Is Stanford discriminating against Christians?

[Dr Strangelove]

I'd just like to interject here that not all Christians are homophobes, and there are some denominations that are actually homo-friendly.

"gay Cornhuskers"? Oh my gosh, what a phrase. Am I the only one who sees the double meaning in that?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
I'd just like to interject here that not all Christians are homophobes, and there are some denominations that are actually homo-friendly.

I read some of the posts in here now that I am checking all threads again.

I have a question for those who argue that the coach is not a bigot.

If you call a group of people deragatory names because of a part of those people's identity, wouldn't that make you a bigot??

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by MrFun
If you call a group of people deragatory names because of a part of those people's identity, wouldn't that make you a bigot??

When did Brown ever do this? He doesn't attack homosexuals or call them derogatory names. He just doesn't believe that homosexuality is morally correct.

The thing that interested me about this story is the ambiguity of it all. Brown supports a viewpoint that many people feel is evil and bigoted. OTOH, he is generally acknowledged to be a good person and does lots of good things for the community. Which is the more important facet of his life, his beliefs or his actions? Makes you think...

[Lincoln]

My little dictionary defines bigot as: A person who is intolerant, especially in matters of religion, race or politics.

I guess that make Stanford bigots too.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

When did Brown ever do this? He doesn't attack homosexuals or call them derogatory names. He just doesn't believe that homosexuality is morally correct.

The thing that interested me about this story is the ambiguity of it all. Brown supports a viewpoint that many people feel is evil and bigoted. OTOH, he is generally acknowledged to be a good person and does lots of good things for the community. Which is the more important facet of his life, his beliefs or his actions? Makes you think...

Got a question for you then.

If a person opposes interracial marriages, because he/she sees that as being immoral according to their values, does that make the person racist? Let's say they never use deragatory names about blacks.

[Imran Siddiqui]

MrFun... in interracial marriages people don't stick their thingies up.. well you know .

It is a different thing. I can tell you that it causes revulsion in me, but I haven't been called a bigot by the homosexuals that I know.

[Lincoln]

More from my dictionary:

Racism: The belief that some races are inherently better than others.

I guess it would depend on if someone thought he was superior. If someone just believed in seperation of the races I don't think they would fit the definition.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
MrFun... in interracial marriages people don't stick their thingies up.. well you know .

It is a different thing. I can tell you that it causes revulsion in me, but I haven't been called a bigot by the homosexuals that I know.

Heterosexuals can talk about their relationships, and homosexuals are expected to keep their mouths shut.

Heterosexuals can behave appropriately with light affection in public, as couples, and homosexuals cannot.

Heterosexuals can advertise baby showers, weddings, and so forth at workplaces without fear of deragatory reactions. That is not the case for homosexuals.

I have explained the legitimacy of coming out a couple of times before.

Back to my question now --- why is revulsion towards interracial marriage different than revulsion towards homosexuals??

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by MrFun
Got a question for you then.

If a person opposes interracial marriages, because he/she sees that as being immoral according to their values, does that make the person racist? Let's say they never use deragatory names about blacks.

It depends. If they only consider the practice of interracial marriage to be immoral, then I wouldn't consider them to be racist. If they considered the practice of interracial marriage to be immoral because one of the people trying to get married is of an unliked racial background, then it is racist.

An example of the first would be the practice of some blacks or jews not approving of marriage outside their ethnic groups.

An example of the second would be a white family not wanting their daughter to marry a black man because they dislike blacks.

I hope I explained the difference properly...

[Lincoln]

"Back to my question now --- why is revulsion towards interracial marriage different than revulsion towards homosexuals??"

Or why is it different than revulsion towards Chirstians?

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by MrFun
Heterosexuals can talk about their relationships, and homosexuals are expected to keep their mouths shut.

Those who support homosexuality can talk about their beliefs, but those who think homosexuality is wrong are expected to keep their mouths shut.

I think everyone should be able to talk about their beliefs without having others attack them for who they are.

[Jon Miller]

I think that without doubt Stanford discriminated

the suggestion otherwise is rediculous

whether it was proper discrimination or not is another matter

today discrimination against unpopular beleifs is just as much as it always was, it is just that different beleifs are unpopular

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten


Those who support homosexuality can talk about their beliefs, but those who think homosexuality is wrong are expected to keep their mouths shut.

I think everyone should be able to talk about their beliefs without having others attack them for who they are.

legally yes

however, some think differently (And act on it)

and there is also the issue of it being a private institution

Jon Miller

[Asher]

Those who support homosexuality can talk about their beliefs, but those who think homosexuality is wrong are expected to keep their mouths shut.

Those who believe that no race is superior to another can talk about their beliefs, but those who think that one race is superior to another are expected to keep their mouths shut.

What, exactly, is your point?

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

"I don't believe homosexuality is biblically correct," he said. "But that doesn't mean I disdain the people or do anything to disrespect anyone here."

Are these the words of a bigot?

The article, which is quite questionable, states:

"In November 1999, Brown drew heavy media attention after he called homosexuality a sin on his Christian radio talk show, then called "Husker Sports Report." On the show, he admitted hating and sometimes harassing homosexuals as a child."

The article contains a bias of claiming that Brown was not considered because of his religion, but that is highly debatable.

Consider this quote:
"(His religion) was definitely something that had to be considered," said Alan Glenn, Stanford's assistant athletic director of human resources.

Glenn doesn't say that religion was a factor. The reporter inserted "(his religion)" into the quote.

Stanford was obviously concerned about hiring a man who thinks homosexuals are evil. That's a valid concern.

Whether his religion was a factor is open to question.