Religion is killing the Republican Party
Republicans will continue to lose the White House until they distance themselves far enough from the religious nuts
shareNo argument there.
Taliban Republicans like Cruz want theocracy.
No argument there.
Taliban Republicans like Cruz want theocracy.
What a crock. And that kind of comment is typical of what describes anti-Christian bigotry in our society to a tee in which standing behind basic conservative Christian principles is falsely equated to terrorists and butchers (yet the "religion of peace" always gets the inevitable free pass on everything no matter how many slaughters take place by those who merely follow that religion according to what it says)
The real stupidity of such a comment is how it ignores the fact that the most conservative of Christians are the ones who come out of traditions that recognizes that man's capacity to *sin* is why there can never be any Kingdom of Heaven on Earth "theocracy". Protestants in particular don't come out of that tradition because the historically illiterate in our society who see "theocracy" behind Religous Right activism conveniently forget that conservative Protestants are the ones who were part of the movement that led us *away* from state churches.
You see what the anti-Christian bigots of today fail to realize (on purpose) is that Religious Right activists are merely exercising their concern that established rights as *Americans* have come under attack from those who have deliberately misused the political and legal process to strip Christians of rights and freedoms that all of us used to take for granted. It isn't a non-existent "theocracy" that is sought, it is simply the conservation of basic rights that until the 1960s we never had any reason to believe would ever come under assault. Unfortunately what was not reckoned with was how the anti-Christian bigots of our present age decided that following the proscribed Constitutional process to work their will was an impediment and thus, rather than win their battles democratically, they would get unelected, unaccounted black-robed tyrants to work their will for them in procedures that would have turned the stomachs of James Madison and all the other Founding Fathers who never envisioned such powers for the Judiciary. The issue of abortion and marriage for instance was something to be fought in the LEGISLATIVE process, not the Judicial process so that a tiny handful of elites could decide the matter for us with no accountability to the citizenry. If anything THAT is the model of what a true theocracy represents, only in this case it's the theocracy of a secular elite telling the masses we have no right to decide this matter for ourselves through the tools our Founding Fathers established for us in Philadelphia in 1787.
Of course what I've always found laughably hypocritical is how those who see evil in the Religious Right for exercising their right to be part of the national dialogue on this issue never saw "theocracy" behind left-wing ministers in the 1960s invoking their faith on secular political issues like Vietnam, or who thought it was improper for a left-wing Catholic priest in Robert Drinan to be elected to Congress and be allowed to wear his clerical collar the whole time he pronounced judgments on public policy.
And then there is the ultimate hypocrisy of recent weeks in which the murder of gays in Florida by a Muslim terrorist is used to cast further aspersions on conservative Christians who had nothing to do with the act. How conveniently we forget that the only time a near act of mass murder similar to Orlando in which gay marriage and conservative Christians were involved was when a guy named Floyd Corkins tried to engage in a mass killing at the Family Research Council (egged on as he was by the bigoted propaganda of the SPLC) because of their support of traditional marriage. share
It isn't a non-existent "theocracy" that is sought, it is simply the conservation of basic rights that until the 1960s we never had any reason to believe would ever come under assault.
Care to enumerate a few of these totally not all theocratic "rights"?
And then there is the ultimate hypocrisy of recent weeks in which the murder of gays in Florida by a Muslim terrorist is used to cast further aspersions on conservative Christians who had nothing to do with the act.
That's because they are anti-gay bigots, and at least one Christian leader applauded the massacre. share
Care to enumerate a few of these totally not all theocratic "rights"?
Try the right for religious and charitable organizations not to mention businesses being compelled to do things against their consent by the state because of religious objections. The state has no right to discriminate against such organizations merely because they have moral objections to funding abortions, subsidizing the bedroom habits of employees (this means you, Sandra Fluke) or because they have bylaws against homosexual conduct.
Then there is the matter of parents having the right to teach their children according to their values without the state subverting that through the forced indoctrination of secular religious dogmas in the classroom on issues of morality.
And get a load of how the fire chief of Atlanta, a BLACK man, was fired because on his own time exercised his right under the First Amendment to write a book about Biblical morality. Even though there was not a shred of evidence that he discriminated against gay employees but was only expressing his Constituationally protected opinion on his own time (and using no public money), he was fired because of his Christian beliefs. That is bigotry and discrimination in which the fire chief was expected to keep his mainstream beliefs shoved in a closet for the sake of appeasing the anti-Christian bigots of the gay movement.
