Christians banned from public office.

Much like England where it is now illegal to preach the Bible, the San Antonio city council is trying to pass an ordinance that would ban open Christians from "participation in city government, business or employment."

Quote :

Think it’s hot in Texas these days? Just wait a few weeks, until the San Antonio City Council ends its summer hiatus and resumes work on a proposed change to its  nondiscrimination ordinances that apparently will discriminate against all who take the Bible at its word and follow it.

That’s because the change creates a penalty for those who ever exhibit a “bias,” which clearly could include adopting the Bible’s condemnation of homosexuality, with a permanent ban on participation in city government, business or employment.

Opponents of the plan, which would add “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to the nondiscrimination ordinances, charge it is a violation of constitutional Article VI, paragraph 3, which states, “[N]o religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

The opponents explain that the ordinance would bar anyone from office who has “demonstrated a bias” against someone based on categories that include “sexual orientation.”

The proposal, however, does not define “bias,” which, according to local church leaders, could mean someone who declares homosexual behavior is sinful.

The new ordinance would state: “No person shall be appointed to a position if the city council finds that such person has, prior to such proposed appointment, engaged in discrimination or demonstrated a bias, by word or deed, against any person, group or organization on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, veteran status, age, or disability.”

Anyone in office who demonstrates a bias would be considered guilty of “malfeasance” and removed from office.

Church leaders who oppose the proposed change argue it violates First Amendment rights to freedom of religion, freedom of speech and freedom of association. It also violates, they say, the Texas Religious Freedom Act and the Texas Constitution.

Pastor Charles Flowers of Faith Outreach International, who has been alerting city residents about the issue, told OneNewsNow that the reference to “bias” could mean anything.

“The ordinance … says that if you have at any point demonstrate a bias – without defining what a bias is or who will determine whether or not one has been exercised – that you cannot get a city contract,” Flowers said. “Neither can any of your subcontractors [who have demonstrated a bias] sign on to the contract.”

He called the measure “unprecedentedly wrong” and said “the citizens of San Antonio must stop it.”

Many pastors are concerned, reported KHOU-TV’s Joe Conger in Houston.

“Ever have a Paula Deen moment – make an off-color joke or hold a religious belief?” Conger said. “[Pastor Steve] Branson [of Village Parkway Baptist Church] says keep it to yourself if you’re involved with San Antonio city government. Proposed changes to the anti-discrimination ordinance could get you fired.”

Get the best deals on Paula Deen’s books at WND’s SuperStore.

“If you voice any opinion, no matter how many years back it’s been, it can be used against you,” Branson told the station. “City employees are going to be greatly affected by this.”

The KHOU report said more than a dozen church leaders met to discuss the looming issue.

An analysis released by pastors said the “ordinance violates Texas and federal Constitutions by creating a religious test for involvement in city government.”

The church leaders said it allows the city council “to prohibit those that speak their religious beliefs regarding homosexuality from serving on city boards.”

“For example, if a person publicly expresses their religious belief that homosexual behavior is a sin – even if this expression is at a church service – that person could be frozen out of involvement with city government.”

The analysis also contends businesses “run by people of faith will be subject to criminal penalties if they refuse to provide services that conflict with their religious beliefs relating to homosexuality.”

The council, which declined to advance the plan when it first was discussed, is scheduled to resume talks on the controversy in August.

http://www.wnd.com/2013/07/u-s-city-looks-to-penalize-bible-believers/

Somehow this will be overturned.

I love it when Christians fight for their right to be bigots, and to be able to openly discriminate against groups of people that they don't care for. Makes them look narrow minded and petty.

All this bill does is to add sexual orientation, gender identity, and veteran status into the already existing non-discrimination ordinances.

ilaugh wrote:

I love it when Christians fight for their right to be bigots, and to be able to openly discriminate against groups of people that they don't care for. Makes them look narrow minded and petty.

All this bill does is to add sexual orientation, gender identity, and veteran status into the already existing non-discrimination ordinances.

I don ot believe this has ever been done for political office. For business maybe.

