| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/30/2010 12:30:49 AM · #4726 |
| Hastings Law School is part of the University of California. The issue is not whether the club can exist within the University setting, but whether the club has access to "student activity funds" which are fees collected from all students. The school has a uniform policy that such funds are available only to organizations which agree to admit any student. The Court basically denied the club a special excemption from complying with this non-discrimination policy, and said they were to be treated equally with all other student organizations. |
|
|
|
06/30/2010 02:50:46 AM · #4727 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I didn't catch whether the law school was public (ie. funded with state or federal money) and whether that made a difference. |
It doesn't make a difference. University school groups, whether public or private, are generally funded by fees from ALL students and share access to school facilities. No matter how you might justify the discrimination, you can't expect those excluded to help support the cause! |
So this is an honest question. How would gender specific groups survive? Are there no all-women or all-men groups on campus?
EDIT: Maybe Paul answered the question. Maybe this is a specific policy to UC Hastings and they don't have any gender-specific groups.
Message edited by author 2010-06-30 02:54:43. |
|
|
|
06/30/2010 11:05:55 AM · #4728 |
| You miss the point. The mantra of gender-specific groups isn't "The opposite gender should repent of their sinful ways." A male supporting the cause of a woman's group is not outrageous. The White Ribbon campaign in Toronto has as many female marchers as male. A homosexual person simply living their lives isn't to be expected to support the cause that would make them social outcasts, criminals, demons, or whatever nutty religion-based hogwash groups like that are trying to force-feed others. |
|
|
|
06/30/2010 11:55:30 AM · #4729 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Out of curiosity, I wondered how this group's ideals would be distinguished from a hate group. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, "hate groups have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics. ... Hate group activities can include criminal acts, marches, rallies, speeches, meetings, leafleting or publishing. ...Listing here does not imply a group advocates or engages in violence or other criminal activity." Unsurprisingly, most of the anti-gay hate groups listed are Christian organizations and churches. |
If you haven't noticed, all Judao-Christian religions aren't accepting of the activities involved in homosexual relations. If you search around (Supreme Court Decision on Law School's Anti-Bias Policy May Have Limited Impact), you'll see it was a Christian group. Sure, you can join the group if you have same sex attraction, but following their religion, they would rather you were repentant. Just like anything else their religion is against.
I wonder if there's a "Vegan" club, would they accept members who professed eating of meat? Would their case go before the supreme court?
I was looking at the Southern Poverty Law Center and they have a Hate Map. I was surprised to find KKK and Nazi group in southern California. The Christian organizations and churches list are more like cults.
Again, you can't accept the bible and homosexual relations at the same time. But if it wasn't for all us sinners, there would be no church. Love the sinner, hate the sin. |
|
|
|
06/30/2010 12:01:06 PM · #4730 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Out of curiosity, I wondered how this group's ideals would be distinguished from a hate group. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, "hate groups have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics. ... Hate group activities can include criminal acts, marches, rallies, speeches, meetings, leafleting or publishing. ...Listing here does not imply a group advocates or engages in violence or other criminal activity." Unsurprisingly, most of the anti-gay hate groups listed are Christian organizations and churches. |
If you haven't noticed, all Judao-Christian religions aren't accepting of the activities involved in homosexual relations. If you search around (Supreme Court Decision on Law School's Anti-Bias Policy May Have Limited Impact), you'll see it was a Christian group. Sure, you can join the group if you have same sex attraction, but following their religion, they would rather you were repentant. Just like anything else their religion is against.
I wonder if there's a "Vegan" club, would they accept members who professed eating of meat? Would their case go before the supreme court?
I was looking at the Southern Poverty Law Center and they have a Hate Map. I was surprised to find KKK and Nazi group in southern California. The Christian organizations and churches list are more like cults.
Again, you can't accept the bible and homosexual relations at the same time. But if it wasn't for all us sinners, there would be no church. Love the sinner, hate the sin. |
Hmm, no. There are plenty of churches that accept the bible AND homosexual relations. What you mean is that you can't accept YOUR church's interpretation of the bible and accept homosexual relations.
|
|
|
|
06/30/2010 12:01:35 PM · #4731 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Again, you can't accept the bible and homosexual relations at the same time. |
Bullshit. You'd better kindly go down and explain that to these people then. |
|
|
|
06/30/2010 12:06:35 PM · #4732 |
| Incidentally, this might be of interest to those Christians who insist on spouting that near-heretical tripe about loving sinners and not sin. |
|
|
|
06/30/2010 12:33:16 PM · #4733 |
nevermind
Message edited by author 2010-06-30 12:37:52. |
|
|
|
06/30/2010 03:51:31 PM · #4734 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
If you haven't noticed, all Judao-Christian religions aren't accepting of the activities involved in homosexual relations. If you search around (Supreme Court Decision on Law School's Anti-Bias Policy May Have Limited Impact), you'll see it was a Christian group. Sure, you can join the group if you have same sex attraction, but following their religion, they would rather you were repentant. Just like anything else their religion is against.
Again, you can't accept the bible and homosexual relations at the same time. |
You mean like these 273 Gay Affirming Churches in Pennsylvania????
|
|
|
|
06/30/2010 04:05:24 PM · #4735 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Incidentally, this might be of interest to those Christians who insist on spouting that near-heretical tripe about loving sinners and not sin. |
!
|
|
|
|
06/30/2010 04:42:39 PM · #4736 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Incidentally, this might be of interest to those Christians who insist on spouting that near-heretical tripe about loving sinners and not sin. |
I'd be interested in hearing what your interpretation of her sermon was. I thought it was good, but I'm not sure you and I would summarize it similarly. |
|
|
|
06/30/2010 04:56:29 PM · #4737 |
| It's just an alternate version of mumbo-jumbo. Nullix's mumbo is this chick's jumbo. Plus ça change plus c'est la même chose. |
|
|
|
06/30/2010 05:06:22 PM · #4738 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Plus ça change plus c'est la même chose. |
Dude. I may be Canadian, but I ain't one of them secessionists... ;)
Google helped me out though.
