Austin city council says 'values' require forcing churches to hire LGBT employees

1,685 Views | 21 Replies | Last: 5 yr ago by jkag89
FTACo88-FDT24dad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/austin-city-council-says-values-require-forcing-churches-to-hire-lgbt-emplo

"The ordinance allows a Catholic church to require its priests to be Catholic, but it forbids the church to exclude Catholic women, Catholic homosexuals, or Catholic transgendered people from the priesthood," it continues, arguing that the ordinance violates the U.S. Constitution, the state Constitution, and Texas' Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)."
FightinTexasAggie08
How long do you want to ignore this user?
If there was ever a city that needed to be put to the inquisition it is Austin
Frok
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Discrimination in the name of anti-discrimination
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
From the ordinance:
Quote:


EMPLOYER means a person who has 15 or more employees for each working day in each of 20 or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year, and the person's agent. The term does not include the United States, or a corporation wholly owned by the government of the United States; a bona fide private membership club (other than a labor organization) which is exempt from taxation under Section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954; or the state, a state agency, or political subdivision.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't churches under 501(c)? If so, wouldn't this exclude them as they wouldn't fall under the definition of "employer"?
ramblin_ag02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

"The ordinance allows a Catholic church to require its priests to be Catholic, but it forbids the church to exclude Catholic women, Catholic homosexuals, or Catholic transgendered people from the priesthood," it continues, arguing that the ordinance violates the U.S. Constitution, the state Constitution, and Texas' Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)."


There isn't an extreme enough eye roll emoji on this board. I'm really sure the Catholic church is going to start ordaining women to be in compliance with Austin
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Martin Q. Blank
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Why aren't ugly people ever included in these lists of "protected classes." I bet they are the largest discriminated group.
Post removed:
by user
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Martin Q. Blank said:

Why aren't ugly people ever included in these lists of "protected classes." I bet they are the largest discriminated group.
Suffered my whole life and not a dime.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Solo Tetherball Champ
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Martin Q. Blank said:

Why aren't ugly people ever included in these lists of "protected classes." I bet they are the largest discriminated group.


It's funny, a few weeks ago I read a study that essentially found that excessive handsomeness is detrimental to a mans career prospects. Where is my protected group status!

Seamaster
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Why do transgendered people or practicing homosexuals desire jobs in Churches which teach that their conditions, or rather actions, are intrinsically evil?
kurt vonnegut
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
That ordinance is nonsense. Don't they know that only Christians are allowed to use the government to force religious and moral values?
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I don't think the ordinance actually even applies to churches. They wouldn't fall under the definition of "employer" from what I've read, so i'm confused about the claims in the OP.

Perhaps i'm just reading the ordinance wrong
Post removed:
by user
UTExan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
kurt vonnegut said:

That ordinance is nonsense. Don't they know that only Christians are allowed to use the government to force religious and moral values?


You must not have followed SCOTUS since 1960.
kurt vonnegut
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
UTExan said:

kurt vonnegut said:

That ordinance is nonsense. Don't they know that only Christians are allowed to use the government to force religious and moral values?


You must not have followed SCOTUS since 1960.

Are you referring to all those decisions that protected the rights of non-Christians and established that government institutions could not endorse a specific religion over another? How did American Christians take these decisions?
Orko
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Totalinarianism is coming. Choose your flavor.
Remember, patriot, what they took from you. Your nation's identity, its religion, and its people are no more. Remember how we got here.
jkag89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
PacifistAg said:

Perhaps i'm just reading the ordinance wrong
Possibly. On the other hand without a corroborating source, I've personally take what is reported at lifesitenews.com with a grain of salt. On a number of occasions I have found them to have misreported a story, often just mistakenly but they have not been above misrepresenting a story to push an agenda.. The story that comes most vividly to mind was when they reported that Pope Benedict opposed the Harry Potter novels/movies.
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
jkag89 said:

PacifistAg said:

Perhaps i'm just reading the ordinance wrong
Possibly. On the other hand without a corroborating source, I've personally take what is reported at lifesitenews.com with a grain of salt. On a number of occasions I have found them to have misreported a story, often just mistakenly but they have not been above misrepresenting a story to push an agenda.. The story that comes most vividly to mind was when they reported that Pope Benedict opposed the Harry Potter novels/movies.

Oh yeah. I see them as the naturalnews.com of the pro-life movement.

This story, as told by them, seems to be very flawed considering the ordinance looks to not cover 501c organizations.
UTExan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
kurt vonnegut said:

UTExan said:

kurt vonnegut said:

That ordinance is nonsense. Don't they know that only Christians are allowed to use the government to force religious and moral values?


You must not have followed SCOTUS since 1960.

Are you referring to all those decisions that protected the rights of non-Christians and established that government institutions could not endorse a specific religion over another? How did American Christians take these decisions?


No. I am referring to the ones that repudiated the previously held concept that this was actually a Christian nation.
kurt vonnegut
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
UTExan said:

kurt vonnegut said:

UTExan said:

kurt vonnegut said:

That ordinance is nonsense. Don't they know that only Christians are allowed to use the government to force religious and moral values?


You must not have followed SCOTUS since 1960.

Are you referring to all those decisions that protected the rights of non-Christians and established that government institutions could not endorse a specific religion over another? How did American Christians take these decisions?


No. I am referring to the ones that repudiated the previously held concept that this was actually a Christian nation.
.
Brushing aside the claim that we were a Christian nation and the fact that the 1960s were also the start of other civil rights movements, I have to admit that I am rusty on my definitions. . . What exactly are the tenants of a "Christian Nation"? Do they include the theocratic use of political authority to mandate that its citizens follow specific religious guidelines and the entitlement to discriminate against those that are not Christian?
Demosthenes81
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Pope Benny would have put the whole city under the interdict. Frankie will probably clap and say what a wonderful idea.
Seven and three are ten, not only now, but forever. There has never been a time when seven and three were not ten, nor will there ever be a time when they are not ten. Therefore, I have said that the truth of number is incorruptible and common to all who think. — St. Augustine
FightinTexasAggie08
How long do you want to ignore this user?
kurt vonnegut said:

UTExan said:

kurt vonnegut said:

UTExan said:

kurt vonnegut said:

That ordinance is nonsense. Don't they know that only Christians are allowed to use the government to force religious and moral values?


You must not have followed SCOTUS since 1960.

Are you referring to all those decisions that protected the rights of non-Christians and established that government institutions could not endorse a specific religion over another? How did American Christians take these decisions?


No. I am referring to the ones that repudiated the previously held concept that this was actually a Christian nation.
.
Brushing aside the claim that we were a Christian nation and the fact that the 1960s were also the start of other civil rights movements, I have to admit that I am rusty on my definitions. . . What exactly are the tenants of a "Christian Nation"? Do they include the theocratic use of political authority to mandate that its citizens follow specific religious guidelines and the entitlement to discriminate against those that are not Christian?


Dont tease me
jkag89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.