Actually, San Antonio is behind the times. Even in a state like Texas, It's already policy in Austin, Dallas, and Ft. Worth along with a few other cities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_employment_discrimination_in_the_United_States#Local_law

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:

ilaugh wrote:

I love it when Christians fight for their right to be bigots, and to be able to openly discriminate against groups of people that they don't care for. Makes them look narrow minded and petty.

All this bill does is to add sexual orientation, gender identity, and veteran status into the already existing non-discrimination ordinances.

I don ot believe this has ever been done for political office. For business maybe.

This ordinance doesn't add anybody to non discrimination ordinances, all those groups are already in the non discrimination laws. This ordinance bans Christians from office and government jobs because of what they believe, not for any acts discriminatory or not. This is the "thought police" passing a rule telling people they aren't allowed to believe in Christianity if they want government jobs or positions. In this country people are allowed to believe whatever they want to without being penalized for it.

eber322 wrote:

This ordinance doesn't add anybody to non discrimination ordinances, all those groups are already in the non discrimination laws.

You're wrong eber. At least try to do a little research outside of some right-wing, evangelical leaning blog like WND.

eber322 wrote:

This ordinance bans Christians from office and government jobs because of what they believe, not for any acts discriminatory or not.

Wrong again. This ordinance doesn't ban anyone from seeking public office because of their religion, it just adds certain groups to the non-discrimination ordinances, including veterans.

Because someone thinks it is a sin why do they have to be a bigot? Never understood that one. Is that just said for political reasons? My son is gay I love him to death. I do not agree with the lifestyle so does that make me a bigot Ilaugh?

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:

Because someone thinks it is a sin why do they have to be a bigot? Never understood that one. Is that just said for political reasons? My son is gay I love him to death. I do not agree with the lifestyle so does that make me a bigot Ilaugh?

I don't know, Pissedoffvulcan. Do you think he deserves to marry his loved one? if not why? Do you believe that if gays are allowed to marry that it will destroy the institution of marriage, and quite possibly the nation? Do you believe gays are perverts and that many of them are child molesters? Do you believe that his soul will suffer eternal damnation because of who he is, and do you accept him for who he is, or is it important that he change his ways to save his soul? Do you truly find it difficult to tolerate his lifestyle? If so you might just be a bigot. Just because it used to be okay to be openly prejudice against gays didn't make it right. And attempting to use ones religion as a justifiable excuse to openly discriminate against a large group of people isn't acceptable either.

Just Because someone is against gay marriage does not make them a bigot. Just because someone thinks it will destroy the institution of marriage does not make them a bigot. As far as perverts go I have had my fair share of gay perverts. After being molested once from a gay guy and attempted molested from another do you really want me to answer that. It is something I struggle with. Just because someone thinks that they need to change their ways does not mean they are a bigot. But personal opinion let god sort out in the afterlife.

Do you believe you son to be a pervert and possible pedophile? Do you believe most all gays are at least the former with a high possibility of being the latter as well?

Do you believe that this bill proposed in Oregon in 1992 is an example of ignorance, bias, or bigotry?

Quote :

All governments in Oregon may not use their monies or properties to promote, encourage or facilitate homosexuality, pedophilia, sadism or masochism. All levels of government, including public education systems, must assist in setting a standard for Oregon's youth which recognizes that these behaviors are abnormal, wrong, unnatural and perverse and they are to be discouraged and avoided.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Ballot_Measure_9_%281992%29

ilaugh wrote:

Do you believe you son to be a pervert and possible pedophile? Do you believe most all gays are at least the former with a high possibility of being the latter as well?

Do you believe that this bill proposed in Oregon in 1992 is an example of ignorance, bias, or bigotry?

Quote :

All governments in Oregon may not use their monies or properties to promote, encourage or facilitate homosexuality, pedophilia, sadism or masochism. All levels of government, including public education systems, must assist in setting a standard for Oregon's youth which recognizes that these behaviors are abnormal, wrong, unnatural and perverse and they are to be discouraged and avoided.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Ballot_Measure_9_%281992%29

Did I or did I not say I struggle with it. However the dude he is with is. Nothing I can do about it. My son was 16 when he was recruited by this guy. Trust me he was recruited over face book. This guy was 27 at the time. My son now finds himself in a situation where he is even thinking about joining the military. I hope he does because he is a proud kid and would never admit he was wrong.

