GAYS CONDEMN SALVATION ARMY

[epostle1]

GAYS CONDEMN SALVATION ARMY
The Salvation Army is under increasing attack from homosexual activists this Christmas season. The Christian organization is under fire for merely holding Christian beliefs on marriage and the family—it does not discriminate against anyone—and now the war has extended to a formal resolution by the Associated Students of the University of California at Berkeley calling for a ban of Salvation Army donation boxes on campus; university officials are considering the request. more here

 

[THE Gypsy]

From the article...

... The net result is that more of the needy will go without this Christmas season, thanks to the efforts of these homosexuals

Does the author really believe "the needy will go without" because gays do not give?

 

[epostle1]

No Gypsy, the author really believes the net result is that more of the needy will go without, if the gays are successful with their boycott.

here is the rest of the article continued from the OP:

An organized effort to boycott the Salvation Army is also under way. A gay website, watermarkonline.com, is asking its readers nationwide not to give to the charitable organization. Gays in Chicago have launched their own campaign to withhold donations. The net result is that more of the needy will go without this Christmas season, thanks to the efforts of these homosexuals.

Not only does the Salvation Army not discriminate in hiring, and in whom they serve, it does not lobby for any cause. Indeed, its only agenda is serving the dispossessed. Yet to those driven by a lust for power in the homosexual community, it makes sense to sacrifice the poor for the purpose of advancing their agenda.

It is too kind to say this is another example of political correctness: It is nothing less than an attempt to punish thought. This, of course, is one of the ugliest traits of the totalitarian mindset. That its intellectual home is the University of California, Berkeley, should surprise no one.
Please give to the Salvation Army this Christmas. Let them know we support their charitable goals, as well as their courage in standing up to bullies.

 

[Foreigner]

From the article...

... The net result is that more of the needy will go without this Christmas season, thanks to the efforts of these homosexuals

Does the author really believe "the needy will go without" because gays do not give?

-- Are you being intentionally obtuse?
The gay activists want to prevent them from being able to collect to provide for the poor and the needy simply because they do not agree with their position.

And, as Kepha points out, they are trying to take this boycott nationwide.

Yet - somehow - people here still argue that it is the Christians that are being unreasonable about homosexuality...

 

[Selene]

-- Are you being intentionally obtuse?
The gay activists want to prevent them from being able to collect to provide for the poor and the needy simply because they do not agree with their position.

And, as Kepha points out, they are trying to take this boycott nationwide.

Yet - somehow - people here still argue that it is the Christians that are being unreasonable about homosexuality...

You and I are in agreement. The gay activists have an agenda. Their agenda is to force people to accept their lifestyle as normal. And they don't seem to care who suffers for it so long as they meet their goal.

 

[THE Gypsy]

No Gypsy, the author really believes the net result is that more of the needy will go without, if the gays are successful with their boycott.

here is the rest of the article continued from the OP:


An organized effort to boycott the Salvation Army is also under way. A gay website, watermarkonline.com, is asking its readers nationwide not to give to the charitable organization. Gays in Chicago have launched their own campaign to withhold donations. The net result is that more of the needy will go without this Christmas season, thanks to the efforts of these homosexuals.

Not only does the Salvation Army not discriminate in hiring, and in whom they serve, it does not lobby for any cause. Indeed, its only agenda is serving the dispossessed. Yet to those driven by a lust for power in the homosexual community, it makes sense to sacrifice the poor for the purpose of advancing their agenda.

It is too kind to say this is another example of political correctness: It is nothing less than an attempt to punish thought. This, of course, is one of the ugliest traits of the totalitarian mindset. That its intellectual home is the University of California, Berkeley, should surprise no one.
Please give to the Salvation Army this Christmas. Let them know we support their charitable goals, as well as their courage in standing up to bullies.

Not only did I read the article you posted in its entirety, I looked up the article it was referring to. Did you? Did you read what the basis for the article you posted?

-- Are you being intentionally obtuse?
The gay activists want to prevent them from being able to collect to provide for the poor and the needy simply because they do not agree with their position.

And, as Kepha points out, they are trying to take this boycott nationwide.

Yet - somehow - people here still argue that it is the Christians that are being unreasonable about homosexuality...

