Sunday, September 7, 2008 | Reason : In the News | print version

Print | Comments |

Gay support group gets straight 'no' from Brethren

by The Age AU

Thanks to Mick Pepler for the link.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/gay-support-group-gets-straight-no-from-brethren-20080906-4b57.html?page=1--

Gay support group gets straight 'no' from Brethren

A GAY youth support group trying to meet to talk about homophobia has had its booking at a Phillip Island camp ground blocked because the resort owners, the Christian Brethren church, deplore their lifestyle.

The rejection by the Phillip Island Adventure Resort so angered the rural gay people's support group, Way Out, that they have challenged it in the Victorian Equal Opportunities and Human Rights Commission, and now the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

But the law is stacked against the young people: religious groups in Victoria are allowed to discriminate against anyone as long as it is done due to "genuine religious beliefs or principles".

The general manager of Christian Youth Camps, Glyn Mahon, told The Sunday Age that the church business had not been able to agree on the group's booking for safety reasons.

"Our definition of safety, because of our Christian faith, does not support or include the promotion of homosexuality," he said.

Christian Youth Camps said it "desires all guests to experience Christian life and values, and it was the aims of the Way Out group in promoting a lifestyle to young people contrary to those values that was in question".

The resort is exempt from paying taxes because it is run by a church.

"I was very angry when I found out about it," says gay 17-year-old student Jake Quilligan. "It was immoral. To stop us booking the camp because of the sexuality of the group is pretty wrong."

Way Out's co-ordinator, Sue Hackney, said her clients were from country areas, and suffered terrible, sometimes violent, homophobia and high rates of suicide. The weekend camp, scheduled for the middle of last year, was intended to give them a break by the beach, where they could seek support and discuss how to combat homophobia in their towns.

"It's a bitter irony that the very first thing we experienced when we set out to book the camp was a case of blatant discrimination," Ms Hackney said.

"The manager asked about the nature and purposes of our group, and the conversation started to turn. He said, 'We are a Christian organisation and it wouldn't be possible for a group such as yours to use the facilities'."

She said she believed that, particularly when running a commercial operation, church groups should not be exempt from the law. "If they can discriminate against us on religious grounds, they can discriminate against anyone," she said. "People who use contraception, people who have sex before marriage, people of any other faith, agnostics, atheists, you name it."

Way Out ended up meeting at the camp of another Christian group, the YMCA.

Mr Quilligan felt the sting of a gay-hate attack last month in his small home town of Wedderburn, north-west of Bendigo, when somebody broke into his house and trashed it.

"They went through the entire house, and anything of value was stolen," he said. "I had the mattress and pillows on my bed ripped and doused in accelerant. The nastiest thing was that there were messages spray-painted on the bedroom door and wardrobe — 'fag' on the door.

"Violating is the best way to describe it. I felt dirty, just that someone even wanted to do this.It was crushing."

There is no suggestion that the Christian Brethren were in any way involved in the attack, but La Trobe university researcher Lynne Hillier said that discriminatory beliefs often turned into homophobic abuse, causing "terrible damage" to young people.

"This case is just another example of a really strong institution saying that these young people are so odious that we don't want them on our property," Dr Hillier said.

The Department of Justice is six months into a review of the exemptions in the Equal Opportunity Act, to see if they are compatible with the Human Rights Charter. It has received 500 submissions. A spokesman for acting Attorney-General John Lenders would not comment further.

The Christian Brethren church is historically linked to the infamous Exclusive Brethren, but broke away in the mid-1800s.

The Christian Brethren is now contemplating a name change because of the "negative connotations" of the Brethren "brand". But it remains a very conservative, evangelical church.

Posted: Sunday, September 7, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 124 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #243740 by Quine on September 7, 2008 at 8:24 am

But the law is stacked against the young people: religious groups in Victoria are allowed to discriminate against anyone as long as it is done due to "genuine religious beliefs or principles".

I doubt that they would win, but it would not be difficult to put together a brief that took apart the "genuine" aspect.

Other Comments by Quine

2. Comment #243743 by Apathy personified on September 7, 2008 at 8:30 am

By letting one group get away with homophobia, it opens the door to all of them.
There is the issue about whether a private business is allowed to deny service to a customer or group of customers - but an organisation that benefits from charity status and pays no tax, i don't see how they are allowed to discriminate.

religious groups in Victoria are allowed to discriminate against anyone as long as it is done due to "genuine religious beliefs or principles".