This guys family is taking advantage of m son and all I can do is sit and watch. As parent something is wrong and I cannot put my finger on it. But at one time my son was hard core anti military. That tells me something has changed.

Here is an article from Donald Young.
Let me remind you that seven of the most vicious mass ki11ers in US history were done by seven homo$exual rap ists:

Patrick Kearney ra ped and ki11ed 32 boys, dismembered them and left them in trash bags along California highways.

Chicago contractor, John Wayne Gacy, raped and ki11ed 33 boys then buried them under his porch and in his yard.

the infamous Jeffrey Dahmer of Milwaukee who admitted ki11ing 17 boys.
After $ex, he ki11ed them, dis membered their bodies, boiled their heads
and ate some of their organs. In one case, he ki11ed a young man then
had an al $ex with the body!

Homo$exual Henry Lucas claimed that he ki11ed 350.

Donald Harvey claimed 37 victims in Kentucky.

Bruce Davis molested and ki11ed 27 young men and boys in Illinois

Juan Corona was convicted ofki11ing 25 migrant workers after which he "made love" with their corpses.

Now you know why they are called, "per verts."

All seven cases involved premeditated homo$exual ra pe, mutilation or
dismemberment and finally,ki11ed. In each case there were about 30
victims—boys or young men. Dahmer "only" had 17 victims that are known.
Older men were never the victims!

In a paper presented at the Midwestern Psychological Association in
Chicago by Dr. Paul Cameron in 1983, he documented that of 518
$exually-tinged mass ki11ers in the U.S. from 1966 to 1983, 68% of the
victims were ki11ed by homo$exuals! And remember that they only make up
less than 3% of the total population.

The top U.S. male serial ki11ers were all homo$exuals according to Dr.
Cameron and other researchers. Yes, as a group, homo$exuals are very
dangerous people. They are dangerous because they are disturbed,
distressed and often diseased.

Just because there have been killers that are homosexual doesn't in anyway indicate that gays are more likely to be violent, nor does it indicate that the rate of pedophilia is higher in homosexual populations than in heterosexuals.  

And as far as Dr. Paul Cameron is concerned.
 

Quote :

On December 2, 1983, the American Psychological Association sent Paul Cameron a letter informing him that he had been dropped from membership. Early in 1984, all members of the American Psychological Association received official written notice that "Paul Cameron (Nebraska) was dropped from membership for a violation of the Preamble to the Ethical Principles of Psychologists" by the APA Board of Directors.5 Cameron has posted an elaborate argument about his expulsion from APA on his website, claiming that he resigned from APA before he was dropped from membership. Like most organizations, however, APA does not allow a member to resign when they are being investigated. And even if Cameron's claims were accepted as true, it would be remarkable that the largest professional organization of psychologists in the United States (and other professional associations, as noted below) went to such lengths to disassociate itself from one individual.

At its membership meeting on October 19, 1984, the Nebraska Psychological Association adopted a resolution stating that it "formally disassociates itself from the representations and interpretations of scientific literature offered by Dr. Paul Cameron in his writings and public statements on sexuality.

In 1985, the American Sociological Association (ASA) adopted a resolution which asserted that "Dr. Paul Cameron has consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented sociological research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism" and noted that "Dr. Paul Cameron has repeatedly campaigned for the abrogation of the civil rights of lesbians and gay men, substantiating his call on the basis of his distorted interpretation of this research."7 The resolution formally charged an ASA committee with the task of "critically evaluating and publicly responding to the work of Dr. Paul Cameron."

At its August, 1986 meeting, the ASA officially accepted the committee's report and passed the following resolution:

   The American Sociological Association officially and publicly states that Paul Cameron is not a sociologist, and condemns his consistent misrepresentation of sociological research. Information on this action and a copy of the report by the Committee on the Status of Homosexuals in Sociology, "The Paul Cameron Case," is to be published in Footnotes, and be sent to the officers of all regional and state sociological associations and to the Canadian Sociological Association with a request that they alert their members to Cameron's frequent lecture and media appearances."