That's because they are anti-gay bigots, and at least one Christian leader applauded the massacre.
No sir, the bigots are the anti-Christian ones who are too bigoted to focus on the actual perpetrator who was a Muslim acting according to the tenets of his faith. And I might add sir, it was Reverend Franklin Graham, as staunch an opponent of gay marriage as there ever was, who exercised outreach to victims and proved where the heart of true Christians lie on this matter. Christians are not the ones who engage in murder because our faith does not call for that. We've condemned that outright which is more than I can say for what the gay lobby did in the matter of Floyd Corkins. The inconvenient truth is that the only time conservative Christians and gay marriage and an Orlando style shooting attempt took place was when the conservative Christians were the targets.
share
Try the right for religious and charitable organizations not to mention businesses being compelled to do things against their consent by the state because of religious objections.
In other words, you want religion to be used as an excuse to practice bigotry. Sorry, cupcake: that isn’t a right in a non-theocratic, religiously neutral democracy. You can have whatever irrational, Medieval opinions about your fellow citizens that you care to have. But you cannot be allowed to act on those beliefs in a public space and disrupt the lives of others.
The state has no right to discriminate against such organizations merely because they have moral objections to funding abortions, subsidizing the bedroom habits of employees (this means you, Sandra Fluke) or because they have bylaws against homosexual conduct.
That’s hilarious wordplay you have going there, where somehow the state stopping Christians from imposing their views on others is somehow itself “discrimination”, but of course only an idiot would fall for it. It is a legal fact that in the United States, the government does in fact have the right to regulate the behaviors of institutions, and that includes stopping religious extremists from unfairly imposing their beliefs on others.
Then there is the matter of parents having the right to teach their children according to their values without the state subverting that through the forced indoctrination of secular religious dogmas in the classroom on issues of morality.
This “forced indoctrination” exists only in your fevered imagination. Public schools do not teach moral doctrines and clueless, bigoted parents can pass on whatever toxic beliefs they desire to their children. The state has no legal footing to stop them from doing so, nor should it.
And get a load of how the fire chief of Atlanta, a BLACK man, was fired because on his own time exercised his right under the First Amendment to write a book about Biblical morality.
Link to a mainstream news source, please? Because I’m 100% sure you aren’t giving me the full story. Honesty, I've learned, is not something your type values.
No sir, the bigots are the anti-Christian ones who are too bigoted to focus on the actual perpetrator who was a Muslim acting according to the tenets of his faith.
To my knowledge, the only Americans of any faith who stepped forward to applaud the massacre or suggest the victims had it coming were Christian (with one Jewish Rabbi), not Muslims. That’s because religious extremists of all stripes are similar in their outlooks, particularly when it comes to their utterly evil and morally reprehensible prejudice against gays. All such groups are routinely attacked and mocked. It’s just that you conservative Christians are such a bunch of babies that you can’t take it and like to imagine you’re being singled out when you aren’t.
The times when you folks get special treatment are over. You lost the culture wars, and you lost them hard.
And I might add sir, it was Reverend Franklin Graham, as staunch an opponent of gay marriage as there ever was, who exercised outreach to victims and proved where the heart of true Christians lie on this matter.
A. There is no such thing as a “true Christian”. Christianity is nothing over and above the various and sometimes conflicting beliefs and practices found in people who self-identify as Christians.
B. His outreach was kind and wonderful and deserving of praise. He’s still a monster because of his bigotry.
Christians are not the ones who engage in murder because our faith does not call for that.
Sorry for the history lesson, Sparky, but there was indeed a time when you people murdered and imprisoned others all the time with the enthusiastic backing of the state (which you controlled), and you did so in the name of your religion. Then we got the Enlightenment, and with it the long process of Western governments learning the value of keeping you people in your places so the damage you cause to society and culture is minimized. (It also stopped you from killing one another on points of doctrinal disagreement, so you benefited yourselves from secularization, as much as you stupidly complain about it.) share
In other words, you want religion to be used as an excuse to practice bigotry.
No sir, I call for the preservation of the Constitution which calls for the protection of religious freedom, and that sir, includes the right of practicing Christians to practice their faith in accordance with their beliefs, and not because the tyrants of the state impose their alternate definition of morality to purposefully inhibit the free exercise of religion which is protected under the Constitution, a document you are quite unfamiliar with in your zeal to push your anti-Christian bigotry. Your vision isn't America it's Jacobin France of the 1790 which gave us such wonderful moments like the Reign of Terror and the suppression of religious freedom in the name of "Enlightenment" because the arrogance of a handful of elitists decided their will was better than that of the people and in their view it was okay to suspend basic liberties for the "greater good".
