Baptist Preacher Gives Congregation Advice on How to Avoid a Gay Waiter
Adam Fannin is the pastor of Jacksonville Stedfast Baptist. That church is part of a network of Independent Fundamentalist Baptist churches founded by Donnie Romero, an anti-gay preacher who wants gay people put to death and who made headlines in 2016 when he celebrated the mass shooting at Pulse nightclub.
Romero said at the time, “the earth is a little bit better place now” with the deaths of nearly 50 LGBTQ people. As for those who were only injured in the shooting, Romero added, “I’ll pray that God will finish the job that that man started, and he will end their life, and by tomorrow morning they will all be burning in hell, just like the rest of them, so that they don’t get any more opportunity to go out and hurt little children.”
The point is: The people who run these churches are truly awful human beings.
It’s almost anti-climactic to tell you Fannin’s anti-gay bigotry, as seen over the weekend, only reached the level of telling his congregation how to avoid a gay waiter at a restaurant. Or, as he put it, a “flaming foo-foo fruit loop.”
If I ever go to a restaurant and you sit down, and then here comes this flaming foo-foo fruit loop, right? And you’re like, “Oh great. I’m here to have date night, enjoy some time with my wife, and I can’t… because of the lisps, I can’t even, you know.”
My recommendation — if you don’t just get up and leave — my recommendation is just don’t order anything. “Well, here, let me get you a drink.” No, just wait. Just wait. And you sit there patiently and you look around, and you will find a lady that looks like a mom, that looks like a very diligent worker.
You will find somebody that you notice that’s busy, that’s doing stuff. You say, “Yeah, that’s the one right there!” You walk up to them and you say, “Hey, what’s your name? Have we had you before? Can we get you over here?”… I guarantee you it always works… Then you can enjoy your dinner and, hey, you better tip her well! Let that foo-foo know what he missed out on, okay? That’s how you avoid a gay waiter.
What exactly is he afraid of? That taking a bite of food that’s been served by a gay person will change his own orientation? That eating that food would be a tacit endorsement of the man’s sexual orientation? Would he take accept food from someone who’s an atheist or Muslim?
I can’t answer those questions because there’s no logic to them. It’s just hate. And, as is so often the case, it’s rooted in the Bible.
Maybe next time he goes out to dinner on date night, he can pay less attention to his gay waiter and more attention to his wife.
Tags
Who is online
420 visitors
Cant you just feel the Christian love?
What a fucking freak show this freak is. I'm sure soon we'll hear about him stepping down for boinking a gay male prostitute.
Christian hypocrisy at its finest.....sad excuse for a human being.
What's pathetic is there are people who follow and agree with this bottom feeder.
Whole congregations of them.
And they are all Christians.
But not all Christians think this way. The seeder is yet again attempting to paint with too broad a brush.
They call themselves Christians just like Muslim extremist call themselves Muslim.
Yep, Muslims cut gays heads off, burn them alive, and throw them off the roofs of buildings, but the liberals seem to accept this practice.
Seems like some posters have to search far and wide to find trash articles to bash people they hate.
Is that the two wrongs makes a right defense? Both are disgusting.
Let me guess, they aren't "real Christians"?
Those methods worked for the Christians. But I guess we aren't allowed to bring up the atrocities of that specific religion?
Seems like some posters have to search far and wide to find trash articles to bash people they hate.
Lol! Actually, article involving Christian homophobia show up in my mailbox faster than I can get to them. I have to be judicious about which ones to post.
Sounds more like the "don't hate hundreds of millions of people simply because you found an article on the internet about a few nutters" defense.
It's not LIBERALS that support the vicious attack on gays folk. It the Neo-Nazi, Evil-Genitals, Re-Pugnants and the Trump Supports who are rapidly making America Hate Again!
Christian means CHRIST LIKE! Did Jesus Hate the Poor, make fun of the disable, accused the sick of being weak, hate gays, prostitutes, robbers, or, the fallen?
No! But, those that call themselves CHRISTIANS, too, often do!
Nobody is accepting of those horrendous actions my fundamentalist Islam, but invading Iran, Saudi or going back into Iraq isn't going to be the long-term solution.
Just because there are some Muslims who are assholes doesn't give Christians the right to say that what they do is in any way acceptable by comparison.
Matthew 7:5.
"Muslims" in general do not, some who claim to be Muslims do and they are the worthless extremist fringe of that religion just like there are worthless extremist fringe Christians who murder doctors, bomb clinics and attack those of other faiths. Liberals have NEVER supported vile worthless extremists in any form, to make such a claim is ridiculous. I personally despise all organize religion, I think the world would be a far better place without any of them, but I respect the freedom of religion we have in America and as long as you don't force your religion on others and don't go to some extreme where you're using violence in the name of your religion then you should feel free to practice your religion here, whether it be Christianity, Islam, Buddhism or any other flavor of personal spirituality.
That's not up for me to decide, but they certainly are fringe extremist Christians who use violence in the name of their claimed faith. The majority are not bombing clinics, murdering doctors or attacking people they suspect of being Muslim or of some other faith, just like the majority of Muslims are not committing acts of terror.
*sigh*
Yes.
I saw.
I missed today's though.
Why aren't you? I don't believe anyone here has said you can't talk about those kinds of atrocities.
Those are atrocious acts, but I guarantee that there are "haters" here who silently applaud the Muslims who cut gay people's heads or throw them from roof tops.
However...has that happened in this country? If it has, I hope somebody got the death penalty for it
I bet if you ask this "pastor" if he's a Christian he'll answer in the affirmative
With a big smile on his face.
No they don't, you just want to believe that to support your agenda.
Wow, I guess that it would be appropriate to teach restaurants how to avoid serving Christians.
Unfortunately no as businesses have to abide by public accommodation laws. We'll have to content ourselves with the certain knowledge that every one of these types and their followers is a complete POS to be looked down upon and ridiculed.
People who want to actually be more Christ-like would treat others how they wish to be treated regardless of how others are treating them. Sadly, we don't have many like that in America. We have the "Do unto others before others have a chance to do unto you..." type Christians.