In August, 1996, the Canadian Psychological Association adopted the following policy statement:

   The Canadian Psychological Association takes the position that Dr. Paul Cameron has consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism and thus, it formally disassociates itself from the representation and interpretations of scientific literature in his writings and public statements on sexuality.

Cameron's credibility was also questioned outside of academia. In his written opinion in Baker v. Wade (1985), Judge Buchmeyer of the U.S. District Court of Dallas referred to "Cameron's sworn statement that 'homosexuals abuse children at a proportionately greater incident than do heterosexuals,'" and concluded that "Dr. Paul Cameron...has himself made misrepresentations to this Court" and that "There has been no fraud or misrepresentations except by Dr. Cameron"

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_cameron_sheet.html

Quote :

The top U.S. male serial killers were all homosexuals according to Dr.
Cameron and other researchers. Yes, as a group, homosexuals are very
dangerous people. They are dangerous because they are disturbed,
distressed and often diseased.

If you can't recognize that statement as being fallacious, malicious, and bigoted, then I give up.

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:

Did I or did I not say I struggle with it. However the dude he is with is. Nothing I can do about it. My son was 16 when he was recruited by this guy.

Sorry to hear about your son POV. I remember you talking about this back then, but I didn't realize the guy got him to go along, I thought he was just stalking your son online. I'll pray for your son and your whole family.

Unfortunately the rest of what you posted is far to true. Homosexuals tend to be violent, pedophiles, and spread far more disease. I think it's because they lack impulse control, even when they know their behavior is wrong, they either can't or won't control it. They're like animals that try to hump your leg even though they know you're going to wack them for it. They're ruled by their urges and emotions instead of their brains or morals.

eber322 wrote:

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:

Did I or did I not say I struggle with it. However the dude he is with is. Nothing I can do about it. My son was 16 when he was recruited by this guy.

Sorry to hear about your son POV. I remember you talking about this back then, but I didn't realize the guy got him to go along, I thought he was just stalking your son online. I'll pray for your son and your whole family.

Unfortunately the rest of what you posted is far to true. Homosexuals tend to be violent, pedophiles, and spread far more disease. I think it's because they lack impulse control, even when they know their behavior is wrong, they either can't or won't control it. They're like animals that try to hump your leg even though they know you're going to wack them for it. They're ruled by their urges and emotions instead of their brains or morals.

Well when my son turned 18 nothing I could do about it. However I think he is smartening up. The family conned him into buying a 52 inch screen tv and cell phones. The guy quit his job. My son at 18 years old makes 1900 a month take home. That is great for a 18 year old today. I think he is realizing that they are taking advantage of him. That is why he is thinking of joining the military. If the guy was more my sons age I would not be struggling with it. Until it happens to someone you really do not know what a person goes through. Ilaugh and the rest of the liberals do not understand the online predators out there. Trust me this guy is a online predator. They go along and pretend things are all fun and games. But until you experience it you will really never know.

In my opinion and my opinion only it is a lot more common then any liberal will ever tell you. All in the name of political correctness.

eber322 wrote:

Unfortunately the rest of what you posted is far to true. Homosexuals tend to be violent, pedophiles, and spread far more disease.

That statement is entirely false. It's a manufactured lie  made up to support the bigotry of intolerant people.

ilaugh wrote:

eber322 wrote:

Unfortunately the rest of what you posted is far to true. Homosexuals tend to be violent, pedophiles, and spread far more disease.

That statement is entirely false. It's a manufactured lie  made up to support the bigotry of intolerant people.

I am not saying all of them are. But I think the percentage is far higher then anyone wants to believe. Including me.

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:

Ilaugh and the rest of the liberals do not understand the online predators out there.

I'm sorry to hear about your son as well.

