y2k - pretend he's something else? I didn't know they did anything but play football on the field....what an odd thing to say. So what...are you saying he wants to pinch a guys ass after each play?

I fully reject your notion that he has to hide or pretend he's anything. Do you walk in to your office at work and announce, "Hey, I'm gay!!!! I like anal sex!!!! and....oh yeah...I'm also your new IT guy..."

It's agenda driven. Period.

Options:
1. Make a huge public statement to the whole world about being gay, and pretend it's not about an agenda, so you don't have to "hide" anymore....basically, be a tool for the cause, promoting and agenda with your private life.

2. Make a private statement to you teammates once you have been selected, and offer to have an open discussion with them privately, in the locker room or whatever, in case anyone wants to discuss it - with the assertion that it in no way affects his ability to play his heart out on the football field, and really should be a non-issue

3. Don't tell anyone a damned thing, becuase it's none of their business. And when they ask what he's doing over the Bye weekend, he says with a straight face, "Steve and I are going on a 3 day cruise", just like any other player would say, "Barbara and I are goign on a 3-day cruise" and leave it at that.

This pretend notion that you **have** to make a big announcement is bullshit, agenda-driven nonsense. If he actually feels that way, it's because the very left-wing groups that claim to support him have brain-washed him in to thinking he is so different and abnormal that he has to pro-actively defend himself, and they are using him as a tool.

Most people don't give a shit. The ones that do will whether or not he makes a public play, or it comes out in the locker room...so the impact between him and other players - which is all that should matter - is the same either way.

"What "sincerely held religious belief" is going to inform a doctor to let a patient die? Ever hear of the story of the Good Samaritan? Perhaps if Obi was less of a religious bigot himself he would understand what this legislation is about."

Well, what if a doctor is Mel Gibson-Antisemtic and thinks the blood of Christ is on the Jews' hands and that therefore they should die/not receive medical treatment?

Given that for 2,000 years "Kill the Jews for Christ!" was a religiously-motivated stance of several of the largest Christian sects out there (thanks to that lovely passage in the Gospel of John I keep alluding to, and other instances of the New Testament just not being a Jew-friendly book) it's not at all out of the realm of possibility.

What about Muslims?

What if they consider them heretical and thus refuse treatment?

What if (to be fair and flip the scenario) it was a Muslim doctor and they refused to treat, say, a Hindu patient due to religious and political strife between the two in Pakistan/Northern India?

It's not just an LGBT issue...

It's a discrimination issue, period--you cannot and should not deny services (let alone services as essential as medical assistance) to someone based on their religious beliefs or lack thereof.

Homophobes are nothing if not politically savvy, and I'll give them credit, they've managed to fool a lot of people into equating "religious liberty" with "blatant discrimination". Krellin et al have taken the bait hook, line, and sinker. If a gay person is victimized in a crime, a police officer can REFUSE to provide law enforcement services. I'm not sure where your idea of "freedom" fits into not providing equal protection under the law.

krellin: Yes, well I actually tend to equate freedom with a purple mold of authoritarian uniformity – except on Valentine's Day. Then I tend to think of freedom as a pink mold.

Damn...that might be the most I've ever agreed with you, 2WL

The separation of church and state was put into place for a reason. That includes laws that favour or put into place religious beliefs. Protecting minorities from discrimination. Equal opportunity to progress. Or are only non-gay people allowed to participate in free market economy?

I haven't seen instances where business that discriminate go out of business (other than lately when a single twitter causes massive overreaction) but I have seen businesses that discriminate put other (ethnic) businesses out of business. If there is only one place in town to buy your supplies...then you're hooped. Free markets acting like free markets only exists in people's imagination and in economist's textbooks as an ideal case. The real world is way more complicated than such a gross simplification simply because people are way more complicated.

And I've met quite a few people that refuse all service to anyone of their particular favourite minority. But I've met a wide of variety of people when my job involved extensive travel.

In Canada, marriage commissioners are licensed by the government. There's a bit of controversy about some refusing to allow marriages of their favourite group as well. That's a government service conflicting with religious belief, since marriage affects treatment under tax laws and the like.

So business should be allowed to discriminate if they like? Are you for or against affirmative action programs? If you are against, then why are you now arguing that businesses should not be allowed to discriminate?

The Kansas Senate is likely to vote down the bill.

^Yeah, because the Christians who wanted there didn't think their cunning plan through. This isn't the first time that they've proposed a bill to further their agenda without realising that other religions could use it to further theirs. And like the other times they proposed a bill without thinking it through, everyone will vote it down and anyone who advocated it will get lynched.

Obi, you write, "Given that for 2,000 years "Kill the Jews for Christ!" was a religiously-motivated stance of several of the largest Christian sects out there…." Obi, pray tell which Christian sects were even around for 2000 years. Oh wait, there aren't any. Christians, yes. Organized religion, no. And now that half of your "given" has been debunked, don't expect us to blindly accept the other half.

Why do you exaggerate? You could make a valid point about Jews dying at the hands of organized movements calling themselves Christian at certain points in history, but you insist on making things up. Why, why is that??

NOT ironically, the *only* people showing any hate and bigotry around here and the anti-religious crowd, who don't think that individuals have a right to personal belief, and who believe that people that do not believe in lock-step with them should be compelled under threat of force to action.