I would think as an owner/manager, I have an obligation to provide a discrimination-free work place for my employees.
This "pastor" would be shown the door and politely* asked to never come back
*maybe...I don't really have a polite bone in my body especially when it comes to assholes like these
I would bet serious money that Romero is gay himself.
Merry Christmas Hal, keep up the good work
Merry Christmas Lady, keep on speaking the truth
Merry Christmas Jeremy, glad you can see through the obvious bs of god belief, here's hoping you will see through the equally obvious bs of right wing politics in the new year!
Back to the rum and eggnog now...
Thanks Lenny - and a happy winter solstice to you.
I’m spending the day with family, including my stepson and his husband, and transitioning transgender stepdaughter. My stepson’s husband is a waiter and real estate agent. He’s the most intensely popular person I know. I can just imagine what his waitress colleagues would have to say to this bigot. Let’s just say that Fannin would be wise to not eat what he was served.
You're going to love this.
That actor died far too young - he was really quite good.
Merry Christmas Skrekk, keep an eye on the dumb bigots for us next year too!
I thought his character was really good, I loved the way he played the vamps in that.
That is awesome.
When I waited tables in the early 80's, I always made sure the in your face thumpers got more than what they ordered.
lol, big talk, behind the safety of the keyboard!
ROFL!!
Are you sure he died?
Double hock for racist sub-level LE peons.
Nelsan Ellis died last July apparently of heart failure while trying to get off booze on his own. It's a real shame - he was an incredibly gifted actor.
Oh, DAMN! He truly was gifted. What a goddamn shame.
I suspect that most of the really talented people in the arts are infested with personal demons. The really good ones usually die far too young or if they live long enough it turns out they've been sexually molesting all the other actors on the set. The mediocre ones become Scientologists in the hope that it will drive them crazy and they'll thus become rich and successful.
Conversely, sane and well-adjusted folks aren't quite as creative.
Tom Cruise and John Travolta
They tip better than jarhead thumpers.
How is that any different than your tough talk?
Merry Christmas to you and your family as well.
Merry Christmas.
These so-called pastors are not teaching the doctrines of Jesus and the Apostles. By calling for the death penalty of those engaged in homosexual lifestyle they are promoting Judaism.
Him we preach, warning every man and teaching every man in all wisdom, that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus. Colossians 1:28
And the message of Jesus after He rose was to proclaim for people to repent
46 And he said, “Yes, it was written long ago that the Messiah would suffer and die and rise from the dead on the third day. 47 It was also written that this message would be proclaimed in the authority of his name to all the nations, beginning in Jerusalem: ‘There is forgiveness of sins for all who repent.’ 48 You are witnesses of all these things.” Luke 24:46-48
Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Acts 2:38
Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, 20 and that He may send Jesus Christ, who was preached to you before Acts 3:19,20
When they heard these things they became silent; and they glorified God, saying, “Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life.” Acts 11:18
Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, Acts 17:30
Ahh the old they're not real Christians defence, nice touch calling them jewish as well.
Would you like to be judged based on every possible group we could connect you to just because some wacko nutjob claims to be into the same things you are?
Isn't that what the right wing here on NT do every day to liberals and progressives? They often claim all liberals are antifa, Nambla, they accuse all Democrats of somehow being associated to the KKK because some Southern Democrats over a 100 years ago started that bigoted club (even though its current membership is almost entirely made up of conservatives). So no, two wrongs still don't make a right, so it's not right to lump all Christians into this bigoted pastors ignorant crowd, but it would be nice for other supposed Christians here to follow suit when it comes to liberals and progressives.
You're mistaken in thinking that I am judging all of christianity based on the actions of those in the article, I'm actually judging Larry's attempt to portray them as not christian.
By the way you're more than welcome to judge me, without us all coming here and doing exactly that to each other NT would cease to exist.
wait.. doesn't that happen daily on the topics of Muslims, Progressives and Liberals ? now you don't want to be judged by the standards to which you judge ? (not "you" personally)
If they do, complain to them at the time. Why demand that I answer for some group of people that has nothing to do with me? This is the same point I was already making.
Then don't bring it up as if they do.
I'd say you were dismissing the attempt and doing so more with prejudice than evidence. He supplied lots and lots of scripture as evidence to show that they could not be following Christ in this behavior. That type of effort - i.e., opinion backed up with genuine evidentiary support should be encouraged on NT. Dismissing it for no reason should be discouraged, imo.
Does it? Take it up with the people who do it at the time they are doing it. What makes you think I am responsible for the comments made by other people?
Yes I can, thanks for asking
That's your opinion, to me it's the same thing
Don't really care what you believe this guy is saying, he is a christian (certainly not representative of christianity in general) and a POS
Hope you had a merry christmas
ah, so you missed this part:
isn't reading fun ?
i never stated that you personally were responsible for comments made by other people, now did i ? i was simply commenting that its a common theme for the conservative minded to use that "broad brush" when talking about liberals, muslims, progressives, transgendered individuals and any other group they don't particularly like. Of course, this isn't limited to just the conservative minded either (i'm not sure why i bothered to put that statement in, you probably already stopped reading as illustrated by your prior comment).
Wrong. No jew would say that it meant literally. And I am amused how Christians pick and choose what laws to follow from the OT. Being gay is a sin.. eating pork, not so much. 10 Commandments yes, circumcision, (which btw.. Jesus was), not so much. When you follow the 10 Commandments you are following judaism.
You're more than welcome to believe whatever you wish, it's of no importance to me
First of all, Christians are not under the Laws of Moses. So any Christian who "picks and chooses from the Law of Moses" is not following Christ.
We are in a NEW covenant of Grace in Christ
The fundamental point that must be kept in mind is that the Law of Moses was given to the nation of Israel and not to Gentiles or the Church ( Deuteronomy 4:7-8 ; Psalm 147: 19-20 ; and Malachi 4:4 ).