That's not at all what the referenced article said. You would be wise to do some research.

 

[Foreigner]

That's not at all what the referenced article said. You would be wise to do some research.

Actually, yes that is what it said.

From the article itself:
"An organized effort to boycott the Salvation Army is also under way. A gay website, watermarkonline.com, is asking its readers nationwide not to give to the charitable organization. Gays in Chicago have launched their own campaign to withhold donations."

Try again Gypsy...

 

[THE Gypsy]

Actually, yes that is what it said.

From the article itself:
"An organized effort to boycott the Salvation Army is also under way. A gay website, watermarkonline.com, is asking its readers nationwide not to give to the charitable organization. Gays in Chicago have launched their own campaign to withhold donations."

Try again Gypsy...

No it isn't.

Um...If you're going to TRY to carry on a conversation it is time for you to pay attention...the key word was REFERENCED article...you know...the one the OP article mentioned but didn't link to....Perhaps YOU would like to "try again".

 

[Foreigner]

No it isn't.

Um...If you're going to TRY to carry on a conversation it is time for you to pay attention...the key word was REFERENCED article...you know...the one the OP article mentioned but didn't link to....Perhaps YOU would like to "try again".

-- Gypsy, you are a trip.
I quoted the referenced article...word for word.

I guess I shouldn't expect so much from someone whose "comprehension" leads them to ask, "Does the author really believe "the needy will go without" because gays do not give?"

 

[THE Gypsy]

-- Gypsy, you are a trip.
I quoted the referenced article...word for word.

I guess I shouldn't expect so much from someone whose "comprehension" leads them to ask, "Does the author really believe "the needy will go without" because gays do not give?"

No, you did not. You quoted the OPINION in the article that was posted in the OP.

I'll try one more time...

The article in the OP is an opinion piece, from the Catholic League, based on a blog from ANOTHER site. Now...I went to the OTHER site to see what was ACTUALLY said because unlike you, I don't form opinions on hearsay. I will not post the link from the ORIGINAL source because I'm not sure the Admin Team here would appreciate being linked to a gay site. Frankly, I'm surprised they managed to find it. It's on a gay site and not front, center and in your face. It's a little box, close to the bottom of the page, which links to a blog.

SO...If you wish to have an intelligent conversation about this issue I would suggest you do the same. Otherwise, you're free to go back to your sandbox.

 

[Foreigner]

Frankly, I'm surprised they managed to find it. It's on a gay site and not front, center and in your face. It's a little box, close to the bottom of the page, which links to a blog.

Ahem...
Right there on the front page of the web site:



It shows it both at the very top of the web site and far below in the blog section.

I had gone to the web site and I did click on the additional link within the article.
They want to take it further than just boycotting the bell ringers.

It says it right there in the article itself.
The very end of the article itself says:
"If you agree, and you wish to do more than simply withhold your change from the shiny red buckets, then download and and print out your bell-ringer “donations” stating why you do not support The Salvation Army."

Translations: Why they do not support the Salvation Army as a whole.
You do this in order to show others why they too should support the Salvation Army AS A WHOLE.

In other words: Call for a boycott.

Perhaps you could see that if you weren't looking down from your high horse... (boy, it is kind of fun coming down to your level).




.

 

[THE Gypsy]

Ahem...
Right there on the front page of the web site:

[img=http://watermarkonline.com/images/stories/showcase/BoycottTheBellringersDouble.png]

It shows it both at the very top of the web site and far below in the blog section.

I had gone to the web site and I did click on the additional link within the article.
They want to take it further than just boycotting the bell ringers.

It says it right there in the article itself.
The very end of the article itself says:
"If you agree, and you wish to do more than simply withhold your change from the shiny red buckets, then download and and print out your bell-ringer “donations” stating why you do not support The Salvation Army."

Translations: Why they do not support the Salvation Army as a whole.
You do this in order to show others why they too should support the Salvation Army AS A WHOLE.

In other words: Call for a boycott.

Perhaps you could see that if you weren't looking down from your high horse... (boy, it is kind of fun coming down to your level).




.

Hmmm...I see...Red herring time, eh? Who said it wasn't a boycott?

