Liberalism

And LGBT people are pushing for laws that discriminate against Christians.
Unlike predominantly Muslim countries, predominantly Christian countries don’t impose a death sentence for being LGB or T

Name one law or bill backed by a Christian organization that denies apartments or jobs to LGBT people.

There are “hate speech” laws that deny Christians (or other religions) the right to preach about the immorality of LGBT practices.

There were secular governments who imposed death sentences for being LGBT too. They also imposed death sentences for being Christian.

Excuse me, but the RIGHT to preach about the immorality of being LGBT? Since when is it immoral to be yourself? And since when is shaming people for being who they are a right?

Since the beginning of time.
By your logic it’s wrong to call adultry immoral because “that’s who they are”.

No, adultery is nothing like being gay. There is no commandment against being gay and being gay hurts no one. The only line in the Bible that Christians can even use to justify being against homosexuality can no longer be used that way because it was discovered that it had been mistranslated. So no, my logic does not justify adultery, nor can it be used to justify shaming, tormenting, and/or killing someone simply because they love someone who is the same sex as them.

Adultery hurts no one as long as it’s kept a secret. And what if your spouse had no problem with you having an affair or two on the side? Would that make it “moral”?
There’s no commandment against slavery or human trafficking or border walls (as Nancy Pelosi says). So, are you saying if it isn’t explicitly spelled out in the 10 commandments it isn’t immoral?

You really don’t get it, do you. You seem to think faith in God just determines which group of people to get together with once a week for worship services. Faith in God is integrated in your character and helps you make decisions, not because “God told me to”, but because you’ve had a change in spirit which motivates you to live as He would.

And yet most of our laws are based on religious principals. To say that belief in God has no bearing on how legislators passed laws is like saying having a law degree has no bearing on it either. There’s no such thing as an unbiased opinion.

Maybe not explicitly, but they are most certainly based on age old religious beliefs such as murder, deception, theft, assault, marriage (used to be), etc.

Exactly!

Many ancient societies were originally run by the church. The people who made up governments were also relligious people, often holding high positions in their church as well as in goverment. You can try to deny that religous teachings influenced.secular laws but you're just kidding yourself.

Maybe you should ask him yourself.

Maybe not but that doesn’t change the fact that most of the basic human rights laws were based on religious teachings.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that because it is just two people who are in love, happy, and hurting no one, then no, it is not immoral. It doesn't effect you or anyone else whatsoever, so why does it matter?

You could use that same argument to justify an adult having conceptual sex with a minor - two people who are in love, happy, and hurting no one.

An excellent analogy, but Liberals love adultery, especially when it's sodomy lol

If it negatively affects their work they should be fired. You should be able to fire someone for any reason or no reason. It's your business, you decide how to run it.

The government has decided to let the individual states dictate these rules, and one can fire people on a whim. When I fire some people, there are times when the official "reason" is that there is no particular reason, simply because of some elevated status of that particular individual. That's how "at will" states operate. Even if I have solid legitimate reasons for letting someone go, if they are a protected class, I would rather just say that there is no reason at all than go through the potential headache of dealing with lawyers after the fact.

The government doesn't define morality

So when you say "the government has decided... because that's not right" you're not really saying anything

What's your point? The fact that it's a law makes it just? You really think that's a good argument?

They don’t oppose ENDA because they want the ability to fire someone because they’re LGBT. It’s because of the way the law is written. For example, ENDA makes no distinction between sexual conduct and sexual inclination. I other words, an employer wouldn’t be able to fire LGBT employees for, say, making out with each other in the break room or other conduct that would normally be a fireable offense.

No, I don’t believe LGBT people should be discriminated against, but I also don’t think non-discrimination laws should give special privileges to groups either. For example, it’s already illegal to assault another person but some “hate crime” laws say the punishment for assaulting a gay person should be harsher than for assaulting a straight person. That’s not equal rights.

You may doubt it would happen but that doesn’t mean it won’t. I already showed you an example of how the law, as written, could be interpreted that way.

