You Should Be Free To Discriminate Against Homosexuals

[debrand]

As a matter of company policy, however, Chick-fil-A does not refuse to serve anyone as long as they pay for their food. Also, government regulations developed since the Civil Rights Act don’t allow for them to refuse to hire sodomites. Their company’s policy does not allow for them to discriminate against sodomites in hiring.[3] We know for a fact that Chick-fil-A has hired out-of-the-closet sodomites.[4]

In a biblical society, an employer should be allowed to discriminate on who he hires even where “sexual orientation†is concerned. In such a society, he would not be required to hire a person who is openly engaging in an activity the God’s Word calls not only a sin but also a capital crime. (See Leviticus 20:13.)

I would even argue that under our present U.S. Constitution, employers should be allowed to discriminate against hiring sodomites because that choice should be protected by the First Amendment’s “freedom of religion†clause. If a person believes the Bible teaches that sodomy is a sin and/or a biblical crime, the First Amendment should protect his right to fire or not hire someone publicly living in conflict with that good-faith religious belief.

Sodomite refers not just to same sex anal sex but heterosexual oral and anal also. I'm going to guess that the writer wouldn't turn down a blow job from his wife.

What if a person believes their religion permits them to view other races as less intelligent? Can they refuse to hire groups based on their religion?

But sadly even in the recent Republican presidential debates, the only candidate calling for an overturn to the Civil Rights Act, and the government regulation of hiring that comes with it, was Congressman Ron Paul

A good reason to not vote for Ron Paul.

americanvision.org/6204/as-sodomites-protest-christian-prove-they-arent-too-chicken-to-share-the-gospel/

“I say we show up, buy ‘em sandwiches, [and] share the gospel while they eat,†wrote Dr. Voddie Baucham.

[Arete]

Well, aren't we just lucky we don't live in a biblical society...yet.

As to what is actually meant when we throw around "freedom of religion" in the US, I wish these fundies would actually bother to read the Constitution. The parts of the First Amendment they are talking about are collectively referred to as the Establishment and Free Excercise Clauses.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

The first part is interpreted to mean Congress does not have the right to establish a state religion. Believe it or not, the second part actually means that Congress cannot favor one religion over another. It has nothing to do with a religion's followers being given carte blache to behave in any way they want as long as they hide behind their sacred text.

If they went to a real highschool and actually had paid attention, they would know they don't get to discriminate against gays under the guise of "freedom of religion". Testicles.

[doggie]

How the hell would any of these idiots know what went on in biblical times? and does it matter? we don't live it biblical times we don't live in the middle east we don't live 2 thousand years ago. the worst apart is people back then had lived that way long before even Judaism came around so it really has nothing to do with Christianity.

[debrand]

Nathaniel Darnell has many interesting articles on his site to discuss. It is obvious that he has the Vision Forum inflated opinion on his own intelligence

americanvision.org/6147/the-three-purposes-of-gods-law/

Some of his other articles shed a light on some of the Vision Forum mindset.

Hate crimes legislation is built on the premise of moralism and cannot be reconciled with Christianity. Efforts to eliminate poverty or disease are likewise without precedent in God’s Law for human government. Eliminating poverty or disease does not fit any of the three purposes of law by God. Specifically, it goes beyond attempting to create a social order where the potential for churches, families, and businesses to address poverty and disease may effectively happen. It is another example of moralism because it forces citizens to be “charitable†even though the distributors of that charity have not the incentive to effectively administer the charity for those in need. Finally, efforts to make moralism more effective by centralizing power in entities such as the United Nations have been proven wasted efforts, and they are also out-of-sync with God’s purposes for law. God’s Law does not micro-manage every single activity of man. God’s civil laws are far less than 700 commands. His Law does not break up citizens into numerous classes such as “the disabled†but provides broad principles that apply to all people equally in many numerous situations.