How "Christian" of him!!

[BlackCat]

Terrible bill, and the worst thing is that it will hurt the constituents.

Uhm, no - it's the church that will do that - actually in spite of it's obligations.

[Berzerker]

They'd cut homeless shelters, food programs for needy families, and health services rather than provide equal benefits for employees in same-sex marriages.

unfunded mandate, of course it'll be the city's fault if the Church has to cut back on services. But how many married gays work for the Church?

[DinoDoc]

Well, off hand I would say that employment discrimination and medical procedures are entirely different matters.

They are both about moral issues that the Catholic Church considers of great import for it's faithful. If they can avoid compromising thier principles by not taking public funds, so much the better for them.

[Asher]

Ben is doing fantastic work in this thread demonstrating many things very succinctly. Namely:
1) He fails at reading comprehension
2) He fails at fundamental analysis
3) He dramatically overstates his case to absurd degrees (forcing synagogues to hire muslims)
4) He, just like the Church brass, is so completely out of touch with reality that he doesn't understand how just how tremendously damaging this story is to the Church's cultural cachet and relevance
5) He pointedly chooses to ignore fundamental Christian tenets because of his irrational hatred and disrespect for homosexuals

The Catholic church has a jetpack strapped to its back and it's fast on its way to having the same cultural respect and relevancy of the KKK. When they're not molesting children, they're turning the other cheek on the sick and needy.

[DinoDoc]

While the 'true faithful" will cheer on the Archbishop, many more christians will be disgusted....

I suggest you look at recent election results.

[Asher]

I suggest you look at recent election results.

A black man with limited experience defeats the religious right? Yes, very relevant.

[Elok]

5) He pointedly chooses to ignore fundamental Christian tenants because of his irrational hatred and disrespect for homosexuals

While I've never been a landlord, I don't think it'd be too hard to ignore fundamental Christian tenants. In all likelihood very few of them drink or make much noise partying, they don't wreck the place, and they're rarely if ever late with the rent.

WRT the actual topic, the city wouldn't be in this ridiculous position if they managed to have functional social services in the first place. And while I don't think the RCC is doing the right thing here, that article is more than a little silly. "Using gay marriage as an excuse to hurt the needy"? Yes, because the local bishop's been scheming for years to screw the homeless. It'd be far more accurate to say they're using their monopoly (or near-monopoly) on local charity work as a weapon against the gay community.

[Asher]

While I've never been a landlord, I don't think it'd be too hard to ignore fundamental Christian tenants. In all likelihood very few of them drink or make much noise partying, they don't wreck the place, and they're rarely if ever late with the rent.

Fixed, you incomprehensibly smug jackass.

Yes, because the local bishop's been scheming for years to screw the homeless.

You're right, it's an absurd assumption. Clearly he's been busy scheming for years on how to best molest the nation's children and avoid detection.

[DinoDoc]

This is starting to seem like a misleading thread title. The information I'm seeing is that the Church will continue to provide social and charitable services); it is only in cases where there is a contracted or licensed service that the District would adjudge the Church to be ineligible to provide those services on a contractual basis. If DC does not grant the exemptions that would be in keeping with the Catholic's tenets, the assumption is that the Church would no longer be eligible to be licensed or contracted to provide those services.

[Elok]

Fixed, you incomprehensibly smug jackass.

Hey, whatever it takes to irritate you

You're right, it's an absurd assumption. Clearly he's been busy scheming for years on how to best molest the nation's children and avoid detection.

...and the molested children grow up to be mentally imbalanced, drug-using homeless people, who in turn are taken care of by the church. See, he was cleaning up his own mess just fine until you queers forced his hand.

[DanS]

That's as I understand it, Dino.

[DinoDoc]

So it seems as if the City is the one banning the Church from providing social services.

[Zevico]

The Church is under contract to provide services, for which it receives government money. It wants to break the contract because the government introduced a new clause. What is wrong with this exactly?

[Asher]

How can the district retroactively change the terms of the contract by adding a clause? Is that what happened? If so, somebody cite it.

If the district just passed a law requiring something else independent of the contract, that's not the same thing. And in this case the church would be in breach of the contract.

[DanS]

But how many married gays work for the Church?

I doubt the church knows. Don't know that they ask, at least for these services. When dealing with services for kids, the background checks have become much stricter, of course.