No, I’m not saying they’re asking for special privileges, just that the laws end up giving special privileges, either unintentionally or, maybe, by design.

Apparently you missed it the first time so I'll post it again.
"ENDA makes no distinction between sexual conduct and sexual inclination. I other words, an employer wouldn’t be able to fire LGBT employees for, say, making out with each other in the break room or other conduct that would normally be a fireable offense."

No, it doesn’t because it creates a loophole that can be exploited by the LGBT community. It’s not the premise of the law that they dislike. It’s how it’s written.

There is no law that specifically protects straight people from losing their job for being and acting straight. The ENDA law specifically protects LGBT (and only LGBT) for being and acting homosexual. The point of all this is that Christians are not out to take away rights from the LGBT community as you claim. The reason a Christian organization opposes ENDA is because of the way it’s written, not because they are trying to make it leagal for an employer to fire an employee if they find out they he is homosexual.

I get it. You’re searching for something to criticize Christians about so, the truth won’t matter to you because you have an agenda and refuse to change your view of Christians. I think this debate has gone on long enough.

a Hetero Couple gets caught Shagging in the Bathroom, They get Fired for Shagging in the Bathroom, and they start looking for new jobs because they know they f'd up...

A Gay Couple Gets fired for shagging in the bathroom, it's on CNN that Night as "Gay Couple Fired, Lawsuit Pending"

Look no Further than the Colorado Baker... They were Willing to Bake a Cake for a Gay wedding... They were NOT willing to put the Specific decoration on that cake Identifying it as a "Gay-Wedding" Cake...

Tijuana summed it up nicely.
Because there’s a special provision for LGBT, they can claim that their termination is illegal because the law states that they are protected since being gay and gay conduct is considered the same in the law.

You might want to look at this on Wikipedia to understand why people oppose ENDA. It’s not just Christians. The law has been repeatedly shot down by congress since it was first introduced in 1994. Even when there was a super majority of Democrats in Congress. Similar legislation has been introduced without passage since 1974.

Do you believe every Congress that didn’t pass this bill wanted to discriminate against LGBT? Of course not, and neither do the Christian organizations who oppose it. There is a section of the article showing the reasons for opposition. Even pro-LGBT groups withdrew support of one version of the bill because of how parts of it was worded.

So to say that these Christian organizations oppose equal rights for LGBT because they oppose bills like ENDA is just a broad brush attempt to label them as anti-equal rights for LGBT.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Non-Discrimination_Act

Maybe you should ask the congressmen who voted it (and other bills like it) down why they didn’t pass the law.

I didn’t say the bill explicitly says that. It’s what it doesn’t say (like differentiating between sexual conduct and sexual inclination) that can be used as a defense against conduct that would normally be a fireable offense. - Geez how many times do I have to repeat myself?

You could have read these things yourself but even when you’ve had it spoon fed, you still don’t understand. I’m sorry, I didn’t know you suffer from a learning disability.

Heteralsexual attraction and behavior are also different. Both types of people have the option and ability to decide to act on those attraction.

The reason nobody has sued on the grounds of sexual orientation is because the law wouldn’t support it. But if ENDA became law, they would sue. That’s why it hasn’t passed.

"And LGBT people are pushing for laws that discriminate against Christians."

You're joking, right? Punchine please.

"Unlike predominantly Muslim countries, predominantly Christian countries don’t impose a death sentence for being LGB or T"

There are 8 predominantly Muslim countries with such death sentences on the books, thing is, there are no known cases of it actually being imposed.

"Name one law or bill backed by a Christian organization that denies apartments or jobs to LGBT people."

Between the Stonewall Riots of 1968 and 8 years of Obama, progress has been made granting basic rights and protections to people maligned and persecuted because of some ancient myth of Sodom and Gomorrah where the village men wanted 2 visitors to be made known unto them instead of raping Lot's daughters as Lot had offered, enticing them by saying they were virgins.