Good little nazis, these libtards are. Your authoritarian tyranical rants, your hate-filled speeches against anyone that disagrees with you are quite telling indeed.

I pity you far more today than I did yesterday, and wish you could have peace with personal freedom and individuality. Sadly, your hate compels otherwise, and I assure you that you will spend your life in misery with such narrow-minded bigotry.

"NOT ironically, the *only* people showing any hate and bigotry around here *ARE*<not and> the anti-religious crowd,

So let me translate: Without any intended irony, I, krellin, hereby proclaim that the ill-defined "anti-religious crowd" in threadID=1100908 consists of individuals who can be categorized in all the following ways simultaneously:
1. Haters
2. Bigots
3. Nazis
4. Liberals
5. Retards
6. Authoritarian tyrants
7. Ranters
8. Miserable
9. Narrow-minded
I, krellin, was not able to categorize the "anti-religious crowd" of threadID=1100908 in these nine ways yeterday. But today, now that I, krellin, have been able to succesfully categorize every member of the "anti-religious crowd" in threadID=1100908 in these nine ways, I, krellin, feel comlled to pity the "anti-religious crowd" of threadID=1100908.

I wonder how people would react if a government agency discriminated against people for their religious or political views, and people found out about it? Oh *face palm* it already happened! To all the people hating this law, I expect you to be sending in letters DEMANDING the resignation of all involved IRS workers, and their ultimate boss, Mr. Obama himself

@Mujus, The Catholic Church has been around for approximately 2000 years. Oriental Orthodoxy for 1500, and Eastern/Greek/Russian Orthodoxy for 1000. So there were denominations. But there was only one for the last 2000 years, unless obi is counting various heretical groups (Donatists, Montanists, Arianists, etc.)

KingCyrus: Welcome to to the Forum! Please specify which horrible IRS scandal you are referring to. I'm sure that our fellow Forum users will gladly explain why your statement is misguided with more information on your part.

And I like how you switch the Eastern Orthodox Church(es) with the Roman Catholic Church in your chronology. ;-)

An investigation already exonerated the IRS. Liberal groups were actually denied their tax exempt status under Bush (which they shouldn't have gotten anyway), unlike anything that happened here. Come up with a new fake scandal.

"The Catholic Church has been around for approximately 2000 years. Oriental Orthodoxy for 1500, and Eastern/Greek/Russian Orthodoxy for 1000. "

The bishoprics of the East existed prior to their split with Rome. It's not as if they changed their doctrine.

I would love to be educated JECE. Truly, I would. As to my knowledge, the IRS scandal in question was in 2013, where certain conservative groups were not treated the same as other groups.

Putin, while certain liberal groups may have been persecuted, I am not aware, but I would certainly believe it, two wrongs do not make a right. It just makes the whole situation worse.

Putin + JECE, sorry for the technicality. I simply meant the separate existences of those three religious groups. Did not mean to pull feathers in naming them, nor in doubting there existence.

And yes, that WAS "exonerated" by a "fair and unbiased judge" who happened to be a donor of Mr. Obama's presidential campaign. Surely they could have found a slightly fairer arbitrator?

KingCyrus, groups engaged in political activity claiming to be social welfare organizations are not supposed to get tax exempt status, so what was the scandal?

Groups were targeted due to names like patriot, liberty, etc. This does not necessarily mean they are political. Even if they were, it still does not matter because comparable groups with "liberal" or "democratic" were not treated the same.

But groups with political sounding names at least look suspicious enough to be audited. Again, what is the scandal? Were the equivalent number of liberal sounding names applying for such status?

IMO, the real scandal is the number of politicized churches and other fake non-political groups applying for tax exempt status to begin with. Why does the Mormon church get exemption after their interference in California politics? Why do any of these other churches get after blatantly telling their congregations to vote one way or another?

An infographic released by the House Committee on Ways and Means is here:

http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2013/07/30/7-30-13-irs-targeting-statistics-of-files-produced-by-irs-through-july-29-2-_wide-4a94ba3402b5f5a78972606de4939ffd44619375-s4-c85

This clearly shows that groups with conservative-sounding names were more targeted. Even if the number of "progressive" names was lower, I highly doubt it was lower by that high an amount.

About that, I am not informed, and so will not add my opinion, which will of course not help anything.

@Putin - Labor unions are also tax exempt and they are one of the biggest political organizations around. Being political has nothing to do with tax exempt status.

Unions pay taxes on their political spending. They are also not 501c3 groups which are prohibited from engaging in political campaigning.

"They are also not 501c3 groups which are prohibited from engaging in political campaigning. "

When was the last time you saw a political ad paid for by a church? Some churches may preach politics from the pulpit (mine doesn't), but they don't spend money on political campaigns. If any do, I would agree that they should have to pay taxes on that spending. Unions preach from the office of the union president and in union meetings all the time (just ask any cop if the FOP doesn't tell them who they should support). It's no different.

The Mormon church notoriously financed and organized the Protect Marriage front group which supported Prop 8 in California. The Mormon first presidency put out a call to action which church leaders were obligated to read whereby they instructed their attendees to do all they could to support Prop 8.

http://www.mormonstudies.net/html/official/fp_letter_prop8.html

"It's no different."

I repeat, labor unions are *not of the same status* as charitable/religious organizations. Unions are 501c5. Churches are 501c3.