Persecuted Christians In America!

[bleeding heart]

Second, so what if I focus more on Christians than on some other group? If there's a writer who focuses his columns on criticizing (hypothetically) the financial industry, does the fact that he doesn't devote equal time to criticizing (say) the military mean that he is unduly biased against the financial industry? Does that make his criticism of finance invalid?

I write about a variety of topics that interest me, and this is one of them. I don't think this is a valid complaint at all.

Well said, and I agree.

[kimmy]

You've got a lot of anger in you.

Anger is only a bad thing if it's misdirected or channeled in inappropriate ways.

Your tone in most of your messages related to religion reflect that. What I couldn't forget about you is the past skirmish we've had waaaaay back, I think it was in Jesus Camp....about the little Christian girl who was fantacized with violence over on youtube, simply for approaching people. You supported those people fantacizing violence, I think?

As I recall, I pointed out at the time that if you really believed little Rachel was in real danger, you had a duty to notify law enforcement authorities.

I bet you never called the police or the FBI, did you.

I think we all know that you didn't believe there was any real intent of harm and that you were just talking about "the threats against little Rachel" to hype the idea that Christians are persecuted.

Exhibit A: Kimmy, the author.

You are my example.

If you think anything I'm doing is "persecution" then you're an example of exactly what I'm here to mock.

-k

[Guest American Woman]

I don't think I need to explain to you that I was being snide in my previous post.

It was your inclusion of my response that left we wondering...

Shady, on the other hand, is like a frickin' cuckoo clock. Sticks his head out at regular intervals, says "Kimmy's a bigot!" then vanishes again.

Evidently I've missed that in the past; I don't recall him saying that you're a bigot prior to this, nor could I find such accusations in a search, hence my response.

I don't post "every little wrongdoing". ... I've skipped plenty of stories that I just didn't have time to write about (For example I was going to laugh at the dumb-ass Christians crying "What about Kirk Cameron's freedom of speech??" after he went on TV and made anti-gay remarks and got in a shitstorm of negative publicity. But I just didn't have time.)

You have time to post plenty - and you are aware of more instances than I am. The Kirk Cameron incident is the perfect example - I sure never heard about it, nor did I hear about half of the instances you posted about. Shows how much impact they are having on Americans, and that's what I truly find odd - that you would care to spend the time you do spend on a country that has nothing to do with you - as you ignore instances within your own country.

If you really think I'm posting "every little wrongdoing" or if you think all this is about "one bad pastor", you have your head in the sand. I'll leave it at that.

I assure you that I don't have my head in the sand, but if you think every little incident that you are posting on is reflective of "Christians in America," you are out of touch - which makes sense, since you aren't living here. Furthermore, every time a "dumb ass Christian" speaks out about something, it doesn't mean that they feel they are "persecuted." But here's the thing - if you think the media, government, etc. speaks as out as freely about Islam and Muslims, for example, as they do about Christianity and Christians - if you don't see the PC tone that exists - then you have your head in the sand - and I'll leave it at that.

Second, so what if I focus more on Christians than on some other group? If there's a writer who focuses his columns on criticizing (hypothetically) the financial industry, does the fact that he doesn't devote equal time to criticizing (say) the military mean that he is unduly biased against the financial industry? Does that make his criticism of finance invalid?

Oh please. You think there's such a thing as "bias against the financial industry?"

I write about a variety of topics that interest me, and this is one of them. I don't think this is a valid complaint at all.

It's not a complaint; it's a comment. An observation. I'm posting my reactions to it - which are quite valid.

And finally, I've never criticized all Christians, and never claimed that Christianity is all negative and no positive. That is simply not true.

I didn't say you did make such a claim. I said that you ignore everything positive and don't support anything about it. If you can show me where you have, then I'll see that I was wrong, but until then, I stand by what I did say.

I certainly agree that churches do some good things. I don't think they need me to pat them on the back for it. They do a plenty fine job of that themselves.

Really. They do that, do they? Some examples of them doing that would be great - and I hope you don't think a few loud mouths represent the whole. I have seen firsthand in third world countries what religious groups have done, and the only people I was hearing about it from was the citizens. I have met plenty of people from church groups on such trips, and not one of them patted themselves on the back for what they were doing. I would say this comment is a prime example of the negative attitude I think you have towards Christianity.