Traditional Christian doctrine regards homosexual conduct as a moral sin and the state has no right to shove alternate definitions of morality on those who have objections to that to inhibit THEIR right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as American citizens. You, OTOH reflect the hypocritical cowardice that makes itself clear time and again by selectively targeting Christian businesses only and steering clear of the "religion of peace" which made its true feelings on the subject known in Orlando. Pathetic.
As I said, if you want the definition of marriage rewritten, then show some guts to do it according to the democratic process. That you can't get it that way says more about the extremism and the undemocratic means through judicial tyranny reminiscent of dictatorships that so-called "progressives" feel a need to resort to to work their will.
As for the story of the Atlanta fire chief it is a matter of the public record. Bigotry practiced against a practicing Christian for writing a religious book on his own time simply because he expressed his protected view of homosexual conduct in one passage and when a gay councilman found out about it, he threw a hissy fit (much in the same way the bigoted mayor of Houston threw a bigoted hissy fit and demanded ministers turn over their sermon notes in violation of the Constitution). You're obviously quite too lazy to look that up on your own, just as I'm sure the name FLOYD CORKINS is one you would like to sweep under the rug. That's what a real monster is, and not the false boogeymen you like to concoct in the name of your anti-Christian bigotry that is no different than that of what certain Germans once felt about Jews (these Germans I might add were not traditional Christians, they were Social Darwinists who came out of the Enlightenment tradition you overly revere too much).
What's really despicable is how you then take a crime committed by a MUSLIM and use it to then slander Christians. That says it all as to what the real motives of the militant gay movement is and it is nothing less than the suppression of the protected Constitutional rights of practicing Christians to go in the closet.....or else.
share
the right of practicing Christians to practice their faith in accordance with their beliefs
The right you believe you should possess is that of practicing Christians (not your general religious person, but specifically a Christian) to practice their faith; at the expense of others. Way to highlight you persecution complex and your desperate cry for the reinstatement of your religious privledge.
Taking your religious bias out of the equation, let's break this down into a simple question: should homosexuals be allowed to have their marriage recognized in the same way heterosexual couples do?
*I edit for grammar now. share
It is not at the expense of anyone for a Christian bakery not cater a gay wedding anymore than it is at the expense of a Gentile if a Jewish deli won't sell ham. We are not asserting any "privilege" other than our own existing Constitutional protections that the other side has clear contempt for. To call the pre-existing Constitutional protection that was established in 1787 by thinkers of far greater intellectual substance than those in our Courts today "religious privilege" reveals how for the other side this is a matter of indulging their own form of religious bigotry in the form of what they see as "payback". Very totalitarian of them.
The answer to your question is only if the PEOPLE have so decided at the ballot box. If a state passes gay marriage by the legislature I may be offended as a Christian by the result, but that is democracy and the result obtained through the proscribed process. That sir, is not the same as when five judicial tyrants by a one vote majority (it's funny how one vote majorities that go the way of the Left are regarded as permanent settled precedents, but not Citizens United. Talk about hypocrisy!) arbritrarily invent a non-existent "right" out of thin air just to satisfy a legislative whim they could not get the honest way. Thus, the gay marriage decision is wrong from an *American* standpoint as much as Roe vs. Wade is wrong from an American standpoint and in this case the violation of something I consider morally wrong according to my religion has taken place without any regard for following the proscribed process set down in the Constitution.
No judge invented out of thin air a right for women to vote, it was obtained democratically through a Constitutional Amendment. No judge overturned Prohibition by inventing a preexisting right to drink, it was overturned by another Constitutional Amendment. When the other side isn't willing to follow that process because they know they can't win and just feel the "ends justify the means" to get their will done undemocratically because of the alleged superiority of their will, then that is the mark of a true theocracy. A secular theocracy of the kind that Robespierre might have been fond of, but one that has no relationship to the society envisioned by James Madison.