The website is a gay website...you know...directed to gays. My original question still stands. Does anyone really believe the "needy will go without" simply because gays are not giving to the Salvation Army? Here's a news flash...this is not the first year they have done this and it hasn't hurt so far.

The article did not "condemn the Salvation Army" as the OP says. It is much ado about nothing. They simply stated their opinion on the Salvation Army. And when one of their higher ups says gays deserve to die, I can't say that I blame them.

The article was well written. Displayed no vile and, while I may not see it the same way they do, from their perspective I can certainly understand.

Bottom line...the same rights that protect you to say the things you do also protect them. You can't have it both ways

Oh...BTW...I know what you mean about those gays dropping notes in the bucket to explain why they aren't giving money. HOW vile and disruptive to society!!! We should send in the National Guard to establish law and order don't ya think?!?!?!

 

[Foreigner]

"No, you did not. You quoted the OPINION in the article that was posted in the OP." - Gypsy

- Those are your words. I didn't quote the opinion. I quoted what the article called for. Cut and paste. Word for word. It really IS that simple.


"The article did not "condemn the Salvation Army" as the OP says." - Gypsy

-- Yes, the article did. It actually LISTS BULLET POINTS as to what it feels the Salvation Army is doing wrong.
It then states, "Regardless of the tactful phrasing, the message is clear: The Salvation Army does not support LGBT rights."

And then it states:

"The upshot is that The Salvation Army apparently does not discriminate against gay individuals when it comes to direct services, but holds a long-standing, organization-wide contempt for regulations that require charities to adhere to policies that fight anti-gay discrimination. That stance arguably is more problematic than blatantly homophobic groups because it allows The Salvation Army to publicly announce, “We help anyone!” while collecting money from unsuspecting generous folks which it can then privately, quietly use to advance anti-LGBT efforts."

Sure SOUNDS like they chose to "condemn the Salvation Army."

But maybe I just read it wrong




.

 

[THE Gypsy]

"No, you did not. You quoted the OPINION in the article that was posted in the OP." - Gypsy

- Those are your words. I didn't quote the opinion. I quoted what the article called for. Cut and paste. Word for word. It really IS that simple.


.

Yes, you did "quote the opinion" as we'll as "cut and paste". You quoted from the Catholic league article, which is the authors opinion. NOT the article from the gay site, which is what was actually said. And, yes, you are correct...It really IS that simple.

"The article did not "condemn the Salvation Army" as the OP says." - Gypsy

-- Yes, the article did. It actually LISTS BULLET POINTS as to what it feels the Salvation Army is doing wrong.
It then states, "Regardless of the tactful phrasing, the message is clear: The Salvation Army does not support LGBT rights."


.

No. It did not. The author expresed the reason behind his call for a boycott. One can hardly call for a boycott without stating a reason.

And then it states:

"The upshot is that The Salvation Army apparently does not discriminate against gay individuals when it comes to direct services, but holds a long-standing, organization-wide contempt for regulations that require charities to adhere to policies that fight anti-gay discrimination. That stance arguably is more problematic than blatantly homophobic groups because it allows The Salvation Army to publicly announce, “We help anyone!” while collecting money from unsuspecting generous folks which it can then privately, quietly use to advance anti-LGBT efforts."


.

Wasn't is nice of them to acknowledge the fact that the Salvation Army does "NOT discriminate against gay individuals"?

And your "bolded" line is not condemnation. It is a statement of fact. Like I said before...one of the head guys within the organization said "gays deserve death".

Do YOU not get upset when Muslims say Christians "deserve death"? Would/do you not speak out against them? Or is it only when Christians are being bashed that the rules apply?

Sure SOUNDS like they chose to "condemn the Salvation Army."

But maybe I just read it wrong


.

You did.

 

[Foreigner]

No. It did not. The author expresed the reason behind his call for a boycott. One can hardly call for a boycott without stating a reason. - Gypsy

-- And why exactly would one call for a boycott of an organization if it were not to "condemn" a specific stance or practice? You really need to either learn how to use symantics or quit trying.



Wasn't is nice of them to acknowledge the fact that the Salvation Army does "NOT discriminate against gay individuals"? - Gypsy

-- Wasn't it nice of them to condemn the Salvation Army by describing their stance as "contempt?"



