The Christian Response to Jason Collins

[Landlord]

How is it BS? If you fail to reign in your 'leaders' you are as much to blame. Church leaders get on TV and spew crap like a natural disaster is God's payback for tolerating gays. GOP elected officials continually call for religion in laws every single day. Does pastor Bob at the local church preach what the named leaders are preaching? Don't know, and don't care. As long as Christians fail to police their own members from spewing hate and stupidity it is going to get attributed to the whole group.

If you actually paid attention, nothing about the pro-gay marriage crowd is an attack on religion. Its simply, get religion out of the law. No one is trying to force any church to do ceremonies, they just want the same legal protections. Like avoiding inheritance tax, next of kin, and that sort of thing.

The problem is here is that there are a whole heck of a lot of people that throw or declare themselves under the Christian umbrella even though the rest of us don't claim them. What are we to do? We don't think they're on the same team, but even if we say so there's enough people following them and hearing what they say and they are identifying with our camp.

 

[JJ Husker]

Landlord- you make a very good and valid point but I think a bigger contributing contributing factor is that a whole bunch of no umbrella folks don't appreciate having anything they do considered sinful. They're big on pointing out when Christians aren't following their professed religion but since they don't believe in sin, it really torques them when others consider any of their actions as sinful.

 

[Someone]

1. Should an employer be allowed to fire an employee for getting a divorce?
   
2. Should an employer be allowed to fire an a male employee for living with his girlfriend (or a female employee for living with her boyfriend)?
   
3. Should a hospital be allowed to refuse (non-life treating treatment) to a fe/male because s/he had a kid out of wedlock or once got [or paid for an abortion] or has one or more tattoos or eats shellfish?
   

Some of us here might have religious objections to some of the choices made by the people in the 3 questions above but does that mean they don't have the same rights as you?

The Catholic church says yes to all 3 statement above.

No one can require a person/business/employee to provide a service or product to another person who has made choices that are against your personal religious beliefs. Such a requirement would violate that person/business/employee's religious freedoms, according to the Catholic church.

This seems like a policy that promotes hate, exclusion, discrimination and violates the golden rule along with about 92% of the teachings of Jesus.

 

[knapplc]

1. Should an employer be allowed to fire an employee for getting a divorce?
   
2. Should an employer be allowed to fire an a male employee for living with his girlfriend (or a female employee for living with her boyfriend)?

Both are perfectly legal, even removing the church from the discussion.

 

[Junior]

Landlord- you make a very good and valid point but I think a bigger contributing contributing factor is that a whole bunch of no umbrella folks don't appreciate having anything they do considered sinful. They're big on pointing out when Christians aren't following their professed religion but since they don't believe in sin, it really torques them when others consider any of their actions as sinful.

I could not care less if you consider my actions sinful. Just don't try to legislate it, especially when it has nothing to do with you.

 

[StPaulHusker]

1. Should an employer be allowed to fire an employee for getting a divorce?
   
2. Should an employer be allowed to fire an a male employee for living with his girlfriend (or a female employee for living with her boyfriend)?
   
3. Should a hospital be allowed to refuse (non-life treating treatment) to a fe/male because s/he had a kid out of wedlock or once got [or paid for an abortion] or has one or more tattoos or eats shellfish?
   

Some of us here might have religious objections to some of the choices made by the people in the 3 questions above but does that mean they don't have the same rights as you?

The Catholic church says yes to all 3 statement above.

No one can require a person/business/employee to provide a service or product to another person who has made choices that are against your personal religious beliefs. Such a requirement would violate that person/business/employee's religious freedoms, according to the Catholic church.

This seems like a policy that promotes hate, exclusion, discrimination and violates the golden rule along with about 92% of the teachings of Jesus.

A lot of Catholics, especially younger ones, struggle with the type of view you have listed. I believe that many of them trust in the Lord to guide them and they have a strong faith in the Trinity but they struggle with the "Man-Made" sins, and policies that the Vatican tries to instill. So I think you have a point but it's not the point of the majority of Catholics. Especially here in the US.