I'm not sure the message was antithetical to what Nullix was saying however. She didn't instruct we are to accept all behavior. She did say we are not to judge. But I'd say there's a difference there, and not a small one. |
|
|
|
06/30/2010 05:23:59 PM · #4739 |
Oh, I don't doubt they are gay friendly. In fact, I'm sure my church is also gay friendly. It's also friendly to:
Adulterers
Lie-rs
Gluttonous
Blasphemers
Couples living together outside marriage
Free-Choicers
I see some of my churches listed on that list. |
|
|
|
06/30/2010 05:58:13 PM · #4740 |
Ok, how about making homosexuality (acts, lol) illegal as an official plank in GOP platforms... nobody's bothered by this?
What does it say about the true goals of conservatives?
I'd think there's some stuff to discuss there.
|
|
|
|
06/30/2010 09:02:58 PM · #4741 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Oh, I don't doubt they are gay friendly. In fact, I'm sure my church is also gay friendly. It's also friendly to:
Adulterers
Lie-rs
Gluttonous
Blasphemers
Couples living together outside marriage
Free-Choicers
I see some of my churches listed on that list. |
You seem to be missing a fundamental point, or intentionaly ignoring it again, and that harkens back to that whole choice thing and your amazing tendency to lump being gay in with bad behaviors and choices. As soon as you can demonstrate to anyone, with any kind of reasonable proof of your stance, then you're merely being incredibly insensitive to the entire gay population.
Do you really and truly believe that being gay is a choice?
|
|
|
|
06/30/2010 09:53:21 PM · #4742 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Do you really and truly believe that being gay is a choice? |
Hasn't this been done to death? Haven't we seen that choice in the matter only goes so far when people (not just religious people) determine what is right or wrong? |
|
|
|
06/30/2010 10:24:12 PM · #4743 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Do you really and truly believe that being gay is a choice? |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Hasn't this been done to death? Haven't we seen that choice in the matter only goes so far when people (not just religious people) determine what is right or wrong? |
Yes, it has been done to death, and it's NOT a choice. So what's the point of comparing being gay to being a liar, an adulterer, someone who "blasphemes", (though for this discussion we'll leave that one alone), or someone who is pro-choice, other than to be intentionally inflammatory? What the heck does whether or not someone sees it as being wrong have to do with whether or not being gay is a choice?
|
|
|
|
06/30/2010 10:28:17 PM · #4744 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Do you really and truly believe that being gay is a choice? |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Hasn't this been done to death? Haven't we seen that choice in the matter only goes so far when people (not just religious people) determine what is right or wrong? |
Yes, it has been done to death, and it's NOT a choice. So what's the point of comparing being gay to being a liar, an adulterer, someone who "blasphemes", (though for this discussion we'll leave that one alone), or someone who is pro-choice, other than to be intentionally inflammatory? What the heck does whether or not someone sees it as being wrong have to do with whether or not being gay is a choice? |
I think the point was just to list things the church doesn't agree with. Like you said, choice doesn't have too much to do with it. |
|
|
|
06/30/2010 10:40:07 PM · #4745 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Hasn't this been done to death? Haven't we seen that choice in the matter only goes so far when people (not just religious people) determine what is right or wrong? |
It's not done to death until some faint glimmer of comprehension is achieved. My earlier comparison between sexual orientation and left-handedness still holds. I could be forced favor my right hand, but it would never feel natural. I didn't choose to be left-handed, I just am. No threat of damnation or exclusion would change that, nor do I present any risk of spreading left-handedness to those who associate with me. Which hand I favor has no effect on others whatsoever, yet some people have considered it wrong, sinful, an abomination, etc. Fortunately, that particular superstition is rare in modern America, but in other times and places it would have been treated exactly like homosexuality: a target of senseless fear and prejudice. Orientation is natural, discrimination is a choice. |
|
|
|
06/30/2010 10:48:45 PM · #4746 |
I didn't mean to inflame this conversation and should have just let it lie. The left-handed argument makes some sense. On the other hand, someone with a pathological compulsion to steal is not excused from the consequences of her actions merely because she does not choose to be like that. The stealing is still deemed wrong by society.
The commonality of both the left handed and the klepto examples is that the quality or activity makes sense as being right or wrong (or amoral) under a separate system and that is what should be discussed, not the fact the trait was genetically or environmentally acquired. Would being left-handed be any more or less moral if people chose to be left-handed? Whether a trait is genetically or environmentally determined only helps explain why the person does such and such, not whether it is moral or acceptable.
Message edited by author 2010-06-30 22:50:28. |
|
|
|
06/30/2010 10:57:35 PM · #4747 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think the point was just to list things the church doesn't agree with. |
Other things the church hasn't agreed with: heliocentricity, evolution, the proclaimed innocence of witches, interracial marriage, every OTHER church, abolition, female clergy, critical thought...
Why should it matter whether the church agrees this time? |
|
|
|
06/30/2010 10:59:20 PM · #4748 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Which hand I favor has no effect on others whatsoever... |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
someone with a pathological compulsion to steal is not excused from the consequences of her actions merely because she does not choose to be like that... |
Hello straw man. |
|
|
|
06/30/2010 11:03:30 PM · #4749 |
I should really stop reading these threads, let alone adding to them. Buh.
|
|
|
|
06/30/2010 11:04:31 PM · #4750 |
This thread should be renamed to Energizer Bunny. Because it just keeps going and going.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/04/2025 01:53:43 PM EDT.