[betsy]

As I recall, I pointed out at the time that if you really believed little Rachel was in real danger, you had a duty to notify law enforcement authorities.

I bet you never called the police or the FBI, did you.

I think we all know that you didn't believe there was any real intent of harm and that you were just talking about "the threats against little Rachel" to hype the idea that Christians are persecuted.

-k

Why, does Rachel have to be in immediate danger?

Even if those people were only joking about Rachel....you think those kind of fantasies about a child is okay, simply because she is a Christian?

Your lighthearted tone about the whole Rachel incident matches the mocking lightheartedness of your topic about Christian persecutions in America.

If you think anything I'm doing is "persecution" then you're an example of exactly what I'm here to mock.

Is that the atheist version of, "The devil made me do it?"

Kimmy, your own words and views above speak for themselves.

If that Rachel incident happens today.....you'd find yourself in a lot of trouble should she ended up committing suicide.

I don't recall if you actually posted along with those youtube bullies.....but that's what it was. Bullying. And because of bigotry against her faith/belief - persecution.

[kimmy]

It was your inclusion of my response that left we wondering...

When you posted this,

Kimmy's not a bigot.

I interpreted the to indicate sarcasm. Sorry if I misinterpreted it.

Evidently I've missed that in the past; I don't recall him saying that you're a bigot prior to this, nor could I find such accusations in a search, hence my response.

There was one just a couple of pages back (where he likened me to Captain Ahab hunting for the white whale). Happens periodically. He's accused me of hating on Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, and Tim Tebow because they're Christians as well. (for the record, false. I hate on them because they're a fascist, a scumbag, a jackass, and an overhyped player who sucks, respectively.)

You have time to post plenty - and you are aware of more instances than I am. The Kirk Cameron incident is the perfect example - I sure never heard about it, nor did I hear about half of the instances you posted about. Shows how much impact they are having on Americans,

Perhaps what you hear about isn't the ultimate barometer on what Americans are talking about? As a quick trip to Google would show you, it was quite a widely discussed incident, with gay activists on one side crying "bigot!" and Christian activists on the other crying that Kirk Cameron was being attacked for his religious beliefs.

Is it the kind of news that will affect your job or your mortgage or your social security? Of course not. But it's indicative of the battles that are being fought in the "culture wars" (the current one: Chick-Fil-A.)

I didn't say you did make such a claim. I said that you ignore everything positive and don't support anything about it. If you can show me where you have, then I'll see that I was wrong, but until then, I stand by what I did say.

Well, here for example:

Of course. Lots of religious people do good things. Lots of religious charities help people all over the world. Most of the religious people I know are very decent people in every respect.

Really. They do that, do they? Some examples of them doing that would be great - and I hope you don't think a few loud mouths represent the whole. I have seen firsthand in third world countries what religious groups have done, and the only people I was hearing about it from was the citizens. I have met plenty of people from church groups on such trips, and not one of them patted themselves on the back for what they were doing. I would say this comment is a prime example of the negative attitude I think you have towards Christianity.

I could point to a good number of Christian politicians patting other Christians on the back for the important things they do in America (the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives is basically that very thing enshrined as government policy-- "religious charities are great! let's give them money so that they can do more great things!") And I could dredge up quotes from Archbishops Dolan and Lori reminding everybody how much important work Catholic Charities does in America in the preamble to their attacks against President Obama. I could also find plenty of Christian scholars claiming that Christian theology was the guiding principle behind the civil rights movement or womens' suffrage or the end of slavery. I could find you pastors talking about how Christians are the ones fighting the forces of darkness, defending families, keeping America strong, all that good stuff. I could find you lots of examples of regular people doing the same. If you'd like me to turn it into a big research project I could.

But if you'd just like an example of what I'm talking about, here's one.

Furthermore, to hear tell, religion is all bad. Yet the fact is, religious groups have done wonders around the world, helping establish schools, medical centers, hospitals, orphanages, sponsorships - I've seen it first hand. I've heard the testimonies from those benefiting - I've heard the appreciation. Since you seem determined to compare, I have to wonder - how many gay organizations have done the same?

-k

[betsy]

The persecution of Chick Fil A for expressing the company's Christian values.

"The controversy ignited when Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy, son of the company’s legendary founder, Truett Cathy, told a Baptist newspaper that he and his company “operate on biblical principles” and “are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit.”

