Freedom for All

Well, in this case, there will be absolutely no pursue of such… ever!

Careful, George, you’ve just diagnosed a large portion of the population as being potential clients of yours. ::smile:

As Kade suggested, churches should have the right to ban employment or membership to anyone who is not in agreement with their doctrines. No one is forced to join a church. Would you expect the Girl Scouts to be forced to admit boys? There is reasonable “discrimination,” and unreasonable discrimination. Sane minds should be able to tell the difference.


I think it’s based on the OT and revelations from their prophets. I’m not totally sure on the details. Just seems like it might be an interesting case to be raised.

Business may have been slow lately…, so more insane people are needed… :smile:

Discrimination is not difficult to understand. Gender, color of skin, nationality, in my opinion are issues that may qualify under the discrimination word.
Now, efficiency, knowledge, experience, religion, level of education, may be requirements linked to the job itself that have nothing to do with discrimination.

I haven’t (have you?) ever seen the government forcing a non-Adventist to work in any church office. So this may be just another straw-men that deserves no further consideration.

Now, If a school (or even a Church) receives (accepts) money from tax payers of all religions and even atheists, then the scenario certainly changes, doesn’t it? Do we welcome the non-Adventists’ money but not the non-Adventists themselves? If so, I can’t think of something more hypocritical that this!

Also, what kind of damage would a Baptist, a Presbyterian, or even a Catholic person cause, for example, in a secretarial position, or librarian in a school? “Oh,… those people would be spying the remnants…” Sure!

When I attended the 7-Day BAPTIST Church here in Riverside, from 1990 to 1993, the Church’s secretary was a very fine ADVENTIST woman!!! Imagine, … she may have been spying there, eh?
I wonder what kind of secrets she could have stolen from the SDBC that would be of great use by her SDAC…

Then in 1994/1995 when I taught Bible at La Sierra Academy, her daughter was my student, actually she was my secretary student during that time. Well, the daughter was also an Adventist, so at that time I didn’t think she would be spying on me in my classes…


The law requires that the court applies “Strict Scrutiny” on matters of compelling government interests when dealing with religious organizations. Churches are given broad latitude when making hiring decisions, especially of clergy. The church may legally discriminate in hiring even in Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships (previously Faith Based and Community Initiatives).


Tax exemption is not receiving “money from tax payers of all religions.”

In the Bob Jones case, “The Government’s fundamental, overriding interest in eradicating racial discrimination” was found to outweigh the fact that “the sponsors of the University genuinely believe that the Bible forbids interracial dating and marriage.” It should be noted that Bob Jones, at the time of case, accepted students of any race, as long as the applicant was not party to an inter-racial marriage. In other words, they did not discriminate based on race, but based on religious belief (any applicant in a inter-racial marriage was denied, regardless of the race of the applicant).

This shows that the government has, in the past, held that “eradicating discrimination” overrules a religious institution’s right to affirm its religious beliefs in hiring/acceptance policies.

It has, and may in the future. Yes, there are no guarantees, but strict scrutiny is a very high legal bar.

It is mind boggling to me that there are so may “religious” people so comfortable defending discrimination of other human beings, be it based on race, on religion, or whatever else.

This is one thing I have great difficult to understand. Is the biblical Gospel inefficient to make people become fair and non-discriminatory against others, or do they have a completely flawed, distorted, and illegitimate understanding of the Gospel?

Sometimes I wonder what is their view of the Heavens, or the new earth. May they have some inner, hidden hopes that in the Eternity there will be no different skin colors? May some men be hoping desperately that there will be no women in Eternity?

If so, they should quit and choose not to enter into Eternity, because it could end up being a real hell for them having to live side by side with people who they despise. And for ever? That would be a true “eternal disaster” for them…


Whenever I hear a religious group argue for their right to discriminate I cringe. It is a visceral reaction brought on by years of working in a decidedly secular company that took diversity and discrimination very seriously. The company lived this value and officially refused to discriminate on the basis of Race, ethnicity, sex, age, religious belief, sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression I lived it and this value as well. It was one of my greatest source of pride working for that company.

I consider discrimination as being an intrinsic moral failure. When a catholic adoption agency decides to close instead of placing children in same-gender couples, it hurts. When the US Council of Bishops says that Catholic institutions can’t provide a birth control benefit to their employees, regardless of their beliefs, it hurts. If the SDA church fights against the marriage rights of LGBT people, it hurts. It hurts all of us.


I don’t know why some people keep insisting in wanting to go to Heaven, since it may become a miserable experience for them for being a place where there will be no room for discrimination. Well, then, again, if they keep defending and enjoying discrimination ghere, they may end up not having that eternal problem at all…

1 Like

I like the title - Freedom For All.

Freedom to do something does not then create a right to require others to participate/comply, as they have their own freedom.

So, does freedom for same-sex couples to get married allow for the freedom of ministers/celebrants who disagree to not perform said wedding?

Does freedom to obtain an abortion allow for the freedom of individual doctors not to participate (including not being forced to refer to another doctor as that is a form of participation)?

Freedom for me should not take away someone else’s freedom by forcing them to participate.


In the US, and elsewhere where their as same sex marriage laws AFAIK, there is no requirement for clergy to perform a wedding that is against their religious beliefs. As far as celebrants are concerned in the US, if they offer a public service, many jurisdictions do not allow them to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. This is not true of all jurisdictions. Only those who include sexual orientation in their public accommodations and services anti-discrimination acts.

I cannot comprehend how Christians can celebrate and cheer for the paganization of our society, and its mores, customs and laws. I suppose I should qualify that comment by apologizing to historical pagans, who, as far as I am aware, never sanctioned such an abomination as “same-sex marriage.”

Marriage is an institution that society recognizes and legally regulates because it provides for the orderly conception, birth, rearing, educating, and socializing of the next generation of people. Marriage is about having children and having a future for the society. It takes two persons of the opposite sex to do that, so society has no interest in providing a very expensive legal system for the regulation of a system of “marriage” for two people of the same sex.

But that’s just the purely atheistic explanation of the institution of marriage and why it is rationally restricted to persons of the opposite sex. The religious reason is that God created them male and female and told them to be fruitful and multiply. “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall join to his wife: and they shall be one flesh.”

To argue that this paganization of the culture will have only “a tangential effect on churches” is remarkably naive. Already we’re seeing that anyone who condemns homosexuality is being hounded out of any public sector or high-profile private sector employment. Lawsuits against the church will follow. The history of early Christianity in pagan Rome shows that the church does not exist in a pagan culture without being persecuted. History will repeat itself, as a neo-pagan America persecutes Bible-believing Christians.


On that we can agree, and I believe they made a big mistake when they started taking money from Big Brother. Not only did it show a lack of faith, it set the church up for future difficulties.


From an atheistic point of view, same sex “marriage” does not benefit the species. On the contrary, it interferes with the evolutionary process and should be eliminated.


Actually, George, there will have been a lot of discrimination on the part of the Godhead before anyone arrives in heaven. “Many are called, but few are chosen.”

Survival of humankind, or any animal for that matter does not require each individual to reproduce and never has. Evolution is actually driven by the principles that only some genes will be carried forward.

Quite ironic that you should use evolution to prop up your personal views since you have made it clear in the past that you don’t accept evolutionary science.

1 Like

Au contraire, mon frere! Would it not serve to clean and strengthen the species gene pool of humanity when all non-hetero persons are encouraged to couple among themselves rather than parenting children as happens so often when social norms enforce marriage between homosexuals and heterosexuals. You got some ‘spainin’ to do.

Trust the Process.


This fact has never stopped him before! lol