Hebrews 8:6,13
The Bible in Acts 15 with the Jerusalem Council, enforced the teaching of Jesus that the Laws of Moses do not apply to Gentile believers
Secondly, NO Orthodox Rabbi would ever state that simply following the 10 commandments is following the Law. Following Torah means following ALL of the Laws of Torah.
That's funny since the 10 Commandments are part of the Laws of Moses and it's the Christians who are insisting that those same commandments be erected on my state house grounds.
Boy I am really confused now.....
Excuse me, but you can keep your uninformed opinions, too. Jews do not promote the death penalty for being gay.
No doubt you are correct about that.
Note, however, that since Leviticus is part of the Bible and Christianity accepts the OT as divine truth, Christianity necessarily holds that the God of the OT at one time demanded that homosexual acts between men was punishable by death. Regardless of old covenant / new covenant considerations, it is easy to see how someone would justify bigotry against homosexuals 'because God at one time had them killed for their abomination'.
Further, even in the NT, (albeit a much nicer God now), homosexuality is considered immoral. So again we have biblical justification for this preacher's bigotry and disgust.
And this is the angle I was observing. This is not the Law of Moses exclusively but rather the Law of God (at one point in time). So it is easy to see how someone could say 'at one time God demanded homosexuals be put to death' and then justify bigotry.
Even if one argues that 'God changed His mind' the fact that God demanded a death sentence in the past is hard to ignore.
This particular preacher is just one of many examples.
My point, of course, is that the Bible, if held as the Word of God, enables this kind of behavior. Regardless of the explanation, it is easy to see how Westboro Baptist Church, et.al. can biblically justify ‘God Hates Fags’.
‘Yes He did at one time, but now He just considers them to be immoral sinners’ is awkward at best.
I am not going to point this statement in your direction, instead I am going to point it at so-called, "Evangelist" Adam Fannin. How is it Mr. Fannin can not discern that God has moved on? How come Mr. Fannin can not understand that God considers his (Fannin) personal righteousness as a "filthy rag" (Isaiah 64:6)? That is, without grace, Adam Fannin himself would fall on so many other accounts of sin into the same sorrowful pool of iniquity he has disdain for others.
God the father, at the outset, always intended for the Messiah to come and make a way out of sin for his people. The Old Testament taught this and ultimately in is revealed in the New Testament. Emphatically. So Mr. Fannin has no justification today to stand before a congregation of saints and "wannabe" saints, if you will, and preach a lack of compassion. Jesus preached compassion. Jesus, the son of God, nor Apostle Paul, ever gave the impression that we should go outside the church and judge the community at large.
Mr. Fannin, the evangelist, is under obligation to preach (and teach) what "Thus, says the Lord" to those in the church realm, and truth to those aspiring to enter this realm. But this action on Fannin's part is downright contempt for people outside his areas of spiritual interest.
I Corinthians 5: (New Living Translation.)
9 When I wrote to you before, I told you not to associate with people who indulge in sexual sin. 10 But I wasn’t talking about unbelievers who indulge in sexual sin, or are greedy, or cheat people, or worship idols. You would have to leave this world to avoid people like that. 11 I meant that you are not to associate with anyone who claims to be a believer yet indulges in sexual sin, or is greedy, or worships idols, or is abusive, or is a drunkard, or cheats people. Don’t even eat with such people. 12 It isn’t my responsibility to judge outsiders, but it certainly is your responsibility to judge those inside the church who are sinning. 13 God will judge those on the outside; but as the Scriptures say, “You must remove the evil person from among you.”
If Mr. Fannin has any authority, it is in involvement with people of faith Outside the church, the laws of the land rule. In conclusion, Fannin has no authority to teach people of faith to be compassionless and rude to unbelievers.
I think the problem comes back to the biblical definition of God. God is defined as perfect and omniscient. Unlike a normal human being, God would not 'move on' because God does not make mistakes. God knows all, God does not learn.
Thus the fact that God at one time demanded death for homosexuality is very significant. If one is to be consistent, one must conclude that God is (harshly) against homosexuality. Either that or one must conclude that God made a mistake (is imperfect, is not omniscient) and has refined His position on homosexuality.
Even if one argues that God only considered homosexuality worthy of a death penalty to ancient Hebrews it is difficult to argue that God does not have a major problem with homosexuality itself. Ergo (ultimately) biblical justification for bigotry.
True, God can not be a "normal human being." We are told God, the Father is light and has no darkness:
I John 1 (New Living Translation.)
5 This is the message we heard from Jesus and now declare to you: God is light, and there is no darkness in him at all.
"No darkness at all. " Consequently, Jesus, God the Son, is man's intercessor to approach, come near, a father pure in Spirit. God the father, the Alpha and Omega, knowing the end from the beginning, has always planned for mankind to enter through the Son. There is no mistake.
I must soon depart for a period, and this may be an indirect answer your statements, TiG.
God the Father may very much be against homosexuality as suitable to divine purpose . God the father is pure spirit, thus, in effect, no sin of any kind can dwell near God. Understand that God the Father found fault with (even) Moses who showed anger and 'broke faith' with God by striking the rock in the desert instead of speaking to it:
Numbers 20 (New Living Translation.)
6 Moses and Aaron turned away from the people and went to the entrance of the Tabernacle, b]">[ b ] where they fell face down on the ground. Then the glorious presence of the Lord appeared to them, 7 and the Lord said to Moses, 8 “You and Aaron must take the staff and assemble the entire community. As the people watch, speak to the rock over there, and it will pour out its water. You will provide enough water from the rock to satisfy the whole community and their livestock.”
9 So Moses did as he was told. He took the staff from the place where it was kept before the Lord . 10 Then he and Aaron summoned the people to come and gather at the rock. “Listen, you rebels!” he shouted. “Must we bring you water from this rock?” 11 Then Moses raised his hand and struck the rock twice with the staff, and water gushed out. So the entire community and their livestock drank their fill.
12 But the Lord said to Moses and Aaron, “Because you did not trust me enough to demonstrate my holiness to the people of Israel, you will not lead them into the land I am giving them!” 13 This place was known as the waters of Meribah (which means “arguing”) because there the people of Israel argued with the Lord , and there he demonstrated his holiness among them.