Defining Chick-fil-A as “a family business,” Cathy went on to say that “We intend to stay the course. … We know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles.”

Media attention to Cathy’s comments revealed a radio interview he had given a few weeks earlier in which he commented that “I think we are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at (God) and say, ‘We know better than You what constitutes a marriage.'

“I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think we would have the audacity to redefine what marriage is all about,” he said.

Within days, elected officials in Chicago, Boston and New York were pledging to deny the company access to their cities.

“Because of (Dan Cathy’s) ignorance, I will deny Chick-fil-A a permit to open a restaurant in my ward,” Chicago Alderman Proco Moreno said, in a threat echoed by Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel.

Boston Mayor Thomas Menino was just as blunt: “Chick-fil-A doesn’t belong in Boston,” he said. “We’re an open city. We’re a city at the forefront of inclusion.”

But the kind of inclusion he had in mind would evidently exclude Chick-fil-A.

New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, who just recently married her lesbian partner, called upon New York University to kick Chick-fil-A off its campus.

Echoing the Boston mayor’s lack of irony, she also called for exclusion in the name of inclusion: “We are a city that believes our diversity is our greatest strength, and we will fight anything and anyone that runs counter to that.”

Within days, Moreno, Emanuel and Menino had qualified their statements somewhat, promising to operate within the law and constitutional limits. Those clarifications became necessary when legal authorities quickly recognized threatened violations of First Amendment rights.

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/31/my-take-chick-fil-a-controversy-reveals-religious-liberty-under-threat/

It is more serious to note that these persecutions are coming from people in politics. These politicians abuse their power.

Edited August 1, 2012 by betsy

[betsy]

Phoenix Pastor Jailed, Fined for Bible "Church"

Posted on: 2012-07-20 01:08:36

By Joseph DeCaro, Worthy News Correspondent

PHOENIX, ARIZONA (Worthy News)-- The Rutherford Institute has come to the defense of a Phoenix man fined $12,000 and serving a 60-day sentence for using his private residence to host a weekly Bible study, allegedly violating city building codes.

Institute attorneys are challenging the sentence based on the First Amendment right to religious freedom and assembly, as well as the citys claim that holding Bible studies, or any form of religious worship at a residence, requires the owner to comply with local laws pertaining to a public church.

Michael and Suzanne Salman have hosted Bible studies for family and friends in their home since 2005, eventually building a 2,000-square-foot structure in their backyard for the weekly studies. As an ordained minister, under Arizona law Michael's residence gives him a tax exemption as a parsonage, but not a church.

When a neighbor complained about the Salmans "parsonage" in 2007, Phoenix officials subjected the family to zoning and building requirements that were only intended for public and commerical buildings, even though the Salman's studies were only intended for family and friends. From February through September, the Salmans received three letters informing them that they were not permitted to hold Bible studies in their home as it violated the local zoning ordinance and construction code.

In June 2009, police officers and city inspectors raided the Salmans property, charging them with 67 code violations after determining that their weekly Bible studies constituted a church.

A church, however, has always been composed of its congregation, not its brick and mortar; therefore, according to the Institute, any gathering of two or more Christians can be called a "church," but if the First Amendment still protects religious exercise, it must not allow government officials to restrict that exercise to only buildings that comply with construction codes meant for commercial enterprises; these codes may be applied to public churches, but not private ones.

For instance, if the City of Phoenix can apply its building codes to residential property, then homeschooling could be classified under "educational" use and social gatherings as assemblies,

all requiring the residence to conform to rigorous construction requirements, including the installation of sprinkler systems, handicap-accessible restrooms, braille signs, and so on.

Further, the First Amendments Establishment Clause prohibits the government from determining if and when a family and its guests have become sufficiently "religious" in order to transform residential land use into formal religious land use; such determinations should be made by the number of vehicles, noise level and whether or not the use is open to the general public.

http://www.christianpersecution.info/index.php?view=11639

Edited August 2, 2012 by betsy

[betsy]

AMERICA WATCH: Christians Remember Murdered U.S. Evangelists

Posted on: 2010-05-16 15:00:33

By Worthy News North America Service

WASHINGTON, USA (Worthy News)-- Christian leaders were preparing to hold a memorial service later Sunday, May 16, in the Boynton Beach are of the U.S. state of Florida to honor two street evangelists who were murdered there earlier this year.