 

[Someone]

1. Should an employer be allowed to fire an employee for getting a divorce?
   
2. Should an employer be allowed to fire an a male employee for living with his girlfriend (or a female employee for living with her boyfriend)?

Both are perfectly legal, even removing the church from the discussion.

With 'at will' employees, an employer if free to fire just about any time for any reason. Should is not the same as 'is it legal'.

 

[Someone]

1. Should an employer be allowed to fire an employee for getting a divorce?
   
2. Should an employer be allowed to fire an a male employee for living with his girlfriend (or a female employee for living with her boyfriend)?
   
3. Should a hospital be allowed to refuse (non-life treating treatment) to a fe/male because s/he had a kid out of wedlock or once got [or paid for an abortion] or has one or more tattoos or eats shellfish?
   

Some of us here might have religious objections to some of the choices made by the people in the 3 questions above but does that mean they don't have the same rights as you?

The Catholic church says yes to all 3 statement above.

No one can require a person/business/employee to provide a service or product to another person who has made choices that are against your personal religious beliefs. Such a requirement would violate that person/business/employee's religious freedoms, according to the Catholic church.

This seems like a policy that promotes hate, exclusion, discrimination and violates the golden rule along with about 92% of the teachings of Jesus.

A lot of Catholics, especially younger ones, struggle with the type of view you have listed. I believe that many of them trust in the Lord to guide them and they have a strong faith in the Trinity but they struggle with the "Man-Made" sins, and policies that the Vatican tries to instill. So I think you have a point but it's not the point of the majority of Catholics. Especially here in the US.

Are you saying that the majority of Catholic here in the US don't believe that making a wedding photographer provide service at the wedding where the man and woman are both previously divorced is a violation of the photographers religious freedoms?

 

[knapplc]

Should is not the same as 'is it legal'.

What?

 

[Ulty]

1. Should an employer be allowed to fire an employee for getting a divorce?
   
2. Should an employer be allowed to fire an a male employee for living with his girlfriend (or a female employee for living with her boyfriend)?

Both are perfectly legal, even removing the church from the discussion.

Would #1 not fall under "Marital Status" in the Nebraska Fair Employment Practice Act?

 

[StPaulHusker]

1. Should an employer be allowed to fire an employee for getting a divorce?
   
2. Should an employer be allowed to fire an a male employee for living with his girlfriend (or a female employee for living with her boyfriend)?
   
3. Should a hospital be allowed to refuse (non-life treating treatment) to a fe/male because s/he had a kid out of wedlock or once got [or paid for an abortion] or has one or more tattoos or eats shellfish?
   

Some of us here might have religious objections to some of the choices made by the people in the 3 questions above but does that mean they don't have the same rights as you?

The Catholic church says yes to all 3 statement above.

No one can require a person/business/employee to provide a service or product to another person who has made choices that are against your personal religious beliefs. Such a requirement would violate that person/business/employee's religious freedoms, according to the Catholic church.

This seems like a policy that promotes hate, exclusion, discrimination and violates the golden rule along with about 92% of the teachings of Jesus.

A lot of Catholics, especially younger ones, struggle with the type of view you have listed. I believe that many of them trust in the Lord to guide them and they have a strong faith in the Trinity but they struggle with the "Man-Made" sins, and policies that the Vatican tries to instill. So I think you have a point but it's not the point of the majority of Catholics. Especially here in the US.

Are you saying that the majority of Catholic here in the US don't believe that making a wedding photographer provide service at the wedding where the man and woman are both previously divorced is a violation of the photographers religious freedoms?

That is very specific. I guess I thought you were referring to the Catholic Church and their employment procedures. But I will try to answer your question as best I can. I don't think anyone, Catholics or otherwise, believes anyone should be forced to do anything they don't want to do. Whether it is religious or whatever. But I will say this. The government, federal, state, local, has a criteria set for people wanting to start or continue a business. These people that have the businesses need to know this criteria before they have a business. They can't agree to the terms and then decide that something goes against their beliefs and try to change it on their own if it falls outside the parameters of the laws of their government.

