If your organization’s “sincerely held religious belief” includes hating people, then yes, you are a hate group. And you’re hateful. And you are not exempt from being a hate group just because you are delusional and think that hating is an appropriate form of religion. Can I possibly make this any clearer?
with a shorter phrase?
“religion is mental illness”
And Christianity in particular.
it seems worse because it’s the one that dominates in north america
the Abrahamic triloigy is Jew 1.0 Christian 2.0 Muslim 3.0 with America not coping with not bieng in the bible at all, so Mormon 2.5
Mormon is christian minus the no adultery, eh.
I’ve never attended a Mormon church. So I don’t know what the Mormon church expects from its members.
magic underwear and a three wife minimum in the original one
they are a doomsday cult in the modern mainstream and actually once caused a bank to collapse, they borrowed money to build hoard stashes in bunkers.
I didn’t claim that any of the targeted groups had any “moral high ground”, you falsely made that assertion. My point was that who the hell made the SPLC the arbiter of anything. I don’t need anyone to tell me who to hate or not. I hope you get my point. Hate is on all sides, and it’s not pretty.
there is a difference between genocidal hate and a hate/fear response from the demographic being hated
but it’s going to be lost on you, eh
The SPLC is actually the hate group. They have no moral high ground when they target by religion and politics, which by the way they do. They didn’t used to do that
indeed, the SPLC does get targetted by religion and politics driven by religion.
religion is incompatible with equality, as demeans other people and denies them dignity for no other basis than not the same or no religion.
Ah, so religious types should be able to do any damn thing they like and never get called out for it. Got it.
I never said that. Hate seems so fashionable today on ALL sides. We need to be a bit more nuanced as to what is actually hate and what is another’s opinion that we simply disagree with. The SPLC is simply another hate group hating the haters. “The only thing we should not tolerate is intolerance and intolerance is the one thing all these targeted hate groups share.”
your literal words are lies, but your meaning is clear to
LGBTQ, who are masters of subtext and literacy, not to mention cunning linguists.
your talking points are decades old, tired tropes
claiming false equivalency is the alt-righteous talking trend these days
sounding reasonable in phrase doesn’t work with your actual content
your whitewashing only makes your sheet brighter
Lest We Forget
What is the definition of a hate group?
Of course groups like KKK and other racist organizations ARE hate groups. And I’m aware that the Southern Poverty Law Center classifies ADF as a hate group. And I understand the reason why. But is it fair to do so?
To hate someone for who they are — their skin color, eye color, etc… — is what has has defined a hate group based on race.
But ADF, and other organizations on the Christian Right, will correctly say that they don’t hate people on racial grounds. The WILL say that they have *moral* grounds to dislike/oppose any LGBT person.
I disagree, of course.
But why does this qualify them as a hate group?
you should really read the site articles about religion
there several recently
Florida’s plan for bullied LGBTQ kids? Send them to Christian schools.
DC church encourages ‘shaming & shunning’ LGBTQ people as loving ‘Christian response’
This Baptist preacher was arrested after he tried to have sex with a 14-year-old boy
And they accuse us non-religious of having no morals.
they accuse us of what they do as a distraction
and also, they think we are as bad as they are, eh
I know. I’ve never understood that.
it prevents them admitting they are wrong and changing
it means they keep asking do we really have to let women, ethnicities, LGBTQ and atheists live their own lives and participate in society
and when told, yes you do,
act as if there’s still a question that other people are entitled to a presumption of being a lawful citizen until they demonstrate otherwise
and they do so, under threat of violence, making their point of view criminal in intent, their religion is not above the law, people are entitled to rights, or rights mean nothing at all, eh
if you actually disagreed, this would not need to be explained to you
you’d be able to explain it to other trolls like you
I agree with Nina,
The bottom line is still that they try to expel a group of people based on a shared trait which has no moral consequences ie the fact that someone is gay doesn’t make them anymore a threat to society as the fact that they are white or black would.
Combining that with the fact that they are actively lobbying to diminish the rights of said group, and instigate violence as well, they are a hate group.
Over here in the Netherlands such behavior is a criminal offense and would not be tolerated from any group (be they Muslim, Christian or otherwise)
But then again, we mostly keep religion out of our government…
Here’s the thing….. You wrote “shared trait which has no moral consequences…” But that is exactly the point. Some people believe that homosexuality is a moral question.
Science observes that people are same-sex attracted for deep and unchangeable reasons. Accepting this a true, the people who see this as a moral question, would still insist that society not “reward” immoral acts, requiring instead that LGBT folk remain celibate. Such people further insist that they have a right to speak their moral beliefs into their business transactions.
Again, I disagree with their conclusions regarding homosexuality. But for me, the question remains: How much latitude should we give to people who have moral qualms?
“Here’s the thing….. You wrote “shared trait which has no moral consequences…” But that is exactly the point. Some people believe that homosexuality is a moral question.”
here’s the thing, sexuality is not a moral question, it’s an aspect of humans
that people need to get over and stop with supernational stupidity
only people with questionable morals question that other people exist and are entitled to.
I would agree with your last statement: “comparing baking a cake for two same-sex humans who love each other to a
doctor forced to supervise execution of a death penalty is pretty much
false equivalence, dude!”
But THEY don’t think that. THEIR leaders are teaching them that civilization itself is collapsing as a result of the disintegration of marriage. So for them, bringing flowers to a same sex would be tantamount to celebrating the downfall of civilization.
Silly, I know.
you say its silly, but you promote it by your posts
why are you arguing for “they”
it’s the obvious red flag that you mean “we”
otherwise, you’d not argue for consideration of those who would genocide LGBTQ, roll back roe vs wade and the civil rights act of 1964.
Lest We Forget
they are not looking the other way
that is the systemic oppression from the top down
as active permission to those on the streets
‘fraid so, so much for land of the free, huh?
like from the sessions article to here
we’re supposed to think, how does this keep happening?
its that they pretend that actual law enforcement is fooled by them
or somehow doesn’t know.
That Bundy family that Trump pardoned for occupying a federal building
Tim McVeigh and Oklahoma, Ruby Ridge, Waco…
How many closed religious communities does America have?
The North American Eurosquatters are astonishingly oblivious eh?
I bet Europe was glad to be rid of all the puritanicals
the ancestors of the current era deplorables, eh?
They can if theyre talented enough to get the job, or even audition…..
the 1990s called, they need their attitude back
So you’re in favour of discrimination? Interesting.
you misunderstand what discrimination is
how pale male boring
standing up for minorities is not discrimination against the majority
you’re indulging in false equivalency and ignoring history
while failing to understand truth and reconciliation
‘Standing up’ for anyone and giving them an advantage is discrimination, i think its actually the dictionary definition.
Jack is whatever sexuality he is, the charcater is gay. Jack is a talented actor and a little effeminate anyway (again, sorry jack). A gay actor should not be handed the role simply because they are gay. I would never accept a job that was handed to me, or treated my favourably, just beacuse I’m a homo! Would you?
leveling the playing field is not discrimination, it is the affirmative corrective action, a social choice to not discriminate anymore
further, dictionary meanings have no authority, they merely collect common usage and proved it when the word literally now includes the meaning of figuratively via misuse.
so, you don’t understand dictionaries as you benefit from the actual discrimination that is both systemic and social, and which, you are trying to protect because you’re a boring pal male no one wants to interact with, and you don’t get that from your in person and online experiences.