How the HELL can you really tell the difference between genuine belief and someone faking it?

Other Comments by Apathy personified

3. Comment #243744 by beanson on September 7, 2008 at 8:33 am

Jesus wants us to use our genitalia in the correct way, there are certain orifices that one must not put a penis in.

Yea for Jesus!

Other Comments by beanson

4. Comment #243746 by Quine on September 7, 2008 at 8:39 am

Comment #243743 by Apathy personified:

How the HELL can you really tell the difference between genuine belief and someone faking it?

I was going after showing that what they believe is not genuine, even if they genuinely believe it.

Other Comments by Quine

5. Comment #243747 by smokedherb on September 7, 2008 at 8:55 am

"The resort is exempt from paying taxes because it is run by a church."

U.S. government providing tax breaks to institutions that discriminate against gays. Very American.

Other Comments by smokedherb

6. Comment #243749 by Apathy personified on September 7, 2008 at 9:01 am

Quine,

I was going after showing that what they believe is not genuine, even if they genuinely believe it.

Ha - fair enough, although i somehow doubt that any judge would allow a court case to take that route, no matter what evidence you could present.

What i really don't like is the deliberate ambiguous nature of the statement (religious groups in Victoria are allowed to discriminate against anyone as long as it is done due to genuine religious beliefs or principles") - it leaves the law open to abuse.

Other Comments by Apathy personified

7. Comment #243750 by Quine on September 7, 2008 at 9:01 am

smokedherb, you do know that this story is from Australia, right?

Other Comments by Quine

8. Comment #243751 by VrijzinnigMan on September 7, 2008 at 9:03 am

... the resort owners, the Christian Brethren church, deplore their lifestyle.

Lifestyle? Here is what the American Psychological Association (APA) has to say about that: "... most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation."

(Source: http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.html)

Other Comments by VrijzinnigMan

9. Comment #243752 by robotaholic on September 7, 2008 at 9:04 am

What about love the sinner but hate the sin?

mhhm

Other Comments by robotaholic

10. Comment #243753 by mordacious1 on September 7, 2008 at 9:10 am

The problem seems to be that in order to own one of these camps, you have to be tax-exempt. Who else could afford to run them? So they are mostly owned by churches and the scouts. If these organizations are then allowed to discriminate freely, some people would not have the opportunity to use such camps at all.

You can't stop people from being homophobic or racist by legislation, but you can and should remove their tax-free status.

Other Comments by mordacious1

11. Comment #243754 by noamzur on September 7, 2008 at 9:12 am

< rant from an annoyed (heterosexual) anti-theist > You'd think the religious have better things to do than care about what some people do or don't do in private... yet I am proven wrong by this naive presumption time and time again.
I say let everybody have fun anyway they like as long as nobody gets hurt (at least unwillingly). Some of history's greatest persons were homo- or bisexual, as well as, of course, many heterosexuals. What is important to history is what they did about their respective fields, not who they shared a bedroom with. < /rant >
< annoyance > I don't live in Australia, but still it's the principle I am annoyed with - prove that you are a senseless, bigoted, often racist dogmatic in-group and get away with anything... even be rewarded with tax-exemptions. I'd like ti put < / annoyance > here, but it will still take a while, I'm afraid.

Other Comments by noamzur

12. Comment #243756 by Quine on September 7, 2008 at 9:22 am

For example, if the church of the FSM refused to allow use by groups with any association with the Admiralty (it's that pirate thing), should they keep their tax-free status, just because they genuinely believe this is part of their religion?

Other Comments by Quine

13. Comment #243761 by Cartomancer on September 7, 2008 at 9:34 am

Is it just me who noticed the irony of a gay rights group appealing to something called the Victorian Equal Opportunities and Human Rights Commission? I imagine a group of tweedy old gents with beards and chronic gout, sat in the oak-panelled drawing room of a country house drinking vintage port and discussing the governance of the empire. Sadly I suspect that Victorian values will predominate in their decision too - though it might be a laugh if the plaintiffs all turn up in bright purple suits a la the trial of Oscar Wilde.

Ironically enough one of my beloved's middle names is Wedderburn...

Other Comments by Cartomancer

14. Comment #243769 by Wosret on September 7, 2008 at 9:46 am

Yet another example of religious rights to discriminate trumping human rights.

When are we going to stop allotting special privileges to those that profess believing insane things?