Personally, the "religious freedom" excuse is tiring. To add to your scenario; photographer doesn't want to take photos of a divorced couple getting remarried. Okay, fine. But does photographer go around to every facet of their life checking on the personal beliefs of everyone they come into contact with to make sure it falls in line with their beliefs? Not a chance. I don't see them going to a restaurant and asking the served by a non-gay un-divorced person with no tattoos and doesn't drink, etc....

People like in your scenario use it for convenience when they can.

 

[Someone]

k: I didn't ask "Is it legal to fire someone for....." Instead I asked "Should an empolyer be allowed to...."

StP: I agree with you. In Kansas, the Catholic conference advocated for the right to deny services based on religious objection. I think GAY not divorced was the likely target. Business that had been required to serve all, now don't have to.

I don't think that is message of Catholic church that many here are proud of but few Catholics are willing to speak out.

If you are Catholic, please, tell me, What Would Jeses Do?

 

[StPaulHusker]

k: I didn't ask "Is it legal to fire someone for....." Instead I asked "Should an empolyer be allowed to...."

StP: I agree with you. In Kansas, the Catholic conference advocated for the right to deny services based on religious objection. I think GAY not divorced was the likely target. Business that had been required to serve all, now don't have to.

I don't think that is message of Catholic church that many here are proud of but few Catholics are willing to speak out.

If you are Catholic, please, tell me, What Would Jeses Do?

Kansas is definitely wrong on that issue because the only way to know if a person affects your religious beliefs is if you actually interrogate them. Lets use gay for an example. If a business owner knew a person is gay and denied service, then it falls under the new law of Kansas regardless of any ones feelings of right and wrong . But if you don't know a person is gay but maybe suspect and don't serve the customer, then the owner is wrong. If you don't think they are gay and serve them and then find out they were gay, then what?

I think Kansas painted themselves into a corner on this one for sure.

Plenty of Catholics speak out but the Vatican is fairly deaf when it comes to their stances on issues. But based on declining numbers of members and donations, they are speaking out in other ways I suppose.

As far as being a Catholic, yes I am. And at the risk of bible thumping. And bear in mind that I am going to answer your question as truthfully as I can and know that it is not necessarily MY opinion. Jesus would say to love and respect and to forgive one another no matter their lifestyle. But he also said to follow God's law and the Commandments which in today's world is difficult at times.

 

[Landlord]

As far as being a Catholic, yes I am. And at the risk of bible thumping. And bear in mind that I am going to answer your question as truthfully as I can and know that it is not necessarily MY opinion. Jesus would say to love and respect and to forgive one another no matter their lifestyle. But he also said to follow God's law and the Commandments which in today's world is difficult at times.

The thing is that love and tolerance aren't the same thing, nor are love and kindness. When people around you are living in sin, the way to extend love is to graciously and patiently come up next to them, point them towards Jesus and let the Holy Spirit work on their heart through your actions and through God's truth revealed in Scripture. It's not to condemn them or separate yourself from them, because you know you were once in their shoes, but neither is it to be accepting of whatever they choose to do with their live and not encouraging them towards maturity and obedience.

 

[knapplc]

The thing is that love and tolerance aren't the same thing, nor are love and kindness. When people around you are living in sin, the way to extend love is to graciously and patiently come up next to them, point them towards Jesus and let the Holy Spirit work on their heart through your actions and through God's truth revealed in Scripture. It's not to condemn them or separate yourself from them, because you know you were once in their shoes, but neither is it to be accepting of whatever they choose to do with their live and not encouraging them towards maturity and obedience.

And if that doesn't work, that's where tolerance comes in. If you're in a community living with sinners, and they will not change their sinful ways, and moving out of the community is impracticable (not to mention the impossibility of finding a community without sin), that's where tolerance comes in.

By Landlord's definition, I would be a sinner - living a non-Christian lifestyle, turning away from the teachings of Jesus, etc. He's tried to talk to me about it and I persist in my ways. So he tolerates it (although he continues to give me pointers in the right direction ) and we go on as friends.

Tolerance does not equal acceptance. We can all tolerate the bad things our coworkers/friends/family/acquaintances do without accepting them.