Stephen Ocean, 23, and Tite Sufra, 24, were shot and killed January 30 after preaching the Gospel on the public sidewalk, police and Christians said.

The 18-year old suspect, Jeriah Woody, was detained February 3 after surrendering to police and is charged with two counts of first-degree murder, police said at the time.

The murders came amid concerns about what several conservativegroups view as increased hostility and violence in the United States against active Christians and churches.

http://www.christianpersecution.info/index.php?view=8163

[The_Squid]

violating city building codes.

What does this have to do with persecution? Idiotic. Bring it up to code and have a church! Don't let facts get in the way of a good persecution story. Praise the lords!

http://phoenix.gov/news/071212salmanfacts.html

[betsy]

FBI agents harass and threaten pro-life advocate at his home in Dallas, Texas

The Life Legal Defense Foundation sent a letter to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) because they threatened and questioned pro-life advocate Andrew Moore at his home in Dallas, Texas. The FBI agents talked to Mr. Moore for over an hour about activities that take place on public sidewalks outside of Southwestern Abortion Clinic in Dallas. Mr.Moore’s activities include nothing more than peaceful free speech and the LLDF letter demands that the FBI stop the harassment.

“The FBI agents used bullying tactics and intimidated Mr. Moore,” said Dana Cody, Executive Director of the Life Legal Defense Foundation. “It’s deplorable that they want to silence his constitutionally protected free speech rights.”

Even though there was no evidence to support any criminal charges, the agents referenced his wife and newly born son, commenting that he would not want to be separated from his family, and suggesting that a felony conviction could get Mr. Moore deported.

http://christianpersecutioninamerica.com/

[betsy]

What does this have to do with persecution? Idiotic. Bring it up to code and have a church! Don't let facts get in the way of a good persecution story. Praise the lords!

http://phoenix.gov/news/071212salmanfacts.html

Okay. I should've checked out more details for that. I better check out about the FBI too. Thanks.

[betsy]

Memo to FBI: Back away from pro-lifers

News about the visit the FBI paid to son-in-law Andy Moore is getting around – as far as New Zealand.

Today Andy’s attorneys, the Life Legal Defense Foundation, sent a letter to the FBI accusing it and President Obama’s Department of Justice of attempting to intimidate pro-life activists around the country:

Moreover, the government is on notice that the collusion between government agents and abortion clinic providers has been brought to light. The concerted efforts to systematically violate the free speech rights of these pro-life advocates, via fabricated FACE cases, will not be tolerated by our federal court system. We are aware of the stern warning issued by Judge Ryskamp in the U.S. v. Pine (10-CV-80971) matter that the government’s baseless FACE allegations unjustifiably burden a person’s First Amendment rights. Any further action taken by your agency to interfere with my client’s constitutionally protected free speech activities will be met with immediate legal action against the government in U.S. District Court.

Further evidence of the conspiracy between the government and the abortion business was made public when LLDF learned that the FBI set up a training program for police officers who are called to respond to conflicts between abortion businesses and pro-life demonstrators. Even more, the very training manual for the FBI event was written by Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Federation. To make matters worse your agency has listed pro-life activists as domestic terrorists simply because of their viewpoint on abortion.

LLDF sent a copy of its letter to the U.S. House Oversight Committee. As the letter states, the Obama administration is engaging in “McCarthy era surveillance and scrutiny of people because of their supposedly differing ideologies.”

http://www.jillstanek.com/2012/07/memo-to-fbi-back-away-from-pro-lifers/

This is scary stuff when people in power are involved.

Edited August 2, 2012 by betsy

[betsy]

New Mexico Photographer Found Guilty of Discrimination: Are Churches Next?

Posted onJuly 11th, 2012 Religious Freedom | 2 Comments and 5 Reactions

Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys have appealed to the New Mexico Supreme Court a May 31 decision by a lower court finding a photography company guilty of discrimination for declining to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony. Furthermore, the court ordered the company to pay almost $6700 in attorneys’ fees to the lesbian who filed the complaint. The ominous implications of this case could affect churches and other religious groups who believe marriage is defined as one man and one woman.

