue, otherwise intelligent people routinely fall for arguments that just don’t hold up under
scrutiny. “Gay” sympathizers aren’t necessarily more gullible than other people, they are simply tricked into
accepting certain conclusions without first examining the underlying premises.

thanks for these posts,i whittled it down to some the the most important points to me.

 

[coachdennis]

I prefer the catechism of the catholic Church as my guide to behavior and attitude.

 

[RobbyS]

For example, if I run a business, would the church be okay with me not hiring gay people, even if they are more highly qualified than other employees? What about banning gays from patronizing a business?

An employer not ought to be compelled to hire someone who is obnoxious to him. “Best qualified,”is a loaded term, since a person with the best credentials/recommendations may not be a good fit. There is a natural tendency to prefer persons most like oneself, or with qualities that compliment one’s own. If he suffers a competitive advantage on accord of his failure to hire person able to enough, then so be it.

 

[RobbyS]

thanks for these posts,i whittled it down to some the the most important points to me.

The larger society has accepted the premise that a human being deprived of sex is doomed to unhappiness.

 

[TracerBullet]

No, discrimination is simply making choices based on some element of information where the chooser places different values on some characteristic(s). Discernment is just making choices.

Discrimination: treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit

Discernment: The act or process of exhibiting keen insight and good judgment

 

[TracerBullet]

The United States is missionary territory alright, and we are being aggressively evangelized by gays and their allies who want to preach their message of one-sided tolerance and immoral love. We will be forced to accept their behavior as part of society or reap the consequences. Bullying is a bad thing if it’s directed at GLBTQ people. It’s an acceptable tactic if you’re dealing with Christians or conservatives. Hate is not a family value, unless it’s directed at the Church.

Interesting you accuse gays and lesbians of “one sided tolerance” and then you proceed to attack them – they are immoral, they are bullies, they hate the church.

If you want tolerance then you need to start by practicing it yourself.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Discrimination: treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit

Discernment: The act or process of exhibiting keen insight and good judgment

There are two (broadly) definitions of discrimination: one is an academic defintiion (as Corki is using it); the other is a legal definition, which is how some others are limiting their replies.

 

[TracerBullet]

The highest score does not always translate to the best performer. One can make the argument that you exclude for personal wealth gain the less fortunate.

Companies have a right to judge if a person is the right fit for the company.

But do they have the right to reject an applicant just because he/she is a member of a minority?

 

[TracerBullet]

DEFEATING “GAY” ARGUMENTS WITH SIMPLE LOGIC

This link is so flawed its laughable I don’t even know where to begin

The success of so-called “gay rights” is an amazing triumph of clever deception over simple logic. When
it comes to this issue, otherwise intelligent people routinely fall for arguments that just don’t hold up under
scrutiny. “Gay” sympathizers aren’t necessarily more gullible than other people, they are simply tricked into
accepting certain conclusions without first examining the underlying premises.

In words of one syllable if you don’t agree with me or counter my points then you are automatically stupid. He’s off to a great start

SEXUAL ORIENTATION
“Sexual orientation” is a highly ambiguous term loaded with hidden false assumptions.

Not according to eh AMA or the APA or any other medical or psychological organization. They don’t seem to have any trouble at all defining sexual orientation.

, a pedophile toward
children, a sado-masochist toward giving or receiving pain, etc

Pedophilia is not a sexual orientation and neither is sadomasochism

By definition, there are an unlimited number of potential sexual orientations. The “gay” movement,

The author sure isn’t using any definition form any medical or psychological institution. Or the dictionary for that matter

Why is this distinction between orientation and conduct so important? Because sexual conduct has serious
public health consequences which society has both a right and an obligation to regulate.

And what would these ”serious public health consequences” be?
And can he back up the claims with actual evidence?

Policy makers could stop this end run around public health considerations by adding one sentence to
existing anti-discrimination laws: “This policy shall not be construed to legitimize or protect any sexual
conduct deserving of regulation in the public interest.”