I agree that it is petty for homosexual couples to seek out religiously owned bakeries, in hopes of "forcing acceptance" or gaining a decent lawsuit. However, there is still an underlying issue which you are not addressing: the issue of people owning a public business, with an exclusive customer base. I understand that you believe wholeheartedly that this is a Christian nation, and in being such, there are certain Christian values which need to be upheld; one of which is homosexuality being immoral. If one is opposed to a homosexual lifestyle and thus homosexual marriage, than why own a business where you may have to provide service to homosexuals? Its the equivalent of a Muslim working at a supermarket (not a privately owned deli), and refusing to serve a Jewish person because it's "against his religion". The only distinction I can make is if the business is private, they can discriminate all they want, but if the business is public, than be ready for some repercussions for your discrimination.
Your right to believe whatever you want is ever expansive. Unfortunately your right to believe whatever you want doesn't allow you to start refusing others their rights. But guess what? In no way, what so ever, will homosexuals getting married impact you. So your beliefs, are completely irrelevant to the rights that other people deserve.
*I edit for grammar now.
Quite the contrary it *is* impacting my beliefs. Notice how gay groups forced the CEO of Mozilla to resign because they found out he contributed to the pro-traditional marriage propsition in CA? Or when the IRS illegally leaked the donors to traditional marriage groups to pro-gay groups so they could be "outed" and targeted for harassment? It's funny how after many decades, Hollywood still talks about an "inquisition" when Communist writers and actors were blacklisted yet they are quite willing to engage in blacklists of their own if people express ideas they hate.
Or how about when the Atlanta fire chief is then fired because on his own time he wrote a book about traditional Biblical morality that contained one passage about gay conduct and then when a gay councilman saw it, he threw a fit and got him fired even though there was not a shred of evidence any gay fireman had ever been "discriminated" against?
Or when a mayor of Houston suddenly demands the subpoenaing of sermon notes of ministers who preached on homosexuality?
Or when a Christian school in MA that a relative of mine taught at is suddenly subjected to a blackballing and blacklisting by other schools who refuse to play them in athletics because of that school's Constitutionally protected stance on homosexual conduct and gay marriage?
And returning to the baker analogy, a bakery owned by a black man would also have to do decorations praising the KKK if a white supremacist customer wanted it or the black baker may have to cater a KKK rally. Don't tell me they would be forced to do so by a judge or that a judge would buy the argument of "emotional distress" on the white supremacist but they would have to in order for there to be consistency. You're saying though that traditional Christians should not be allowed to own their own businesses and operate them under their own guidelines as *they* want to do so, and that is calling for the denial of rights that were part of the common law tradition for quite a few centuries before Anthony Kennedy (who holds his seat thanks to Robert Bork's public lynching led by a Senator from MA who had he possessed a different last name would have been jailed for involuntary manslaughter but I digress) invented the right to gay marriage on his own.
Any gay person can walk in and buy a product. What he doesn't have the right to demand is that the baker cater his wedding. A baker can set his own limits on what events he wants to cater all he wants under his own flexible standards because the government has no right to interfere with any private business setting those standards just like they can't dictate what end products a business can sell (and catering a wedding is ultimately an end product that he doesn't have to offer). This has nothing to do with letting them eat cake, it has to do with going *beyond* that into special privilege territory. And indeed, from the very outset the entire argument over "Gay rights" has been based on the premise that what has been sought has not been "equality" as American citizens which always existed but special rights to codify an alternate definition of morality in the law to the detriment of the religious freedom of others. That is where the argument has been, and it will alas continue and I see a day where I may end up living to see ministers jailed for preaching sermons not to the liking of certain groups and churches shut down accordingly.
All of your examples of CEOs or heads of businesses being fired due to expressing there religious beliefs are in no way unfair. It is extraordinarily unprofessional for the CEO of a company, or the head of a fire department, to publicly and officially express your dislike for people who don't conform to your religious views.
And again, these people voicing their dislike for homosexuals and facing the consequences for such, in no way affects your beliefs. You can still believe that homosexuality is wrong, and no one will ever be able to tell you to think otherwise. So again, how does two people of the same sex getting married affect you? (Other than your personal dislike of homosexuals having to be addressed more often)
a bakery owned by a black man would also have to do decorations praising the KKK if a white supremacist customer wanted it or the black baker may have to cater a KKK rally.