In 2006, Elane Huguenin, the photographer for Elane Photography Inc., and co-owner of the company with her husband Jon Huguenin, declined a request to help “celebrate” a same-sex commitment ceremony for a woman who inquired via email to the company’s website. The Huguenins are Christians who believe that God designed marriage as one man and one woman, and that defining marriage is the best way for societies to help children and adults. They could not in good conscience allow their company’s photography services to be used to promote the message of the ceremony – that it is a good thing to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples.

The use of nondiscrimination laws in this manner to punish business owners and those with professional licenses who dissent from the drive to redefine marriage violates their constitutional right to freedom of conscience in the marketplace.

Alliance Defending Freedom has also seen this ominous trend spread to religious groups. New Jersey officials have allowed a lawsuit to go forward against a Methodist group that owns a beach pavilion for religious meetings in Ocean Grove, New Jersey. The Methodist group declined to rent its facility to a lesbian couple that wanted to use it for a civil union ceremony. The Methodist group is currently fighting accusations of discrimination filed with state officials.

This troubling possibility happened in the Ocean Grove case where New Jersey officials revoked a specific property tax-exemption for the pavilion that they had earlier granted to the nonprofit Methodist group if it used the facility for recreational purposes. Although this is a different kind of property tax than the one most governmental entities grant to religious groups for their houses of worship, it shows the way officials can punish religious groups that advocate marriage defined as one man and one woman.

Also, if pastors or church personnel are licensed counselors or social workers, there might be discrimination complaints filed with state licensing boards urging them to discipline the licensed professionals for holding the “wrong” views on marriage. Alliance Defending Freedom has been involved in cases like this involving Julea Ward in Michigan and Don Mendell in Maine.

In one of the first cases Alliance Defending Freedom ever helped with in 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reversed the lower court’s decision and ruled in favor of the veterans’ group’s First Amendment rights not to be forced to advocate a message it disagrees with. We can and do win when we stand and fight for religious freedom.

Churches must be aware of the conflict between religious freedom and the homosexual legal agenda. If you or any of your church members find themselves the target of a complaint like that experienced by Elane Huguenin, contact Alliance Defending Freedom immediately.

http://blog.speakupmovement.org/church/religious-freedom/new-mexico-photographer-found-guilty-of-discrimination-are-churches-next/

Edited August 2, 2012 by betsy

[Shady]

Kimmy's not a bigot.

I guess we can agree to disagree. Can we at least agree that her persecution complex is rather ironic?

[cybercoma]

I feel really bad for those persecuted neo-nazis and skinheads too. They just want to be free to intimidate and harass groups that they don't like too. Maybe if they turned their racist philosophies into a Christian religion you could come on here and be a cheerleader for their brand of hate too.

[cybercoma]

You know something, betsy? Christians like you absolutely disgust me. Perverting the word of Christ, which was about love, compassion, and respect for all people, and turning it into a vile, disgusting, and hateful thing. It makes me absolutely sick. The irony in all of it is that your brand of intolerance has done more harm to society and has hurt more people than homosexuality, which is about love, ever has and ever will. I hope the real Christians pray for your soul because I find it extremely unlikely that someone who supports the persecution of peaceful, loving people would ever get into heaven if it exists.

[Shady]

You know something, betsy? Christians like you absolutely disgust me. Perverting the word of Christ, which was about love, compassion, and respect for all people, and turning it into a vile, disgusting, and hateful thing. It makes me absolutely sick.

Where has anything vile, disgusting and hateful been posted? What a load of hyperbole.

[betsy]

You know something, betsy? Christians like you absolutely disgust me. Perverting the word of Christ, which was about love, compassion, and respect for all people, and turning it into a vile, disgusting, and hateful thing. It makes me absolutely sick. The irony in all of it is that your brand of intolerance has done more harm to society and has hurt more people than homosexuality, which is about love, ever has and ever will. I hope the real Christians pray for your soul because I find it extremely unlikely that someone who supports the persecution of peaceful, loving people would ever get into heaven if it exists.

What to you is the demonstration of love and compassion? Donations to the food bank? Sponsor a child?

Nothing wrong with those.

But I think Christians who go out of their way to keep on hammering the same message (even when they are maligned and reviled in the process - in some cases, even persecuted!), are demonstrating the act of love and compasssion.....when they want to show the world that all these earthly sufferings are nothing when you consider the eternal life that awaits. That the door is open to everyone, the opportunity is there....even for those who've committed the most atrocious of all sins.