That said, God realizes from the beginning flesh can not keep God' law. Thus, grace is God's planned alternative. Back later.
I agree that if we net things down to a single notion, God (per the Bible) is against (a softened summary) homosexuality.
My point was that the Bible depicts God deeming homosexuality a particularly bad sin - evidenced by OT punishments of death and even in the NT by explicitly noting homosexuality. For example:
Explicitly naming homosexuality in this list of 'the unrighteou s' is all this preacher needs to biblically justify his bigotry. And this is but one of several examples in the NT he can use, with the grand fallback OT position being Leviticus 20:13.
Note that it's very unlikely the authors of that bible-babble had any concept of sexual orientation or homosexuality per se. The words and concepts first entered western culture in the mid to late 1800s, but for most of history (particularly in Christianity) everyone was assumed to be "straight" and gays were just straights acting badly. In fact until just a few years ago that was the presumption made by the LDS, Catholic and Southern Baptist cults......and many evangelical extremists like Larry Robinson still think that way.
Agreed
They seemed to view it as one would expect - a homosexual act rather than homosexual orientation.
I suspect if they knew that sexual orientation was biological they would go after homosexuality itself rather than the act.
That is, no matter what, God (as defined) is not going to approve.
That's exactly right but we can see exactly how these cults have responded to these biological and social facts.....the RCC, LDS and SBC cults all require gays to never have sex with anyone nor can they marry anyone of the gender they're naturally attracted to, Instead gay folks are condemned to live lonely and sexless lives which are denied all the kinship rights, property rights, adoption rights and other familial rights which straight folks enjoy as a matter of course. And all that is based on the current doctrine of those cults that gay folks exist (and are creations of the Great Sky Fairy) and their admission that efforts to change one's sexual orientation are ineffective and harmful.
In essence they're claiming not to hate gays anymore while they continue to deny gays basic human rights and deny them full inclusion in those cults. Which of course is both incredibly naive and unrealistic and it's also responsible for driving anyone young or sane away from those nutty cults. And that's a very good thing indeed.
There's an LDS cult? Is there an LSD cult too, and if so, where does one sign up?
That must mean there's also an FLSD cult too.
Yes, homosexuality is certainly in the I Corinthians 6:9 list of wrongs, though the "grievous sin" version leading to 'separating their heads from their torsos' is not! Let's continue on in that same passage, it gets a little more clear:
Now we have homosexuals who are alive and kicking in the era of Apostle Paul's ministry, albeit outside the contours of the Church.
Next Paul says, "Some of you were once like that." Like what? Like some of the people we continue to see in the church today! Today's Church constantly deals with adulteries, sexual affairs, spouses who batter one another, thieves, alcoholics, fornicators, and homosexual conduct among the membership. There are even in-house church counselor departments. So who among these people battling their personal "demons" will inherit the kingdom of God?
Verse 9 clearly says those who do wrong (in the Church) will not inherit the kingdom of God. Yet we are persuaded that the kingdom of God or Heaven is right now being occupied by people who are cleansed, made holy, made right with God by calling on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of God.
This is where it gets a little less clear: Apostle Paul does not disclose the manner of when and how the Spirit does it cleansing, making holy, and making right. So we must look elsewhere in the New Testament.
Please elaborate further.
On what aspect?
Given we are discussing the biblical justification for this preacher's bigotry, seems to me your argument is that the Bible does not justify bigotry. It (at least the NT) does not cast aside the sinner but does condemn the sin. The OT (and Qur'an) is a lost cause so the God-consistency problem remains.
This leads then to the notion of homosexuality being a sin. That seems to be a divine setup. God creates ~7-10% of the population with a homosexual orientation and then deems it sinful to act on their nature.
I am not clear on what you are saying about heterosexuals reveling in the joys of homosexuality in ancient society without any semblance of attaction and affection. I know about temple prostitutes. But I do not accept the notion that no one was homosexually "born this way" in ancient societies. For example, the prohibition in Israel was against a host of sexual states of being. So I ask for elaboration.
What of the remainder sins?
Romans 3:23 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God ,. . . .
As to your use of the phrase, "divine setup," that is looking at God from a negative perspective. Try a positive perspective: You and I are alive to consider our existence. Furthermore, it is clear to any thinking man or woman that for all our knowledge there is more in the unknown about our being where we are.
My position is that homosexuality is as old as homo sapiens (and indeed as old as sex itself).
Not sure how you got the boldfaced idea from my comments, but certainly not my position.
Same for them, but the topic is homosexuality.
That does not strike me as the positive perspective. It seems to be simply ignoring the negative. When you say the positive perspective I was expecting you to offer the positive divine reason for creating a human being with a natural attraction to a gender that God forbids acting upon.
Okay.
Whenever you see text like that you should be suspicious of the translation since it's guaranteed to be printed after 1946, the first time any variant of "homosexual" was used in that biblical context.
.
There are of course a number of examples in the bible of what we today would consider same-sex loving and intimate relationships, from Ruth and Naomi, David and Jonathan, Jesus and John, and even a Gnostic gospel of Mark (?) where a naked youth is seen leaving the tent of Jesus. But whether those relationships were tolerated or respected is a different question from whether the concept of sexual orientation was understood. The closest I've seen in biblical text is where Jesus is discussing divorce and mentions "eunuchs" who by their nature are not expected to marry a woman.
TiG, I reckon I can constitute that answer when right along with it I can answer for why mankind is imperfect and in need of salvation!
I am suspicious of it up to a reasonable point. But it changes nothing. When a verse is not clear enough on its own, then you look to other verses, all the way up to the totality of the book/s. It's in there. No doubt. I have pretty much heard all the variations on the theme of homosexuality in the Bible. That said, people can deal with what is on the pages in their own consciences. I certainly do!
It depends if they follow Torah or not.
No doubt that's true.
.
If you're referring to the modern understanding of sexual orientation, I doubt it since it doesn't appear anywhere in classical western texts that I'm aware of. My understanding is that it was first introduced as a psychological concept in Germany around 1869.