Other Comments by Wosret

15. Comment #243770 by root2squared on September 7, 2008 at 9:50 am

It's astonishing to me we are not allowed to disriminate against people based on their religioius beliefs, but that people can discriminate based on their religious beliefs.

For example, we should be able to disriminate when hiring. If I was hiring for an engineering/scientific position, and if I had to pick between an atheist and a religious person, I wish I could legally reject the religious person because of his beliefs.

EDIT: Even though I think this is perfectly reasonable, in the current scenario, it would be looked upon as religious persecution! In which case, I guess I'm all for it.

Other Comments by root2squared

16. Comment #243776 by Raiko on September 7, 2008 at 10:20 am

Kind of dumb for them to book with a Christian place, but I still demand the right for every group to discriminate based on their personal taste.

Like - if there's a hotel owned by a local cat owner club, they may not allow booking to anyone who owns a dog, if it displeases them.

Other Comments by Raiko

17. Comment #243777 by mordacious1 on September 7, 2008 at 10:29 am

Raiko

As I stated above: Check into who owns these camps. Notice that they ended up at the YMCA, the C stands for "christian". Without the tax exemption, the churches would not have a market on these camps.

Other Comments by mordacious1

18. Comment #243779 by mdowe on September 7, 2008 at 10:34 am

Faced with this kind of legal system, 'Way Out' should simply re-brand themselves a Christian Youth Support group. As long as they can say that they 'genuinely believe they are a Christian support group', I guess they can define it anyway they like.

Other Comments by mdowe

19. Comment #243780 by AoClay on September 7, 2008 at 10:35 am

ugh, I hate 'love the sinner and hate the sin,' since they're just lying to themselves. When you hate somebody, you hate what they've done.

As for homophobia, I think it's a bit odd how it's accepted waaaaaaaaaay more than, say, racism.

Other Comments by AoClay

20. Comment #243786 by CocoCantare on September 7, 2008 at 11:00 am

Here's the thing: What people do in the privacy of their own bedroom does not stay private. Homosexual men and women are seen out and about, showing affection to each other, trying to get married, and trying to adopt children. This is what is most threatening to the conservative christians.

Their children view these things and the parents are afraid their children will become homosexual because it would seem so normal if they can get married and have families like everybody else. In other words, they don't want any influence of homosexuals on their children. I've heard it from the mouth of my own sister, a staunch southern baptist.

Other Comments by CocoCantare

21. Comment #243789 by mordacious1 on September 7, 2008 at 11:10 am

Coco

Religious people were homophobic long before gays "came out of the closet". It's in the bible, it's wrong.

Other Comments by mordacious1

22. Comment #243790 by petermun on September 7, 2008 at 11:10 am

So what - who the hell are the Christian Brethren anyway? Any evidence as to how Jesus used his genitalia given that all his disciples were, reportedly, male? So bloody what!

Other Comments by petermun

23. Comment #243802 by thrutraffic on September 7, 2008 at 11:50 am

Yeah, right on. I don't recall ever reading where jesus left any of his desciples' behind. He faithfully "hung" right "in" there with them.

Other Comments by thrutraffic

24. Comment #243804 by CocoCantare on September 7, 2008 at 11:56 am

Yes, Mordacious (or is it Cpt. Obvious?;o)), I know. That's how I was raised. But what I hear from the dreaded side of that arena in this day and age is how they don't want the influence on their poor, innocent children. They actually think that homosexuality is a disease one can catch. My sister-in-law actually said she doesn't want her children making friends with children who have two mommies or two daddies. It would become normalized and, therefore, accepted, and her children would be influenced by that. Oh, the horror!

Other Comments by CocoCantare

25. Comment #243805 by King of NH on September 7, 2008 at 12:10 pm

I thought Jesus was gay. I mean, he's the guy that walked all around the desert with just 12 other men, right? Never got lucky with a woman? No children? Remember that he turned water to wine (diffcult) instead of water to beer (easy). Not to type cast or be calling out stereotypes, but if Jesus was straight, so is Hagard.

Other Comments by King of NH

26. Comment #243807 by Bonzai on September 7, 2008 at 12:12 pm

Coco

Here's the thing: What people do in the privacy of their own bedroom does not stay private. Homosexual men and women are seen out and about, showing affection to each other, trying to get married, and trying to adopt children. This is what is most threatening to the conservative christians.

By that standard do heterosexuals keep what they do in the bed room in private? For one thing I haven't seen car and beer commercials with alluring, suggestive gay sex themes prominently displayed on TV and billboards.