And your "bolded" line is not condemnation. It is a statement of fact. Like I said before...one of the head guys within the organization said "gays deserve death". - Gypsy

-- When they use the phrase "contempt for regulations" to describe a Salvation Army position instead of a more commonly used and neutral "oppose regulations," there is no way - at least for an impartial person - to say it isn't a condemnation. And how nice it is for people to make unsubstantiated accusations such as "one of the head guys" said "gays deserve death." No way to prove it is true, but still people want to run with it as fact. Telling...very telling....



Do YOU not get upset when Muslims say Christians "deserve death"? Would/do you not speak out against them? Or is it only when Christians are being bashed that the rules apply? - Gypsy

-- I get upset when anyone says anyone else "deserves death." But I also get upset when people make unsubstantiated claims about somethiing "someone" allegedly said in order to try to make a point. It shows they are failing in their attempt to support their position so they have to expand the discussion in order to obfuscate.

 

[THE Gypsy]

There is no "allegedly" about it. He said it. The Salvation Army officially distanced themselves from the comments. Like I said...Do a little research, Sparky.

 

[Selene]

Some pro-family groups boycotting Target stores this Christmas seasons for banning Salvation Army Kettle ringers suspect the chain’s decision was influenced by homosexual activist groups.
Target announced in a January statement it would no longer make an exception to its no-solicitation policy for the Salvation Army, which depended on Target locations for collecting around 10% of the total donations --$93 million-- earned through its annual Red Kettle drive. The statement said Target wanted to avoid discrimination against other groups.

But pro-family groups aren’t buying the company’s explanation. Instead, they charge the company for caving into homosexual activist groups’ long-standing campaign against the Army’s presence in front of retail stores such as Target.

In a press release announcing its call for a boycott on Target stores, Illinois Family Institute pointed to comments made by Rick Garcia, director of the homosexual lobby group Equality Illinois, on WYLL's The Walsh Forum radio program that homosexual activists have pressured Target to stop supporting The Salvation Army.
After Garcia admitted in a response letter that he has long protested and even demonstrated against The Salvation Army, Peter LaBarbera of IFI wrote an editorial adding how “vicious” the homosexual attacks on Salvation Army have been.

LaBarbera said homosexual militants in Minneapolis, where Target is based, mocked the Salvation Army by attempting to raise funds for homosexual causes using bell-ringers under the name “Celebration Army.” He also referred to an annual protest against the Army by some chapters of the homosexual group Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and involved putting fake dollar bills in the kettle.

http://global.christianpost.com/news/pro-family-groups-suspect-homosexual-activists-behind-target-s-salvation-army-ban-20797/

The gay activists has an agenda, and their agenda is not a positive one.

 

[Foreigner]

http://chalcedon.edu/research/articles/gay-activists-threaten-violence/There is no "allegedly" about it. He said it. The Salvation Army officially distanced themselves from the comments. Like I said...Do a little research, Sparky.

-- I already know about it "Sparky." Was hoping you would be mature enough to support your claims with proof. Of course, no such luck.
It was a Salvation Army official in AUSTRALIA that was immediately renounced by everyone else within the Salvation Army in Australia and the rest of the world.

Hate to break it to you, but worldwide there have been several more instances of gays and gay activists calling for violence and even assasination against those who do not support their agenda.

http://chalcedon.edu/research/articles/gay-activists-threaten-violence/

This ^ ^ ^ ^ 'gay activist' called for a sniper to murder the president of 'Americans for Truth' and even published that person's home address on her blog.

But because one idiotic official within a huge worldwide organization for good like the Salvation Army says a comment like that, you feel it justifies gays boycotting the Salvation Army. LOL Priceless.....

What is truly surprising is that if you want to use your standard, then they gay community can be criticized as a whole and has earned several times over more scorn, ridicule, and the need to be boycotted than the Salvation Army.

Smooth move, 'Sparky.'

 

[teamventure]

Gypsy, are you a homosexual?

 

[biggandyy]

Ok, this thread is locked. Calm down and visit the Say Something Nice about BiggAndyy Someone Thread.