However that doesn't mean that other cultures didn't have the concept or that everyone in western or middle eastern cultures treated gays as pathological straights - both claims would be obviously false since we know that native American and Pacific island cultures had a variant of the concept, and we know that even the Catholic cult had rituals to bless same-sex unions which corresponded to legal weddings. And there are are a number of historical examples of gay or bi folks in western culture who were highly respected and whose same-sex lovers were viewed as unremarkable and uncontroversial. Same thing with ancient China, ancient Egypt and pre-colonial Africa.
So on some level variations in sexual orientation were understood and respected through the 1100s even if the concepts weren't expressed - but all that changed with Thomas Aquinas and his nutty religious notion of "natural law". The irony of course is that had Aquinas and others been better observers they would have seen that homosexuality exists throughout the animal kingdom.
Larry, aren't you the guy who admitted to voting for Prop h8 so that the state would enforce your religious morality on everyone? I think you phrased it by saying: "...just because a tiny minority of the population is engaged in perverse behaviors and has support from others with immoral minds, does not mean that we have to stop opposing the legal recognition of perversion as equal to normal behavior."
That's a vote for Christian sharia law and a vote against the US constitution.
I will take a child ordering from a gay waiter than one left alone with one of the many pedophile priests.
That isn't fair to Catholics. One shouldn't paint with such a wide brush.
Her reference was to pedophile priests, not Catholic priests per se. That strikes me as an entirely appropriate thing to condemn particularly since priests from a wide variety of cults have been involved in these crimes, not just the RCC.
But given that Bernard Law recently died let's not forget that until very recently the entire Catholic hierarchy was involved in covering up these crimes. Not once did a bishop ever call the cops.
I do not deny this. I kind of think of of the Catholic church like the NYPD. They have the Big Red Wall up but are trying to deal with it with their own internal affairs.
That's the mistake the RCC has made since the Council of Elvira in 306 AD.....instead of calling secular authorities when a priest rapes a kid they treat the crime as a "sin" and call a bishop to hide the rapist in a different parish so he could rape more kids. Even the previous Pope did exactly that in order to cover up these crimes.
Thank you. That was indeed what my comment inferred.
I don't hear a connection to scripture endorsing this point of view. You don't have to approve of homosexuality, but we are called to love others. Most of these people who are so angry don't seem to be really connected to Christ, no matter how much they call themselves a Christian church. Besides, I really doubt the waiter will be practicing his sexual preferences - whatever they are - in the restaurant. So you can probably relax.
Heck....a number of Republican presidential candidates have attended several "kill the gays" conferences, and an anti-gay hate group actually wrote a large part of the Republican party's national platform - specifically the section on social issues like whether gays should have full civil rights. No surprise that the GOP is opposed to the concept of equal rights.
Maybe you should read the linked citations before you comment?
I did, and they're not relevant nor convincing.
Des Moines Register reporters who were on the scene aren't "convincing"?
Apparently they don't work for Faux News or Breitbart.
something similar from NYT
The plainest of truth to date.
Which is precisely what SCOTUS ruled against in 1878 in Reynolds v US:
"To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and, in effect, to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances."
Merry Christmas!
Merry Christmas - I hope you're having a good one! I'm enjoying doing nothing today and letting my body recover from moving 3 cords of firewood yesterday.
Your comment is nothing but a pile of stinking crap, and a bunch of lies, we will start with your term of "kill the gays conferences".. a lie. The actual title of the ONE conference you cite was the "National Religious Liberties Conference".
I do believe knowingly lying in a comment is against the rules, right?
Yep.....a conference organized and run by Kevin Swanson, one of the pastors who wants gays to be exterminated. The best part is that Ted Cruz and other GOP leaders are so bigoted and so dumb that they continue to attend Swanson's Kill the Gays conferences......here's a video of one from 2015 which candidate Cruz and his bible-babbling dad attended (despite being condemned for attending Swanson's previous conferences):
.
.
More here:
Thanks but no thanks, Comment removed for CoC violations, I have no use for any of you lies, or your links to more lies.
Good Day.
please explain how you think that poster is a liar. do you think Kevin Swanson is pro-LGBT ? do you think Cruz didn't attend those conferences ?
stating someone is a liar is a big deal on NT - so i'd be careful with that.
LOL. Bummer that your claims were debunked by a video of the "kill the gays conference" organizer justifying the extermination of gays at that conference, eh?
The real question is what demographic do GOP presidential candidates think they're pandering to by attending kill the gays conferences......perhaps your demographic? Or are they just pandering to T-baggers and bible-babblers?
Quite simple, the conference was not titled "kill the gays conference", skrekk knows this, yet still keeps repeating her lie. Not sure what my coc violation was that the mod felt needed to be deleted, skrekk lied, I proved it was a lie, and skrekk keeps on lying. /shrug.. I suppose I can understand that a mod doesn't care for a person to call another a liar, even when they are lying, but... today, and yesterday I've reported a person calling another a racist, and that comment still stands...
Ah well, I'll figure it out eventually.
My demographic? And what demographic do you think I fit into?
where did skrekk state the title was "kill the gays conference" ??
here's what was stated by skrekk (that you subsequently posted as well in your reply)
i don't see where skrekk is stating the conference is titled "kill the gays", but it definitely implies that it was a topic of discussion to which skrekk stated:
unless you can prove otherwise - it seems that skrekk is not lying and is correct. it may not have been the entire topic of discussion for the conference, nor did skrekk state it was. Plus the organizer is known for the extreme views on killing LGBT individuals -
from:
someone who defends and supports the Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Act isn't someone who i would say is supportive of LGBT individuals especially since that Act punishes homosexuality by death or prison, so it seems skrekk is correct.
i only know that you cannot call a person a "liar" as per CoC, its taken very seriously from what i understand.
Apparently the one which contains apologists for genocidal homophobes.
Oh good, now I would hope you could link anything of any of those presidential candidates apologizing for anyone's comments that were wishing death on homo's.
Yeah, that is her calling the conference the "kill the gays" conference.. that was not the title of the conference, no shit.
