Salvation Army: Gay parents deserve to be put to death

[fr0d0]

If I slap you around a bit poet that doesn't count OK?

[LastPoet]

Count towards what?

[Ben Davis]

"Spiritual death", pfft. Let's disregard the fact that Romans 1:32 (Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death) is directly referencing God's righteous decree in Leviticus 20:13 (They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.). It is obvious that the Bible is very super extra definitely calling for violent, physical death and very super extra definitely not 'spiritual death'...

This, this, this, this, this.

Either way, the SA's response is a direct statement that there is a context in which it's ok to discriminate against a person based on their sexuality. That's a reprehensible statement and is a direct contradiction of their claim "The Salvation Army encompasses a diverse community with a wide range of opinions on human sexuality and other subjects".

Fucking hypocrites.

[fr0d0]

*fr0d0 slaps poet with a clue bat *

---

the SA's response is a direct statement that there is a context in which it's ok to discriminate against a person based on their sexuality. That's a reprehensible statement and is a direct contradiction of their claim "The Salvation Army encompasses a diverse community with a wide range of opinions on human sexuality and other subjects".

Really? How?

I'm not saying it's not there; and I'd kind of expect a middle of the road stance, although I know that isn't fashionable/not currently seen as ethical - stance. Just interested to get you point. Thanks.

[Ben Davis]

*fr0d0 slaps poet with a clue bat *

---

the SA's response is a direct statement that there is a context in which it's ok to discriminate against a person based on their sexuality. That's a reprehensible statement and is a direct contradiction of their claim "The Salvation Army encompasses a diverse community with a wide range of opinions on human sexuality and other subjects".

Really? How?

I'm not saying it's not there; and I'd kind of expect a middle of the road stance, although I know that isn't fashionable/not currently seen as ethical - stance. Just interested to get you point. Thanks.

...because whatever kind of death they're talking about, the cause of it is god's judgement of sexuality. That's a mandate for discrimination with which they agree. Since they endorse discrimination, they do not encompass 'a wide range of opinions on human sexuality', they propagate the view that 'if you're gay, you're gonna burn'.

[Something completely different]

Why is it still alright in the US to call for the death of a group of people as a participant in the political arena?

Where I live, it is punishable as a hatecrime.

[Doubting Thomas]

Because Christians call hate crime legislation "persecution of Christians."

I won't have anything to do with the Salvation Army. I was tempted to volunteer for them before, but they make you sign a paper which states that you will not drink any alcohol, even on your own time. All SA employees and volunteers are required to totally abstain from drinking.

The other thing I hate about them is that they are legally allowed to hire & fire based upon religion. If they think I'm not good enough to work for them because I'm not religious, then I'm probably also not good enough to volunteer or donate to them.

[The Grand Nudger]

Why is it still alright in the US to call for the death of a group of people as a participant in the political arena?

Where I live, it is punishable as a hatecrime.

It's not "alright"

Brandenburg v. Ohio
"The constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a state to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force, or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

The reason that you can -get away- with it here..is that we generally don't recognize such incitements to be capable of producing action. In short, we realize that some people are incompetent cunts.

[fr0d0]

This is Australia
I know a few officers that drink alcohol. Some roles they have a stance on alcohol, as there are many ex alcoholics in the organisation who rely on the organisations support.
Yeah I was surprised in the UK that they were allowed to advertise and employ a Christian specifically. The shop included a prayer space and a ministry attached which is how they did it I think.

---

...because whatever kind of death they're talking about, the cause of it is god's judgement of sexuality. That's a mandate for discrimination with which they agree. Since they endorse discrimination, they do not encompass 'a wide range of opinions on human sexuality', they propagate the view that 'if you're gay, you're gonna burn'.

The way I look at things these are nature's "judgements". Not speaking about homosexuality, but any 'sin'.

And it states specifically above that there is no condemnation of homosexuality, so what you're saying here is wrong. There is no condemnation at all of "gays" or anyone else.

"This is a misunderstanding of the text
referred to. The Scripture in question, viewed
in its broader context, is not referring to
physical death, nor is it specifically targeted
at homosexual behaviour. The author is
arguing that no human being is without sin,
all sin leads to spiritual death (separation
from God), and all people therefore need a
Saviour."

[Ben Davis]

---

...because whatever kind of death they're talking about, the cause of it is god's judgement of sexuality. That's a mandate for discrimination with which they agree. Since they endorse discrimination, they do not encompass 'a wide range of opinions on human sexuality', they propagate the view that 'if you're gay, you're gonna burn'.

---

The way I look at things these are nature's "judgements". Not speaking about homosexuality, but any 'sin'.

And it states specifically above that there is no condemnation of homosexuality, so what you're saying here is wrong. There is no condemnation at all of "gays" or anyone else.

"This is a misunderstanding of the text
referred to. The Scripture in question, viewed
in its broader context, is not referring to
physical death, nor is it specifically targeted
at homosexual behaviour. The author is
arguing that no human being is without sin,
all sin leads to spiritual death (separation
from God), and all people therefore need a
Saviour."

At no point is there any attempt to disagree with the idea that god madates 'death' because of homosexuality. They don't need to say the words 'we hate gay people' in order to be in support, overtly, of a position that causes discrimination against homosexuals.

Their 'apology' is not really an apology at all and an insincere apology is a double-insult.