Their children view these things and the parents are afraid their children will become homosexual because it would seem so normal if they can get married and have families like everybody else. In other words, they don't want any influence of homosexuals on their children. I've heard it from the mouth of my own sister, a staunch southern baptist.

Well twenty years ago they would be afraid of seeing mixed race couples and god forbids, with children. Moreover, what's wrong if their children do turn out to be gay?

Other Comments by Bonzai

27. Comment #243809 by Bonzai on September 7, 2008 at 12:18 pm

Watch the South Park episode where Butters was labeled as "bi-curious" and sent to a Jesus Camp to be "straightened out". :)

http://www.southparkstudios.com/guide/1102/

Other Comments by Bonzai

28. Comment #243810 by Wosret on September 7, 2008 at 12:19 pm

24. Comment #243804 by CocoCantare

Clearly that is just post hoc rationalizations based on their ideas that homosexuality is wrong, which is founded in their religion.

The reasoning that follows from their foundation is of little interest, because their foundations are deeply flawed.

Other Comments by Wosret

29. Comment #243813 by mordacious1 on September 7, 2008 at 12:22 pm

Coco

Don't call me Captain. I've always worked hard to earn my keep. (runs for door)

Other Comments by mordacious1

30. Comment #243820 by CocoCantare on September 7, 2008 at 12:41 pm

Bonzai, Yer preachin' to the choir ma friend! I was just presenting a view of why they (Brethren Christians)probably don't want homosexuals gathering anywhere near their property.

Mordacious,
"Don't call me Captain. I've always worked hard to earn my keep. (runs for door)"

I'm not offended. My husband's a Navy Lt. . . he flies Lot 10's (translation: VERY OLD jets!) so don't get him started on the air force cpt.s' golf courses!

Other Comments by CocoCantare

31. Comment #243822 by kkelly on September 7, 2008 at 12:43 pm

30, Have you ever told your sister-in-law she's a stupid cunt?

Other Comments by kkelly

32. Comment #243824 by A on September 7, 2008 at 12:51 pm

I have nothing constructive to add to these comments other than to point out that it is clear these people (the Brethren) are cunts.

Other Comments by A

33. Comment #243830 by Cartomancer on September 7, 2008 at 1:27 pm

Moreover, what's wrong if their children do turn out to be gay?

I've heard this sort of thing before, often from people who, so they claim, have "nothing against gay people." They say things like "well I'm fine with gay people, but I don't want them influencing my children to be gay." Apart from the fact sexual orientation demonstrably has little or nothing to do with personal choice, that position is blatantly contradictory - if you didn't have a problem with gay people then you wouldn't have a problem with your children being gay either. In fact, if you didn't have a problem then you wouldn't be talking so loudly about the fact you don't have a problem in the first place - you'd just quietly get on with things and leave others alone. People who say this are merely homophobes trying to hide behind a veneer of societal respectability.

They are generally also guilty of thinking that being gay is entirely about sex. I will admit that modern gay culture does little to dispel this misunderstanding, but it is about the most pernicious of misunderstandings out there. Many of us go for weeks, months, even years at a time without having sex, and live perfectly normal lives the like of which are indistinguishable from those of our heterosexual brethren.

Other Comments by Cartomancer

34. Comment #243831 by Corylus on September 7, 2008 at 1:30 pm

The general manager of Christian Youth Camps, Glyn Mahon, told The Sunday Age that the church business had not been able to agree on the group's booking for safety reasons.

Not the first time I have heard the 'safety' line as a cover for discrimination - however, that was in the context of not providing facilities for wheelchair users in cinemas because of their inherent 'fire-risk'. Nasty slimy, 'faux-care' to cover up laziness and prejudice.

"Our definition of safety, because of our Christian faith, does not support or include the promotion of homosexuality," he said.

Huh? What are they - a hurricane risk?

So anyway - lets cheer things up.

Way Out ended up meeting at the camp of another Christian group, the YMCA.

Hmm. I have heard that it is fun to stay at the YMCA. Views on the Village People please.

Before my time (and anyway I'm straight) so I really don't know what to think.

Other Comments by Corylus

35. Comment #243832 by Quetzalcoatl on September 7, 2008 at 1:32 pm

Way Out ended up meeting at the camp of another Christian group, the YMCA

They had no need. To. Be unhappy.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

36. Comment #243837 by Cartomancer on September 7, 2008 at 1:48 pm

I also begin to wonder at this whole blaming homophobia on "small rural areas" business.