You may have seen memes here calling Mr & Mrs Obama LGBTs, and not in a respectful way. Donald "My legacy will be trying to erase Obama's legacy with a bucket of white out and & Tweetz" Trump has attempted to roll back some of those, including trans being allowed to join the military and protections for them in prison so they won't get raped by fine heterosexual Christian men who find jerking off to be sinful.

Stymied here, American Evangelicals have gone to places like Uganda, Nigeria, Kenya, Zimbabwe, etc, to rile up the masses to pass draconian anti gay laws. Missionaries for the Lord.

"There are “hate speech” laws that deny Christians (or other religions) the right to preach about the immorality of LGBT practices."

You're doing it right now.
Preachers do it all the time, even on tv.
Westboro Baptist Church not only does it in public, they intentionally do it disrupt funerals in order to outright harrass people.

Need to be read your Miranda Rights?

"There were secular governments who imposed death sentences for being LGBT too. They also imposed death sentences for being Christian."

One Protestant based secular entity that imposes death sentences for a variety of reasons is the USA. Getting executed tends to suck for anyone regardless of race, creed, or sexual orientation.

I normally don't do links, but I said what I had to rather than just refer others to an outside source for 'my' points.
This is additional info from the experts:

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/03/what-you-need-to-know-about-lgbt-rights-in-11-maps

Oh yeah, was thinking of Russia (but forgot to add it), the darling of the American right. That's one of the reasons for KGB Putin's appeal to these alt righties.

Russia (And probably Latvia as well) doesn't want to legalize same-sex marriage because it's against the advise of His Holiness Patriarch Krill of Moscow and all Russia, not because of growing far right trends in Russia.

Because he held such sway back in the USSR?

Unable to even limp forward at a discernable rate, Russia is moving backwards.
It is their history, it is their way, it is a surprise they haven't noticed this yet.

Patriarch Krill became Patriarch in 2006, far after the fall of the USSR
Nice comment about Russia, ignoring the massive progress she made after the USSR

Seems Russia's former satellites didn't get their right hands that broken as witnessed by their speedier return to the modern world. But look at it this way, at least Romania makes Romanov land look not so bad in comparison.

Hence why Catherine the Great became known as the one who wrenched that ossified serfdom ahead by centuries, albiet, not yet at par with its neighbors - then and now.

Progress? Yes, as the biggest mob corrupted cesspool in the world, Russia is like pre-rev Cuba on steroids.

Russia is, as it always has been, a Third World country that by virtue of holding massive amounts of near empty territory betwixt Europe and Asia, can't be ignored. Unable to shake loose the hereditary chains of top heavy rule, it is like the Middle East - a little freedom and they go running for the nearest brutal oligarch to tell them how to fart. Russia is that big stupid kid in class that everyone cowers in fear of because he can crush a head with one hand. Other than that, they dwell in the shadow of what they will never be, as much as their French Queen Catherine once tried hard to get them to.

Lol Russia isn’t even comparable to a third world country. The economy is still hurt from 70 years of brutal socialism, but it’s growing and will keep growing. Russia is more like that kid in class who broke his right hand for months and couldn’t write.
Btw, Catherine the Great led most of her rule with a thought process of “I really really want to be Russian”

yup

Why? Everyone deals with discrimination. Life isn't fair and no amount of government interference will make it fair.

That's true, but that doesn't make it okay.

Yuuuup

You want to be treated like garbage? You have problems that need to be looked at. -_-

Don't be retarded. It's called freedom.

"Why would you want to work for someone that hates you?"

What kind of stupid question is that? I asked you why you think hate speech is freedom, and that is your response? I never said I want to work for people who hate me. So why did you ask that question?

Okay. Look. I get it. Your algorithm is broken. It looks like your MAGABOT.EXE needs to update. ROFLMAO

You're just joining this thread so I'll help you out. We're talking about employment here and whether or not government interference is moral. Try to keep up now

Hate speech = Freedom?

Sir, my I please direct you to the nearest mental hospital? Some time there would be good for you.

Why would you want to work for someone that hates you?