But making a blanket statement about liberals or gays, or any group of people is an incredibly weak argument. People like Dr. Paul Cameron skew data with malicious intent in attempts to undermine that of which they don't approve. Mister Cameron has been totally discredited by his peers for the lies he fabricated in an attempt to make a group of people seem criminally dangerous. And even though certain hate groups such as the Family Research Institute love to use his "research"  he isn't even recognized as a professional by his own peers of the American Psychological Association or the American Sociological Association because of these lies.

ilaugh wrote:

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:

Ilaugh and the rest of the liberals do not understand the online predators out there.

I'm sorry to hear about your son as well.

But making a blanket statement about liberals or gays, or any group of people is an incredibly weak argument. People like Dr. Paul Cameron skew data with malicious intent in attempts to undermine that of which they don't approve. Mister Cameron has been totally discredited by his peers for the lies he fabricated in an attempt to make a group of people seem criminally dangerous. And even though certain hate groups such as the Family Research Institute love to use his "research"  he isn't even recognized as a professional by his own peers of the American Psychological Association or the American Sociological Association because of these lies.

We have a problem and I think it is bigger then anyone wants to admit. I do not think all gays are pedo's But we have a huge problem.

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:

eber322 wrote:

Unfortunately the rest of what you posted is far to true. Homosexuals tend to be violent, pedophiles, and spread far more disease.

I am not saying all of them are. But I think the percentage is far higher then anyone wants to believe. Including me.

I'm not saying they all are either, that's why I said they tend to those things. There are exceptions. For example straights molest 67% of pedophile victims each year, and gays molest the other 33%. However, straights make up 97% of the population and gays only 3%. Does that mean all gays are pedophiles? No, but obviously they are pedophiles to a much larger degree.

Gays on average have between 20 and 106 sexual partners in their lifetime, whereas the average straight has 8 sexual partners. 60% of syphilis cases are gays and most of the gonorrhea and Hepatitis B cases as well, in fact 78% of STD cases are from homosexuals. Half the AIDS cases are homosexuals, and gays are only 3% of the population. And still with these facts homosexuals are offended that the Red Cross doesn't want their blood donations. 60% of gays admit to having sex with complete strangers in bathrooms, rest stops, bathhouses etc. Homosexuals are 100 times more likely to be murdered, usually by other homosexuals, and 25 times more likely to commit suicide than straights.

These are all facts that most professional people don't speak about, even though they know they are true, because the truth just isn't PC.

eber322 wrote:

I'm not saying they all are either, that's why I said they tend to those things. There are exceptions. For example straights molest 67% of pedophile victims each year, and gays molest the other 33%. However, straights make up 97% of the population and gays only 3%. Does that mean all gays are pedophiles? No, but obviously they are pedophiles to a much larger degree.

Bad numbers. I'm sure you'd like to believe this because of your attitude towards gays, but this information has been proven to be misleading at the very least.

Quote :

According to the American Psychological Association, "homosexual men are not more likely to sexually abuse children than heterosexual men are." Gregory Herek, a professor at the University of California, Davis, who is one of the nation's leading researchers on prejudice against sexual minorities, reviewed a series of studies and found no evidence that gay men molest children at higher rates than heterosexual men.
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/winter/10-myths

Quote :

Adoption expert, Carrie Craft cites the Child Welfare Information Gateway (previously National Adoption Information Clearinghouse) as stating, "A child's risk of being molested by his or her relatives' heterosexual partner is over one hundred times greater than by someone who might be identifiable as being homosexual." The study also found that of 269 cases of child sex abuse, only two offenders where found to be gay or lesbian. The American Psychological Association agrees, "Another myth about homosexuality is the mistaken belief that gay men have more of a tendency than heterosexual men to sexually molest children. There is no evidence to suggest that homosexuals molest children."
http://gaylife.about.com/b/2006/07/09/gay-men-and-child-molestation-myth-or-fact.htm

eber322 wrote:

These are all facts that most professional people don't speak about, even though they know they are true, because the truth just isn't PC.

No, these are not all facts, eber. As much as you would like to believe they are. They are skewed and manipulated numbers from groups with an anti-homosexual agenda.