Perhaps jolly England is somewhat in advance of the colonies in this regard, but I have seen no appreciable difference between urban and rural areas in terms of attitudes toward homosexuality in this country. I came back home to Somerset from Oxford yesterday, and funnily enough I did not have to hand in my mobile phone, Wii and Bel Ami photographic calendar at the county border and resume traditional peasant garb for the remainder of my stay. We in rural England are not living in the eighteenth century and getting all our news by carrier pigeon anymore. We are not reduced to entertaining ourselves by singing wassail songs, carving faces in turnips and having sex with close relatives. Electric lighting was introduced here at least as far back as 1991. We do not gather round in the village square for witch burnings of a sunday night. Not often at any rate. And here in Glastonbury you're more likely to get burned for not being a witch. On the rare occasions when there is a witch burning the witches all record it on their mobiles and post it on youtube. A splendid time is had by all.

I jest, of course. But seriously, is there really that big a difference between the cultures in urban and rural areas in other parts of the developed world? Is it something to do with the vast distances between things in Australia and America that such pre-industrial cultural patterns persist?

Other Comments by Cartomancer

37. Comment #243839 by Ivan The Not So Bad on September 7, 2008 at 1:51 pm

As Phillip Island's most famous tourist attraction is its "Penguin Parade",someone should tell the Christian Brethren about the unholy activity taking place on their very doorstep.

Research has shown that the incidence of gay sex in penguins to be the highest in the animal kingdom (humans are about average) and, as the male will generally mate with a particular female for only one breeding season, the annual divorce rate in heterosexual couplings runs at over 90 per cent.

Oh, in case you were wondering, Japanese Macaques are top lesbians, apparently.

Other Comments by Ivan The Not So Bad

38. Comment #243846 by CocoCantare on September 7, 2008 at 2:10 pm

Carto,

What I have experienced here in the U.S. is that rural towns are usually the most vehemently homophobic. At the Republican National Convention, there sure was a lot of talk about going back to "small town traditions and values" which includes "traditional marriage only". Hopefully you can view this:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=184114&title=the-best-f#king-news-team-ever

Other Comments by CocoCantare

39. Comment #243853 by Ivan The Not So Bad on September 7, 2008 at 2:23 pm

Cartomancer,

You say "They are generally also guilty of thinking that being gay is entirely about sex. I will admit that modern gay culture does little to dispel this misunderstanding, but it is about the most pernicious of misunderstandings out there".

This is true but it is also true of heterosexual culture - as any advertising agency or newspaper editor will tell you - sex sells and heterosexual sexual images are all around us every day. So who is obsessed the most?

Straight people who go around acccusing gay people of a preoccupation with sex is like the bull calling the goat horny, methinks.

And try watching "Club Reps" on ITV if you want to see modern heterosexual culture at work. In the last series a girl claimed to have slept with 19 men and she had only arrived in the resort two days earlier. That's some going.

But, again, as you rightly point out, this is not necessarily typical. Neither is it right or wrong. It's personal choice.

As Oscar Wilde might have put it "There is no such thing as gay behaviour or straight behaviour. There are people who sleep around - and people who don't."

And while I'm at it, the "safety" issue bugs me also.

I mean, since when was there a war fought in the name of gayness, or a gay inspired inquisition, or a suicide bombing by a gay rights activist? Did a buch of gay guys ever fly an aeroplane into a building in the cause of homosexuality? I doubt it.

If there is a safety issue, it's around religion.

Rant over.

Other Comments by Ivan The Not So Bad

40. Comment #243854 by Cartomancer on September 7, 2008 at 2:28 pm

There is something decidedly odd about "small town values" being imposed from the top down by a Republican National Convention. It's not something we really have an equivalent for in the UK, let alone something we're proud enough to hold up as a model for the rest of the country. Here small towns are really just little versions of big towns, which in turn are little versions of the cities. If you can't get something specialised where you live you go to the local city to buy it or, more likely these days, buy it via mail order.

Actually, now I've seen the video, it seems there really is no such thing as "small town values" in America either. It looks like it's just a conservative political slogan, the equivalent of "victorian values" or "family values" or "back to basics" over here. Or, in this day and age, just good old fashioned homophobia. I suspect the geographically based phrase "small-town values" originates from a time when the pre-industrial cultural pattern of a backward rural population and a progressive urban one really was the order of the day in America.