Edited August 3, 2012 by betsy

[cybercoma]

all these earthly sufferings are nothing when you consider the eternal life that awaits.

Since YOU believe there's an afterlife, that somehow gives you cart blanche to be a horrible person to people in this life? That gives you the right to deny two people that love each other the right to be in a relationship together and marry?

I don't know why I bother replying to you because you've shown time and time again that you refuse to see how your words and actions in this life are oppressive and destructive to society. Your reply above illustrates precisely how religious dogma can persuade good people to do awful things. In political contexts, people like that are called useful idiots.

[Shady]

Since YOU believe there's an afterlife, that somehow gives you cart blanche to be a horrible person to people in this life? That gives you the right to deny two people that love each other the right to be in a relationship together and marry?

I don't know why I bother replying to you because you've shown time and time again that you refuse to see how your words and actions in this life are oppressive and destructive to society. Your reply above illustrates precisely how religious dogma can persuade good people to do awful things. In political contexts, people like that are called useful idiots.

You're mischaracterizing her position. Nobody's saying or stopping two gay people from being in a relationship. But every relationship isn't marriage, according to some people's opinion. You need to be more tolerant.

[BubberMiley]

But every relationship isn't marriage, according to some people's opinion. You need to be more tolerant.

I agree. It's a well-known fact that if you don't get married before God, it is not a real marriage. Those who feel that their "marriages" performed by a marriage commissioner or Justice of the Peace are real are persecuting me as a Christian.

[kimmy]

The persecution of Chick Fil A for expressing the company's Christian values.

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/31/my-take-chick-fil-a-controversy-reveals-religious-liberty-under-threat/

It is more serious to note that these persecutions are coming from people in politics. These politicians abuse their power.

The politicians are grandstanding, and have no legal power to do anything of the sort. Crass, but pretty typical. They probably took lessons from folks like Rick Perry and Jan Brewer.

Is Chick-Fil-A being persecuted because of Dan Cathy's faith?

I suspect that many of the people saying the backlash against Chick-Fil-A isn't fair are the same people who said "OMG, I am never buying another Oreo" after their rainbow Oreo ad, and "OMG, I am never shopping at JC Penny again" after they hired Ellen as their spokesperson, and so on. Those boycotts were dismal failures, and I suspect the Chick-Fil-A boycotts will be as well.

As for whether Chick-Fil-A deserves criticism, that's up to you. But I'd like to point out that Chick-Fil-A runs a charity called the "Winshape Foundation" that sponsors groups like Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council, which are little more than hate-groups dressed up with crosses and bibles. Focus on the Family spends Chick-Fil-A's donations hiring professional lobbyists to fight anti-bullying legislation. Family Research Council went so far as to hire lobbyists to go to Washington to try to prevent Congress from issuing a condemnation of Uganda's "Kill the Gays" laws.

That's just revolting. If the Cathy family wants to be associate with groups like that, they deserve to face criticism.

http://www.jillstanek.com/2012/07/memo-to-fbi-back-away-from-pro-lifers/

This is scary stuff when people in power are involved.

Bombings and arson and assassinations committed by anti-abortion fanatics have brought scrutiny on the whole group. Kind of like Muslims.

http://blog.speakupmovement.org/church/religious-freedom/new-mexico-photographer-found-guilty-of-discrimination-are-churches-next/

Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 says that if you're operating a business that provides a service to the general public, you're not allowed to exclude members of the general public based on their race, gender, religion, or ethnic origin. If you set up a business to serve the general public, you're not allowed to exclude customers for those factors. "My religion says I'm not allowed to serve food to black-people" is *not* going to fly.

Sexual orientation isn't included in that list. However, New Mexico happens to have a Human Rights Act that does include sexual orientation. In New Mexico, refusing photographic services to a gay couple is the same as telling a black couple they can't eat in your restaurant. If you don't want to deal with gay people, don't operate a business offering services to the public in New Mexico.

I gather that Mrs Huguenin's appeal of the decision will be based on the premise that she's not a business, she's an artist, so her freedom of artistic expression has been attacked. The religion angle failed, so she's going with something else.

"Are churches next?!" No, churches are not businesses. Churches are still free to discriminate.

-k

[betsy]

The politicians are grandstanding, and have no legal power to do anything of the sort. Crass, but pretty typical. They probably took lessons from folks like Rick Perry and Jan Brewer.