Define public intereest.

 

[RobbyS]

and

DISCRIMINATION
Discrimination is a word whose political redefinition originated in the civil rights movement. In normal usage,
discrimination is synonymous with discernment, but as used in a civil rights context it means irrational bias
against a person. “Irrational” is the hidden qualifier in the term that distinguishes appropriate discernment
from prejudice. In an enlightened society there can be no rational basis for discrimination on criteria such
as race, skin color or ethnicity. However, as with multi-culturalism, the introduction of morally significant
criteria changes the analysis of discrimination. Discrimination against harmful conduct is entirely rational, and
in many cases necessary.
Discrimination is now synonymous with racial prejudice in the public mind. The “gay” movement has
exploited this association to legitimize its own claims by adding itself to the list of
minorities in anti-discrimination statutes.
In summary, discrimination has been useful to “gay” activists because the public is deeply conditioned to
associate this term only with prejudice, especially racial prejudice. The solution is to add the prefix “rational”
or “irrational” to discrimination whenever one uses the term. At minimum this tactic causes the hearer to
consider the significance of the prefix. It also sets the stage for a discussion about the standard for
determining what is rational vs. irrational discrimination.

Racial segregation is not necessarily irrational. It is a consequence of the presence of freed-slaves in a society where only blacks were enslaved. Color became a badge of inferiority. Even in the Roman empire, enslavement stigmatized a person, and even freed slaves seldom shook it. If you were a freed=slave and wore your stigma on your face, especially in the war-ravaged Southland, with its accumulated wealth “gone with the wind,” you were a threat to the white survivors. The federal government was on the side of the blacks’ side, With the white disenfranchiseds, they for a short while had an advantage. That went away as the North lost interest .The blacks --and white unionists–were left to the tender mercies of the “Redeemers,” It took about twenty years for the segregation regime to be established. The last Republican President to speak for the black minority was Benjamin Harrison. Thereafter, the laws separating the two races and “keeping the blacks in their place.” were strengthened with mob rule . Under the segregated regime, the blacks became a sub-nationality not unlike the minorities under Hungarian rule in the Austria-Hungarian Empire. Nothing irrational: just the old-fashioned desire to dominate and exploit. Imperialism American style.

The antipathy to homosexuals is different. It is the adversion to those who openly, or even covertly, practice sexual immorality. Homosexuals in the United States never suffered the same hostility as the Mormons did after they began practicing polygamy. Their plight was more like that of the prostitute and pimps, or the exhibitionist who publicly exposed himself. Or for the open adulterer, or for the bigamist.

 

[Zosimus41]

For example, if I run a business, would the church be okay with me not hiring gay people, even if they are more highly qualified than other employees? What about banning gays from patronizing a business?

What would Jesus do?

He condemned sin.

Its the world thats ok with sin.

Jesus died for our sins and not so we could commit sin.

If you hired a sinful person in doing so would you be supporting the sinful lifestyle?

 

[coachdennis]

An employer not ought to be compelled to hire someone who is obnoxious to him. “Best qualified,”is a loaded term, since a person with the best credentials/recommendations may not be a good fit. There is a natural tendency to prefer persons most like oneself, or with qualities that compliment one’s own. If he suffers a competitive advantage on accord of his failure to hire person able to enough, then so be it.

" Best fit" is a term that is legitimately used and is a valid reason for a hiring decision. But again, for the last time, if an a potential employee brings legal action suggesting they were discriminated against in the hiring/firing process and the state has discrimination laws it would be the burden of the business owner to demonstrate that making the “best choice” and/or the “best choice” was not legally discriminatory

 

[buffalo]

Spiritual Works of Mercy

The seven practices of Catholic charity toward our neighbor’s soul:
» Admonish sinners
» Instruct the ignorant
» Counsel the doubtful
» Comfort the sorrowful
» Bear wrongs patiently
» Forgive injuries
» Pray for the living and the dead
These are based on the teaching of Christ and on Church practice since apostolic times.