You care to explain how when she called it a "kill the gays" conference, she really didn't call it a "kill the gays conference"?
I'll go make me some popcorn.
Oh wow!
I am going to take a different tack and say that it is regrettable to read vitriolic name-calling: "bible-babblers." "loons." This devaluing of other innocent people, is precisely, what humanists say they stand to protest and expose in others. Sorry, but if I do not bring it up with you - I can not continue to discuss Mr. Fannin. It's all uncalled for and unnecessary branding. It fits right in the category of "crooked hillary," "lying Ted," "little marco," "crazy Bernie," "slobs," "dogs," "pigs," . . . it is just not a good look!
I'm not sure what your complaint is since I'm not labeling you or most other Christians in the same way that I'm labeling Fannin or Swanson. If you watched the video of Swanson you'll see that he is indeed a bible-babbling loon.
Most Christians and other superstitious folks are harmless but these guys are not - they're far more like the Southern Baptists who organized lynching parties for runaway slaves.
wow, not very impressive, you seem to have the ability to read words that don't exist in a sentence and don't seem to know all the uses for quotation marks. do you have a secret decoder ring that allows you to see the word title in the following ?:
i don't see the word title anywhere. of course, you'll state that the title is obviously in the quotation marks while ignoring grammar rules:
from:
so again - skrekk didn't call it a "kill the gays" conference, but you are welcome to keep trying to make that stick, its quite amusing (although slightly sad, basic grammar should have been taught in grade school or high school)
you better make a lot of popcorn - i have a feeling you'll be at it for quite awhile trying to convince anyone that the word title appears in this phrase:
good luck to you.
Makes me think of the time when Ted Cruz's little girl said daddy dressed up in women's clothes. Wonder what that was all about?
I am going to take a different tack and say that this pastor's most regrettable flaw in the clip above is this vitriolic name-calling: "Foo-foo." "Fruit loop." This devaluing of other innocent people, is precisely, in addition, what Jesus came to protest and expose in us. You can almost feel the transference of his attitude into the mouths of his congregants. So sad.
Stedfast Baptist Church of Jacksonville Florida
This church is old-fashioned, has traditional music, and is King James Bible only! The new evangelical movement in America has been a complete disaster. The worldly, rock and roll, contemporary-style churches are not getting the job done when it comes to preaching the Gospel to every creature, teaching Bible doctrine, and preaching hard against sin. We do not pattern our church after these trendy social clubs. Stedfast Baptist Church stands for the old paths and zero compromise preaching.
Credit: Stedfast Baptist Church.
Brother Adam Fannin was saved at a young age, and raised in Independent Fundamental Baptist Churches. He learned to trust the Lord as a small business owner and eventually heeded the call to relocate to Fort Worth Texas under the leadership of Pastor Donnie Romero. Brother Fannin proposed to his wife shortly after she moved to Texas from Arizona, and they were married at Stedfast Baptist Church in July of 2015. The Lord is blessing the Fannins as they move to Jacksonville Florida to help serve in the new church plant.
This Church admits it is a deliberate "throw-back" and it is sad to say that so-called, "Evangelist" Adam Fannin sees value in fighting all the past church-era battes. . .again. Oh, wow. So sad. I hope this family does not bring anything negative on the child. Life is filled with surprises. Which explains why we are supposed to walk humbly and say appropriate messages to each other.
Karma would be that their child is gay.
For the kid's sake, I hope not, they'd probably sacrifice the child at their altar!
Guys, I humbly walk delicately when drawing attention to "non-participants" in and near another person's stupid and backward conduct. Mr. Fannin has his family posted on the church website, so it is an easy picture to capture, but I can not speak negligently or negatively of a truly innocent one. Mr. Fannin (and by closeness, possibly his wife) agrees to preach mind-trash when he devalues an innocent group of people where the only moral issue that is relevant to this discussion is his lack of capacity and compassion to abide their human right to existence, and their civil right to work. The child has my best wishes for a truly amazing and well life.
Grifting. Hating on gays is just a fringe benefit for Christian extremists.
What's "bullshit" about their mission statement? Don't most evangelical and other Christian extremist cults preach hatred of gays?
Just saw your message, as I as away today. Glad you found the info on the website. Peace.
LOL. That reminds me of this wonderful tidbit from the webz :
It's not Christians whom I hate; I love Christians and I want what's best for them. It's just that abomination, the filthy Christian lifestyle, and their disgusting beliefs that I hate. As a matter of fact I love Christians so much that I want them to renounce and repent their faith to be saved because if they don't, if they continue to believe in their god and wallow in the filth of their lifestyle, they will surely be (and deserve to be) tortured for all eternity.
I also don't want Christians to be able to marry, adopt or have children, collect benefits for their partners, be teachers, boyscout leaders, or have any contact with children. In fact, I don't think it's healthy to have openly Christian people "out" in society at all. I think that it should be legal to fire Christians and deny them goods and services, and any attempts to punish hate crimes against Christians are clearly just an attempt to push the filthy, Satanic Christian agenda.
But you know I love you guys. It's just your sins that I can't stand.
.
.
Ummmm....they're all cults, some just have more members than others. You might want to look up the root word for "culture".
.
.
LOL again. You've just committed the No True Scotsman fallacy, and you most certainly don't speak for other Christians no matter which superstitious cult they belong to.
Complex theology and superstition are not in the same category, Shrekk. Though, some religions practice superstition. And for that, they have been granted freedom in this country (and the world) to do so.
Theology is superstition, it doesn't matter how "complex" your superstitions and rituals are. Whether you're munching a cracker and slamming down wine, eating peyote or throwing virgins into a volcano, the elaborate justifications for those rituals are equally silly. Plus your "theology" is ultimately no more complex than the superstition that something you do, say or think will protect you from the wrath of your invisible imaginary friend......much the same as the superstition about avoiding the path of a black cat, or that magical Jewish zombies can walk on water.