Is Chick-Fil-A being persecuted because of Dan Cathy's faith?

Yes.

Grandstanding or not, those politicians have no right to say those things - stop Chick Fil A from coming to their city, or telling organizations not to buy from Chick Fil A. These are people of authority.

I suspect that many of the people saying the backlash against Chick-Fil-A isn't fair are the same people who said "OMG, I am never buying another Oreo" after their rainbow Oreo ad, and "OMG, I am never shopping at JC Penny again" after they hired Ellen as their spokesperson, and so on. Those boycotts were dismal failures, and I suspect the Chick-Fil-A boycotts will be as well.

They're not talking simple boycotts. They're talking about punishing - persecuting - Chick Fil A for expressing its views on the definition of marriage (Christian values). It's scary how these people of authority showed they could be dictatorial. They didn't even think about squashing the freedom to express and freedom of belief. I hope they don't get voted in again.

As for whether Chick-Fil-A deserves criticism, that's up to you. But I'd like to point out that Chick-Fil-A runs a charity called the "Winshape Foundation" that sponsors groups like Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council, which are little more than hate-groups dressed up with crosses and bibles. Focus on the Family spends Chick-Fil-A's donations hiring professional lobbyists to fight anti-bullying legislation. Family Research Council went so far as to hire lobbyists to go to Washington to try to prevent Congress from issuing a condemnation of Uganda's "Kill the Gays" laws.

I don't know about that so if you could provide a cite, that would be great. But I'm glad support for Chick Fil A was hugely successful. They had record-breaking sales.

That's just revolting. If the Cathy family wants to be associate with groups like that, they deserve to face criticism. Bombings and arson and assassinations committed by anti-abortion fanatics have brought scrutiny on the whole group. Kind of like Muslims.

But they're not being criticized for that. In fact none of the media even mentioned anything about their associations with such groups. Let's read your source.

Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 says that if you're operating a business that provides a service to the general public, you're not allowed to exclude members of the general public based on their race, gender, religion, or ethnic origin. If you set up a business to serve the general public, you're not allowed to exclude customers for those factors. "My religion says I'm not allowed to serve food to black-people" is *not* going to fly.

Sexual orientation isn't included in that list. However, New Mexico happens to have a Human Rights Act that does include sexual orientation. In New Mexico, refusing photographic services to a gay couple is the same as telling a black couple they can't eat in your restaurant. If you don't want to deal with gay people, don't operate a business offering services to the public in New Mexico.

I gather that Mrs Huguenin's appeal of the decision will be based on the premise that she's not a business, she's an artist, so her freedom of artistic expression has been attacked. The religion angle failed, so she's going with something else.

"Are churches next?!" No, churches are not businesses. Churches are still free to discriminate.

-k

Look up the Constitution for rights and freedom.

I saw the president interviewed on tv and he said it clearly....they're not excluding any groups. Gays are welcome to come and they'll be served. So that's irrelevant. All they did was staunchly come out and say they believe in the Biblical definition of marriage because they're Christians. I think they did that interview for a CHRISTIAN magazine.

Edited August 6, 2012 by betsy

[kimmy]

Here's a CNN article explaining Chick-Fil-A's association with FRC and FF (and other conservative lobby groups) through their WinShape Foundation:

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/03/chick-fil-a-controversy-shines-light-on-companys-charitable-giving/

Here's the Family Research Council's lobbying report for their efforts opposing a Congress resolution to condemn Uganda's kill the gay's bill. Is that really a good way for Dan Cathy to spend his money?

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/06/family_research_council_lobbie.html

Here's an article summarizing some of Focus on the Family's efforts to fight anti-bullying laws. Is that really a good way for Dan Cathy to spend his money?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/05/anti-bullying-laws-christian-religious-freedom_n_1406757.html

...

As for the part pertaining to bombings and assassinations, that wasn't in response to the Chick-Fil-A issue. That was in response to the person who claimed that FBI scrutiny of pro-lifers is "McCarthyesque".

...

As for the lesson about New Mexico's Human Rights Act, that wasn't in response to the Chick-Fil-A issue either. That was in response to the New Mexico photographer who refused to serve gay customers. Go re-read that part because I fear the point was completely lost on you.

-k

Edited August 6, 2012 by kimmy

[betsy]

Here's a CNN article explaining Chick-Fil-A's association with FRC and FF (and other conservative lobby groups) through their WinShape Foundation:

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/03/chick-fil-a-controversy-shines-light-on-companys-charitable-giving/

This article did not confirm much. It just spoke of the accusations by gay groups that WinShape Foundation is anti-gay! The article say: "The fact sheet, titled “Chick-fil-A anti-gay: Company funnels millions to anti-equality groups,” says that the “popular fast food chain has donated millions to groups that demonize (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) people on a daily basis.”

Well, can they be more specific? These days, saying you believe that, "marriage is a union for man and woman" can get you labelled as anti-gay.

Donations go to organizations like Marriage and Family Foundation (that believes in the Biblical definition of marriage), Fellowship of Christian Athletes, Focus on Family....well, I don't see anything wrong that a Christian corporation would fund organizations that uphold Christian beliefs and values.

When gays were just starting to force their way in the definition of marriage.....didn't they realize that it will forever be a bone of contention?

There were groups of gays who decided to want to leave the definition of marriage alone - I even saw a whole page ad funded by gays advocating that the definition of marriage should stay as it is: union between man and woman. I remember feeling respect for these groups.

As long as religion(s) exist that believe in the sanctity of marriage as the union between man and woman.....this battle will continue. Because this is about faith. And gay activists are only making matters worse when they try to force their way into these religions. Religions see their faith under siege. It doesn't matter whether others will see it as bigotry....or unfairness....or lack of compassion. We're talking faith. Religion.

They should've coined their own name for marriage. I don't think there would've been much of these if they called gay union anything other than "marriage."

Here's the Family Research Council's lobbying report for their efforts opposing a Congress resolution to condemn Uganda's kill the gay's bill. Is that really a good way for Dan Cathy to spend his money?

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/06/family_research_council_lobbie.html

I also found this:

Yesterday, the blog Joe. My. God., working with a reporter from Gay City News, reported that the conservative Family Research Council spent $25,000 "to lobby Congress against approving a resolution denouncing Uganda's plan to execute homosexuals."

The site posted three screencaps from the Family Research Council's lobbying report; they suggest $25,000 was spent on lobbying what FRC described as "Res.1064Ugandan ResolutionPro-homosexual promotion."

Asked of the organization had indeed lobbied to kill the resolution, FRC provided Hotsheet with a statement calling claims that they had lobbied against the resolution inaccurate.

The Tony Perkins-led FRC said it did lobby on the bill, but not to kill it - rather to change the language it contained and "to remove sweeping and inaccurate assertions that homosexual conduct is internationally recognized as a fundamental human right." More...

http://www.cbsnews.com/8300-503544_162-503544-2.html?keyword=families

Here's an article summarizing some of Focus on the Family's efforts to fight anti-bullying laws. Is that really a good way for Dan Cathy to spend his money?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/05/anti-bullying-laws-christian-religious-freedom_n_1406757.html

It's his money, he can do what he wants with it.

Focus on the Family is planning to counter the "Day of Silence," an annual event to protest LGBT bullying set for April 20, with its own "Day of Dialogue". The evangelical organization's aim is to muffle an effort that "crosses the line in a lot of ways beyond bullying into indoctrination, just promoting homosexuality and transgenderism."

The group has been advocating an anti-anti-bullying message for years. When a California school adopted an anti-bullying rule that mentioned gays and lesbians in 2010, backlash ensued.

"The school introduced anti-bullying lessons, but really they're teaching elementary school kids about gay marriage," Candi Cushman, education analyst for Focus on the Family, told ABC. "We think parents should have the right to teach kids about it in their own way."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/05/anti-bullying-laws-christian-religious-freedom_n_1406757.html

How many times have I whined about schools having no business indoctrinating our children with the school's secularist values? It's the parent's right to impart their own values to their children.

As for the part pertaining to bombings and assassinations, that wasn't in response to the Chick-Fil-A issue. That was in response to the person who claimed that FBI scrutiny of pro-lifers is "McCarthyesque".

...

As for the lesson about New Mexico's Human Rights Act, that wasn't in response to the Chick-Fil-A issue either. That was in response to the New Mexico photographer who refused to serve gay customers. Go re-read that part because I fear the point was completely lost on you.

-k

Yes, they are separate issues. I was just showing different samples of persecutions happening in America.

Edited August 7, 2012 by betsy