 

[Publisher]

I don’t think it’s appropriate for the “straight” people to talk about their sex lives, and I think that everyone should maintain discretion about their personal lives, esp in the area of sexual activity!

So, Miss X says, I went to the mountains with a friend. Mr Y says I went dancing with some friends. Neither has to elaborate on the precise nature of the relationship they have with their friends, esp at work with a bunch of people who are pretty much stuck with them, do they? Neither has to talk about how they were trying to pick up a member of their preferred sex, neither has to mention that the friend “has benefits,” all of that ought to be totally inappropriate in the workplace.

If you have an actual friend at work, then have those types of discussions, just not on the clock.

Luckily for me and apparently everyone else, I don’t run a business!

So tell me…how “realistic” does your post reflect what occurs in your work place? I’m sure you have co-habbitating men and women who work with you…when they speak of going away for the week end to a B&B with their BF or GF…do you immediately tell them you have no wish to hear about their ‘sex lives’…even though they never mentioned what they do in the bedroom…just that they are going away for the week-end together…do you lecture them on the “near occasion to sin”?

Seems to me, what “straight” people want is for gay and lesibian people to NEVER speak about their lives…their vacations…their joys of buying a new home with their loved one…or hear about the great time they had when on vacation with their partner…but think nothing…NOTHING of listening to a “straight” co-worker explain how he and his live-ing girlfriend took a trip to Vegas and the fun they had…or hear about the co-worker who went to the coast and spent the night with their BF…

What constitutes discussing “sexual activity”? Seems to me, for a gay person all it takes to yell “sexual activity” is to hear they have a partner…and went on vacation…or the movies…or went to dinner…or bought a house together…but an eye is never blinked when the co-habitating co-worker shares what a great time she/he and his/her GF/BF had at the coast this week-end…

 

[St_Francis]

So tell me…how “realistic” does your post reflect what occurs in your work place? I’m sure you have co-habbitating men and women who work with you…when they speak of going away for the week end to a B&B with their BF or GF…do you immediately tell them you have no wish to hear about their ‘sex lives’…even though they never mentioned what they do in the bedroom…just that they are going away for the week-end together…do you lecture them on the “near occasion to sin”?

Seems to me, what “straight” people want is for gay and lesibian people to NEVER speak about their lives…their vacations…their joys of buying a new home with their loved one…or hear about the great time they had when on vacation with their partner…but think nothing…NOTHING of listening to a “straight” co-worker explain how he and his live-ing girlfriend took a trip to Vegas and the fun they had…or hear about the co-worker who went to the coast and spent the night with their BF…

What constitutes discussing “sexual activity”? Seems to me, for a gay person all it takes to yell “sexual activity” is to hear they have a partner…and went on vacation…or the movies…or went to dinner…or bought a house together…but an eye is never blinked when the co-habitating co-worker shares what a great time she/he and his/her GF/BF had at the coast this week-end…

Once I started having children, I was blessed to have freelance work so have not worked in an office for many years.

But when I did, wow, it’s really strange, we actually *worked. *We did not sit around talking about our sex lives!

And I tried to make *very clear *that I am talking about *anyone’s *life, not just homosexuals.

 

[Publisher]

Once I started having children, I was blessed to have freelance work so have not worked in an office for many years.

But when I did, wow, it’s really strange, we actually *worked. *We did not sit around talking about our sex lives!

And I tried to make *very clear *that I am talking about *anyone’s *life, not just homosexuals.

I understand…my question was is “talking about one’s sex life” entail answering questions from co-workers…“What did you do this week-end”…and a respone along the lines of…“My partner and I went to the beach…dinner…movie…bbq’d with friends” Is simply mentioning that they have a partner mean they talked about their sex lives in the work place? THAT is what your post appeared to ential…if I am incorrect I’d like to know.