I often don’t choose my words, quite well.

I believe that a Christian ministry organization should not be compelled to hire

I absolutely agree!

if they are free to fire a man or woman who continues to engage in adultery or fornication, why should a gay person be protected from the morality provisions that are somewhat central to the belief and mission of the organization?

I already specifically added the word ‘ministry’ to differentiate from a ‘Christian business’:

I believe that a Christian ministry organization should not be compelled to hire

And, once again, I have some research to do to find out how pervasive PFOX anti-gay rights attitudes go.

I believe that a Christian ministry organization should not be compelled to hire a person who admittedly engages in homosexual activity…if they are free to fire a man or woman who continues to engage in adultery or fornication, why should a gay person be protected from the morality provisions that are somewhat central to the belief and mission of the organization?

I absolutely agree with this – but I have no evidence that this is why PFOX opposes equal rights for gay folk – in fact, all evidence seems to suggest they are just anti-gay.

I also don’t know of any gay rights laws that have forced churches who believe homosexuality is a sin to hire a gay person, or host a same-sex wedding.

It is tricky, but should be an easy thing to do – at least with Churches – It gets more problematic though with Christian businesses that provide services to the general public – If those businesses are allowed to discriminate against gay people, then they will have to make sure they discriminate across the board according to their belief system

My bad, I guess. After several posts of repeating that I had just checked out their website…and admitting that I didn’t know about the blog link. When you delivered said: “If you had paid attention to the news PFOX has made over the years you would know that the caricature is all of their own making”…it struck me as slam.

Sorry about that.

Eddy…. If I hadn’t had the experience of blogging here for a year or more before I realized that most of the anti-Exodus spokespeople had no idea that it was a ‘looseknit coalition’, I’d be mortified that I haven’t been following the PFOX news over the years.

Ok… I was just pointing out the perspective most of ‘my people’ have concerning PFOX. The trouble is that history is the indicator of policy.

If I hadn’t had the experience of blogging here for a year or more before I realized that most of the anti-Exodus spokespeople had no idea that it was a ‘looseknit coalition’, I’d be mortified that I haven’t been following the PFOX news over the years.

Since the post was not about the history of PFOX, I felt I was within my blogging rights to make a few comments. I said where my information and perceptions came from…I asked for anyone to provide some substance. Jayhuck made a statement that their website was chock full of evidence but a search revealed that it was buried a bit deeper than ‘chock full’ implies. (Jayhuck later apologized for that statement.) Warren provided some evidences and I accepted them and clarified my statement that I hadn’t found any. (The statement itself was true. I hadn’t found any on my search.) But when Warren provided his list, it was obvious that, in my focus on the links on the left, I had missed the blog topics on the right. There I learned of a number of their statements that did go against gay rights. I will, as I’ve said numerous times today, continue to explore that issue. I will, however, explore it in my time and on their blog page. Warren has provided enough links to give direction to my search.

Why should you get to ask me a question when you haven’t answered mine? And when my comments don’t begin to go where you’re going? And when it isn’t the topic? I much prefer to answer to things that I’ve said rather than things you’ve manufactured in your head.

Your questions are full of presumptions. I want to know where PFOX stands on those questions I mentioned because I believe insurance coverage benefits should be extended to ‘the household’…whether that be a gay partner, an unmarried hetero partner, or even a family member that isn’t a spouse or child. I believe hospital visitation rights, especially in terminal cases, should be protected for the homosexual partner. I see nothing to be gained except bitterness and misery when a family uses a hospital to hold a gay family member hostage to their whims and beliefs.

With regard to employment discrimination, I believe the laws need to be so worded that they protect the rights of all. This is where it gets sticky. I believe that a Christian ministry organization should not be compelled to hire a person who admittedly engages in homosexual activity…if they are free to fire a man or woman who continues to engage in adultery or fornication, why should a gay person be protected from the morality provisions that are somewhat central to the belief and mission of the organization? (I once knew of a somewhat radical evangelical who took a job at an adult bookstore. Although he didn’t say things to the customers, he purposely sported a conspicuous cross necklace, visibly read his Bible and displayed it prominently on the counter. To my mind, he wasn’t playing fair. In his heart, he was not in full agreement with the goals and purposes of the business and he was there serving his own agenda. I hoped that when they fired him, his claim of discrimination would not be upheld.)

Perhaps that answered your questions after all. If not, it’s not up for discussion or debate. You may feel differently…you may have a different take. But it isn’t the topic and I haven’t said that my way is THE way…I’ve merely said it’s the way I see it.

(Oh, and just for the record, companies DO discriminate against Christians. On three separate occasions, when I sought resume advice, I was advised to delete references to the Associates Degree in Theology that I had earned.)

And I also reiterated that is not the bulk of what appears on their website or their blog as others have suggested. I felt the portrayal was rather one-sided and overlooked a major emphasis of the group. I foolishly assumed that in an honest and open-minded conversation we’d actually want a well-rounded picture rather than a one-dimensional caricature.

If you had paid attention to the news PFOX has made over the years you would know that the caricature is all of their own making. PFOX has specifically styled their rhetoric to be a caricture of the struggle of gays and lesbians for rights while opposing those rights at every turn. From the totality of their rhetoric, it is obvious that PFOX is of the opinion that their moral considerations should trump any ‘rights’ that a person should enjoy in the nation’s secular order.

.

PFOX doesn’t even want to associate with gay conservatives. And in doing so freely associates with Peter LaBarbera who, I think it is fair to say, is generally against anything gay.

.

And even PFOX has asked that another entity’s award be rescinded.

…