Sounds more like you just don't like having the anti-gay nuttery preached by evangelicals and other Christian extremists reflected back to you. That "love the sinner, hate the sin" crap was always a bunch of BS to anyone who was the target of that kind of self-righteous hate.
.
That's the best part about being a Christian, you get to point to another variation of your cult and call it "unscriptural".....while at the same time they point their finger back at you and say the same thing. That's why your cult has so many different flavors - the racists vs the non-racists, the anti-gay vs the pro-equality, the misogynists vs the non-patriarchal, the transubstantianists vs the non-cannibals. Fortunately a traditional Christian can still find a fundamentalist Mormon or Baptist church and freely hate blacks, women and gays while simultaneously calling all the other churches "unscriptural".
You can not put theology through a naturalist "blender" and condense it down to mere superstition. Furthermore, if you are not going to treat religious concepts with any more respect and seriousness than that above, then this reductionism may possibly be due an inability to think in terms of beliefs!
It's true that I'm not superstitious. I just don't see any substantive or qualitative difference between Christian superstitions and any other superstition. None of them have any basis in reality and it really doesn't matter how fancy you gussy them up in rituals - they're all just based in fear and wishful thinking.
Just got back from a Christmas family gathering, with in-law relatives that I’ve only met a handful of times. It was the first time my son in law’s husband has ever met them, which was interesting since they are the first gay couple in the family.
My stepson is a very easy going and fun person, but his husband is straight up gregarious and infectiously fun to be around. He strove to sit next to and engage with every person he had never met, and as usual was the life of the party. He connects with everyone of every age and background, including the autistic nephew who is notoriously shy and difficult to engage with, and the three year old grandson who is normally too shy to be comfortable with strangers. To be so openly gay, so into public displays of affection, and so uninhibited and magnetic around total strangers is something to be celebrated.
Why on earth would anyone think the world would be a better place if people like that would try to force heterosexual manliness on themselves, and pretend to be straight? It makes no sense, but we have members here who literally think that guys like him are the ones with the mental problem, and that need serious psychiatric help in order to conform to some concept of what is normal.
Sounds like ya had a blast, good on ya.
We did. At one point he admitted how gay his voice is, and he spent a couple minutes trying to force himself to sound like a heterosexual. It was a riot! You just can’t turn some gay man into straight men, or even pretend to.
Well you can pretend to, there's lots of conservative evangelicals still in the closet or who are undergoing "gay conversion therapy" because they've been so brainwashed that they even believe it must be the devil making them feel the way they do. It's sad, but it's still happening.
its always someone else's fault and someone else to blame - usually blaming the devil or satan or a demon or something of that nature... odd how that works out..
It's really quite bizarre.....certain cults like the Mormons, Southern Baptists and Catholic cult even tried to convince gay folks to marry the opposite sex. That's pretty much a guarantee for two unhappy people and an inevitable divorce.
Sounds like you had a great time at your family gathering. Merry Christmas!
It sounds like you have a great addition to the family. I'm glad you had a good time
I just finished watching on Netflix, "The Imitation Game." During World War II, the English mathematical genius Alan Turing tries to crack the German Enigma code with help from fellow mathematicians. He and his team are successful and save millions upon millions of lives. Mr. Turing was homosexual. Read below how invigorating his life was and also how morbidly tragic it ended.
Alan Turing, British mathematician and logician. . . .
Having returned from the United States to his fellowship at King’s College in the summer of 1938, Turing went on to join the Government Code and Cypher School, and, at the outbreak of war with Germany in September 1939, he moved to the organization’s wartime headquarters at Bletchley Park , Buckinghamshire. A few weeks previously, the Polish government had given Britain and France details of the Polish successes against Enigma , the principal cipher machine used by the German military to encrypt radio communications. As early as 1932, a small team of Polish mathematician-cryptanalysts, led by Marian Rejewski , had succeeded in deducing the internal wiring of Enigma , and by 1938 Rejewski’s team had devised a code-breaking machine they called the Bomba (the Polish word for a type of ice cream). The Bomba depended for its success on German operating procedures, and a change in those procedures in May 1940 rendered the Bomba useless. During the autumn of 1939 and the spring of 1940, Turing and others designed a related, but very different, code-breaking machine known as the Bombe. For the rest of the war, Bombes supplied the Allies with large quantities of military intelligence. By early 1942 the cryptanalysts at Bletchley Park were decoding about 39,000 intercepted messages each month, a figure that rose subsequently to more than 84,000 per month—two messages every minute, day and night. In 1942 Turing also devised the first systematic method for breaking messages encrypted by the sophisticated German cipher machine that the British called “Tunny.” At the end of the war, Turing was made an Officer of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire (OBE) for his code-breaking work.
Computer designer
In 1945, the war over, Turing was recruited to the National Physical Laboratory (NPL) in London to create an electronic computer . His design for the Automatic Computing Engine (ACE) was the first complete specification of an electronic stored-program all-purpose digital computer. Had Turing’s ACE been built as he planned, it would have had vastly more memory than any of the other early computers, as well as being faster. However, his colleagues at NPL thought the engineering too difficult to attempt, and a much smaller machine was built, the Pilot Model ACE (1950). . . .
Artificial intelligence pioneer
Turing was a founding father of artificial intelligence and of modern cognitive science, and he was a leading early exponent of the hypothesis that the human brain is in large part a digital computing machine. He theorized that the cortex at birth is an “unorganised machine” that through “training” becomes organized “into a universal machine or something like it.” Turing proposed what subsequently became known as the Turing test as a criterion for whether an artificial computer is thinking (1950).
Last years
Turing was elected a fellow of the Royal Society of London in March 1951, a high honour, yet his life was about to become very hard. In March 1952 he was convicted of “gross indecency”—that is to say, homosexuality, a crime in Britain at that time—and he was sentenced to 12 months of hormone “therapy.” Now with a criminal record, he would never again be able to work for Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), the British government’s postwar code-breaking centre.