Other Comments by Cartomancer

41. Comment #243862 by Ivan The Not So Bad on September 7, 2008 at 2:45 pm

"Small town" (or "Middle England") is not a geographical construct. It's just a more politically acceptable way of saying "small minded".

Other Comments by Ivan The Not So Bad

42. Comment #243864 by Border Collie on September 7, 2008 at 2:49 pm

The brethern were probably just pissed because they weren't invited to the weiner roast.

Other Comments by Border Collie

43. Comment #243865 by the great teapot on September 7, 2008 at 2:50 pm

Dog bites man shock.
Fuck it, it's their building. Hold your meeting somewhere else. Who gives a shit.
What next, Nazis told you can't hold your Hitler convention in our synagoge.
Perhaps the next beyond belief convention should be in the local Abbey, I am sure that will be ok.

Other Comments by the great teapot

44. Comment #243868 by robotaholic on September 7, 2008 at 3:04 pm

I hate that word "brethren"- makes me shudder. Things really are getting better and better for homos here in the USA tho- it's a slow process and a process that's going to steam roll right over Mccain or anyone else-

the zeitgeist moves on...

Other Comments by robotaholic

45. Comment #243869 by Rational_Skeptic on September 7, 2008 at 3:08 pm

o great teapot: I would agree with your argument, except for those pernicious tax breaks churches get (as per Comment #243753 by mordacious1)
If you own a building and fool people into giving you money of their own to maintain said building, sure rent it to whoever you want, don't rent it to whoever you don't want. I wouldn't give a turd.
However, don't expect me to subsidize their irrational beliefs through my tax dollars. When religious institutions are tax-exempt, it means they take more from the rest of us to make up the lost tax revenue. If churches really want to be exempt from secular norms, they shouldn't hide behind tax-free status, and they should have to follow the same rules as secular charitable institutions in order to retain their status.

Other Comments by Rational_Skeptic

46. Comment #243872 by the great teapot on September 7, 2008 at 3:15 pm

I wouldn't want to use their buildings, tax break or no tax break. Take that up with your government.Who would turn down a tax break.
"Hey man,you got a tax break you're my bitch now"

Other Comments by the great teapot

47. Comment #243876 by Philster61 on September 7, 2008 at 3:28 pm

I sympathize with the victims of this so called "brethren".In this 21st century its disgusting.However I am surprised that the group chose to go to Northern Queensland in the firstplace.I lived in Queensland in the 80s.It was known as the police state.Then it was ruled by an unlikely New Zealand born Danish descended individual called Joh Belke-Petersen.He outlawed homosexuality and pornograhy although a surprising amount of gay clubs existed in Fortitude valley in Brisbane.
It seems that the same intolerant mentality towards gays exists even now.If I was the leader of this support group,Idve chosen another location on NSW where homosexuality is tolerated.Although for sheer beauty alone Philip Island is hard to match.I hope they find an alternative place to hold their support group.I would suggest they head towards Bay of Islands in New Zealand where they would be more than welcome and the natural beauty is also there.

Other Comments by Philster61

48. Comment #243877 by Wosret on September 7, 2008 at 3:28 pm

43. Comment #243865 by the great teapot

That's clearly a false analogy. They aren't attempting to hold their gay support group in their church. They are trying to rent camp ground that is owned by a church. It is not for their church, or in any way involved with their religious practices. They just happen to own it. They are a business, a business that is discriminating against people based on their sexuality. Do you think that it was a bad idea that discrimination laws were introduced to prevent people from denying business to people based on race?

Other Comments by Wosret

49. Comment #243879 by fsm1965 on September 7, 2008 at 3:34 pm

hey, can i start a religion?

i can discrimate any way i like, without rational justification. i choose fucktards, they dont deserve to live with the rest of humanity.

i think we should send them on a spaceship (like douglas adams craft "B")

[/sarcasm]

Other Comments by fsm1965

50. Comment #243882 by Philster61 on September 7, 2008 at 3:50 pm

Thats all that religion has ever been Mitchell.A business.Thats all.Unfortunately they have been mankinds greatest fraudsters.Selling the idea of of God,redemption and salvation to the gullible masses.Why do you think they need politicians? How else would they be able to avoid prosecution? This is why so few religious leaders rarely or if ever face serious charges when caught doing illegal activities. Their "business" contacts well protect them.

Other Comments by Philster61

Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 3 | Next | Last