This is a disgusting comparison. I made the comparison between a Muslim having to follow his religion, by not serving a Jewish person. You are advocating the same, when you say Christians should be able to refuse service to homosexuals due to religious beliefs. You than go and imply that homosexuals are akin to a KKK neo nazi going into a black person bakery and demanding they cater their KKK rally. First, to make the comparison between a homosexual couple walking into a bakery, not knowing whether they will be denied due to the fact that the owner is a religious bigot, and asking for their wedding to be catered and a KKK member knowingly walking into a black persons bakery and demanding they cater the rally is nonsense. Forcing a person of a certain race to cater an event which celebrates the hatred for that race would be idiotic. That person could make a very strong case about how their life was threatened by catering the event.
Such a laughable comparison, so I guess a thank you for the laugh is in order.
The real question here is which of these is a more important right for any given person to possess? The right to be treated equally by everyone or the right for everyone to view you as equal to them?
*I edit for grammar now. share
It is extraordinarily unprofessional for the CEO of a company, or the head of a fire department, to publicly and officially express your dislike for people who don't conform to your religious views.
Oh I see, a CEO or a fire chief must check his First Amendment right at the door. How fascist of you! The CEO simply made a contribution to a political cause that he and all other citizens who voted for it had a right to do so, and he was supposed to lose his job for that? How hypocritical of those who to this day beat us over the head about how Hollywood Communists lost their jobs in the 1950s because of their "beliefs" (though in that case it was beliefs in the greatness of Joseph Stalin) and yet believe you should be sanctioned for your *opinions* because they don't conform to their particular standard. That isn't America, that's totalitarian thinking of the kind Americans died in two World Wars against.
I have no personal dislike of anyone because what someone wants to do behind closed doors is their business and I never profess to presume that I as a Christian am superior because I do believe in what Christ said about those being without sin have the only right to cast the first stone (but I also don't forget that he told the adulteress "go and sin no more" which is the part that usually gets left out by those who like to remake Christ in their own image to justify their own sins). I struggle with my own sins in life and must do my best to avoid them. So this has never been about "hating" a group of people because of one particular sin, because like Paul in the Corinthians I only view this particular sin as one among all sins.
What I do have a problem with are obnxious bigoted activists slandering traditional Christian faith because it won't conform itself to selectively rewrite the Bible to suit their particular fetish for one particular sin that is so identified in the New Testament among other sins we as a society still regard as sins and who then seek to improperly use the judicial process to get government and the state to codify *their* definition of morality into law and thus put those who are of traditional faith at risk to face sanction from the state. We used to be told decades ago by gay activists that they simply wanted to be "left alone" with a "live and let live" attitude and stressed the matter of what they did in private is their business. But now they have proved that isn't what they wanted at all and what they want instead is to use the state to sanction those they have their own bigoted hatred of, even to the point of trying to penalize people for holding legitimate public policy views and legitimate mainstream religious views by getting their Constitutional rights stripped and trying to make them second class citizens. If I have a problem with that, that isn't me being bigoted, that's me standing up for the principles of (1) my faith and (2) the Constitution as it used to be understood before the arrogance of judicial tyranny hijacked it.
And I stand completely by my analogy of the black baker being compelled to write "White Power" on a cake requested by a white supremacist and being told he must cater a KKK rally since that is the logical end result of your argument that a Christian baker can not be allowed to exercise his own legitimate right of conscience in the maintenance of his own business that he runs. The black baker *must* sell the cake itself to the paying customer who wants one just as the Christian baker *must* sell the cake itself to a gay customer, but he shouldn't have to be compelled to give his time and expense to doing something that he has an objection to in endorsing a political statement just as the Christian baker shouldn't have to do it for something offensive to him that also represents a POLITICAL statement as well as a moral one. Should he also cater an American Atheists convention? Should a Jewish baker cater a PLO rally? Either you show consistency and say they must do it for all or stand exposed as a hypocrite engaging in discrimination against one particular faith. You've demonstrated that you prefer to be a hypocrite because the only consistency in you is your belief that Christians are second-class citizens entitled to none of the protections of liberty and rights of conscience that you would grant other faiths (since I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for a gay organization to haul a Muslim baker who won't cater his wedding into court. That's when they know they'll likely not get the judge to rule in their favor).
The real question here is why certain activists on the Left are so determined to see to it that those of traditional faith are penalized by the state for the practice of their beliefs and why such bigoted hatred of Christianity is so rampant, yet when it comes to "the religion of peace" not even the massacre of Orlando gets them to feel outrage over how gays are treated in Muslim societies. They would rather see Christians as the boogeymen while looking the other way at those engaged in the real acts of atrocities that no Christian society of the modern age would ever commit. share
Or how about when the Atlanta fire chief is then fired because on his own time he wrote a book about traditional Biblical morality that contained one passage about gay conduct and then when a gay councilman saw it, he threw a fit and got him fired even though there was not a shred of evidence any gay fireman had ever been "discriminated" against?
That's not exactly what happened. The major problem with this case was that, while on the job, this chief handed out his book and actively proselytized city employees, many of whom were his subordinates. Several complaints had been filed yet he continued with this behaviour.
I'm not familiar with the other cases, but if is anything like this, then the truth is not the persecution that you wish it to be. share
No sir, I call for the preservation of the Constitution which calls for the protection of religious freedom, and that sir, includes the right of practicing Christians to practice their faith in accordance with their beliefs, and not because the tyrants of the state impose their alternate definition of morality to purposefully inhibit the free exercise of religion which is protected under the Constitution, a document you are quite unfamiliar with in your zeal to push your anti-Christian bigotry.
Blah, blah, blah. It has already been decided by people who understand the Constitution far better than you that Christians do not have the right to discriminate against gays on the basis of their religion--no more than they have the right to discriminate against people of color.
You lost the culture wars on both legal and philosophical grounds. Grow up and deal with it.
Your vision isn't America it's Jacobin France of the 1790 which gave us such wonderful moments like the Reign of Terror and the suppression of religious freedom in the name of "Enlightenment" because the arrogance of a handful of elitists decided their will was better than that of the people and in their view it was okay to suspend basic liberties for the "greater good".
Nice to know that you are on record opposing the movement which brought us science, constitutional democracy, and the United States of America. May I suggest that since you clearly are in opposition to the values of the founding fathers of this country, you move somewhere else?
Oh, and by the way: if the people behind the Enlightenment were the ones suppressing religion, why is it that so many of them had to publish in secret for fear of being jailed (or worse) by Christians? Why did David Hume have to publish some of his greatest work posthumously? Why was Spinoza in exile?
Sorry, silly me: you are obviously so seriously uneducated that this is all going over your head. You probably never even heard of these people.
Traditional Christian doctrine regards homosexual conduct as a moral sin and the state has no right to shove alternate definitions of morality on those who have objections to that to inhibit THEIR right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as American citizens.
The state isn't forcing you to change your idiotic ideas on sexual morality. You just won't be allowed to force those ridiculous ideas on other people.
You lost the culture wars. Grow up and deal with it.
You, OTOH reflect the hypocritical cowardice that makes itself clear time and again by selectively targeting Christian businesses only and steering clear of the "religion of peace" which made its true feelings on the subject known in Orlando.
We target any business that uses religious ideology to discriminate against others, regardless of religion. It just so happens that since this country is dominated by Christians, most of those businesses who violate the law end up being Christian.
As I said, if you want the definition of marriage rewritten, then show some guts to do it according to the democratic process.
We did. The courts are a part of any democracy. Sorry that you needed such a basic lesson in civics.
You lost the culture wars. Grow up and deal with it.
As for the story of the Atlanta fire chief it is a matter of the public record.
And as another poster has demonstrated, the public record shows that this idiot's behavior was unacceptable. I knew you weren't telling the whole story.
(much in the same way the bigoted mayor of Houston threw a bigoted hissy fit and demanded ministers turn over their sermon notes in violation of the Constitution)
You don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about. That subpoena was a perfectly legal and constitutional attempt to gather evidence about what instructions were given in filling out rejected petitions.
What's really despicable is how you then take a crime committed by a MUSLIM and use it to then slander Christians.
Let me repeat, clueless wonder: it was American Christians, not Muslims, who applauded the massacre or suggested the victims deserved their fate. You can keep trying to change the subject, but I won't let it pass. share
And get a load of how the fire chief of Atlanta, a BLACK man, was fired because on his own time exercised his right under the First Amendment to write a book about Biblical morality. Even though there was not a shred of evidence that he discriminated against gay employees but was only expressing his Constituationally protected opinion on his own time (and using no public money), he was fired because of his Christian beliefs. That is bigotry and discrimination in which the fire chief was expected to keep his mainstream beliefs shoved in a closet for the sake of appeasing the anti-Christian bigots of the gay movement.
If your place of employment thinks what you did even on your own time is going to make them look bad they are in the right to fire you. They don't have to keep you there if what you did is against what they want. Just like food network had a right to fire Paula dean & TLC had a right to fire The Duck guy. It's their business the people made their business look bad witch would cost them money.
Ace Lions share