Turing spent the remainder of his short career at Manchester, where he was appointed to a specially created readership in the theory of computing in May 1953. From 1951 Turing had been working on what is now known as artificial life. He published “The Chemical Basis of Morphogenesis” in 1952, describing aspects of his research on the development of form and pattern in living organisms. Turing used Manchester’s Ferranti Mark I computer to model his hypothesized chemical mechanism for the generation of anatomical structure in animals and plants.
In the midst of this groundbreaking work, Turing was discovered dead in his bed, poisoned by cyanide . The official verdict was suicide, but no motive was established at the 1954 inquest. His death is often attributed to the hormone “treatment” he received at the hands of the authorities following his trial for being gay. Yet he died more than a year after the hormone doses had ended, and, in any case, the resilient Turing had borne that cruel treatment with what his close friend Peter Hilton called “amused fortitude.” Also, to judge by the records of the inquest, no evidence at all was presented to indicate that Turing intended to take his own life, nor that the balance of his mind was disturbed (as the coroner claimed). In fact, his mental state appears to have been unremarkable at the time. Although suicide cannot be ruled out, it is also possible that his death was simply an accident, the result of his inhaling cyanide fumes from an experiment in the tiny laboratory adjoining his bedroom. Nor can murder by the secret services be entirely ruled out, given that Turing knew so much about cryptanalysis at a time when homosexuals were regarded as threats to national security .
By the early 21st century Turing’s prosecution for being gay had become infamous. In 2009 British Prime Minister Gordon Brown , speaking on behalf of the British government, publicly apologized for Turing’s “utterly unfair” treatment. Four years later Queen Elizabeth II granted Turing a royal pardon .
As a computer scientist Turing is a giant in my field. The bigotry he endured and the absolute cruelty it dealt is my primary individual example of the dangers of bigotry.
The movie is very informative and its title, "The Imitation Game," misleading however. I almost overlooked it. Furthermore, there were not many giveaways into Mr. Turing's sexuality, early on. The movie sped away into other aspects of this remarkable man's professional life. (What a joy ("a find") this movie was/is to me.) In fact, the unhappiest and stressed moments I felt watching the movie were when Turing's sexuality was being undertaken and 'reported on.' It brought back flash-backs:
The crushing emotional, ill-at ease, and physical pains brought on by being a castoff and always standing prepared to walk off once being found out. When all you really wanted to be is a part of something big and important.
More homosexuals than can be counted were denied the fundamental privilege to die for, to serve in, their countries services—overseas and yes in the United States. Governments 'reasoned away' homosexuals from approaching government jobs, because of "worries" of black-mail. It was a cover! Albeit the laws themselves which afforded the very opportunity for blackmailers to use the law were written in congresses, backed by administrations, and upheld by judges. "At pain of blackmail". . . locked many goodly and all-around innocent people out of careers. Ultimately, this rationale was all a diabolical lie perpetrated to keep homosexuals outcast to society. People desperately without hope, and no voice with which to make appeal. Unless, they gave in by submitting to heterosexual normalcy.
When I see men like "Evangelist" Adam Fannin wanting to regress our society to a by-gone era of bigotry and open contempt, it makes me sad that he and his wife do not know better.
We almost did not have Mr. Turing when the world needed him.
Pure bigotry in action. Unthinking, emotional and ruthless forces at play. Ironically, Turing was a brilliant critical thinker whose exceptional life (and contributions to society) was destroyed by those who failed to think critically.
But, good news, the UK culture has evolved. Alan Turing would have had a different life if he was born 50 years later.
I just inwardly shuddered, because those forces from the 40's and 50's are bacckkkk! The personification of the conservative Right moving to retake control over western democracies and reimpose old divisions and tribalism is rearing its ugly head again. Maybe Mr. Turing should continue his rest a little longer while the world works to beat down the resurgent forces that handicapped and disproportionately ended his life.
Culturally, the UK (and indeed the US) are well past the blind bigotry of the 40s. There will always be fringe elements but the big ship has already turned.
They're not only back but they're in charge. Not only does the GOP control Congress and Trump & Pence the WH, but they're doing their best to pack the federal courts and critical federal agencies with anti-LGBT loons like Gorsuch, Price and DeVos. But the good news is that this is the last reactionary gasp of a dead ideology - very few people under 40 support such ignorant bigotry today.
That was a good movie although they really downplayed the consequences of his conviction for being gay like the loss of his visa to the US and the loss of his security clearance and thus the end of his career as a cryptologist (he actually would have been blacklisted for most employment). The hormone treatment not only resulted in permanent impotence but Turing grew breasts, and even worse it acts as a neural depressant so the psychological impact is huge and would have seriously impacted any work he tried to do. Turing unwittingly exchanged a prison sentence for a death sentence - regardless of whether he actually killed himself by eating a cyanide-laced apple, other people subjected to that hormone treatment did. Also note that a couple of years ago some of the private letters he wrote before he died were discovered and they indicate that he was quite troubled by the effects of the chemical castration.
.
The other aspect which Cumberbatch captured was Turing's social awkwardness and his lack of awareness of or caring about other people's opinions, quite likely the result of Asperger's syndrome. It's really a shame how poorly society treats people who are different from the norm.
In fact, it is assumed by many in the field, that indeed he did have aspergers. There is so much written about that I won't bother to post the links but just put in Turings's name and aspergers.
This is not a bad thing. My nephew is a genius IQ but has aspergers and he for people like himself to aspire to. Aspergers much like being gay, is just an aspect of their life, once they can get past the stigma.
I went to primary school with identical twins who had Asperger's, one of whom got mainstreamed a year earlier than the other (3rd & 4th grade). Today that wouldn't be unusual in a public school but back then it was a first. Both twins were intellectually brilliant but with pretty severe social and emotional control deficits, and the rest of us kids were pretty horrible to them. I also know that the "genius IQ" is a stereotype although that was my experience too.....but that's probably why their parents thought they were ready for public school.
To celebrate the mass shooting at The Pulse Nightclub would be which brand of 'the Jesus loves you' sect?
Pastor Romero wasn't the only one to do that but they all seem to be in variants of the SBC, Independent Baptist or similar evangelical extremist cults.
However these good folks have the right take on all this gay ickiness: