First The Nfl, Now Disney...

[thesometimesaint]

I was taking issue with your phrasing specifically. With respect I hope!

 

You yourself have pointed out that the scriptures on many occasions err. I'm surprised to see you make a "because the scriptures said so" argument. 

 

I do hope you understand that I do respect not only you as a person, and give respectful response to your idea's even when we disagree.

 

I think we all do that to a greater or lesser extent. But you do err if you think I don't fully support/defend the truth claims of the Church. It is ALL about willingly submitting our will to the will of our Father in Heaven. Something Satan and his minions will never do.

[Gray]

I do hope you understand that I do respect not only you as a person, and give respectful response to your idea's even when we disagree.

 

I think we all do that to a greater or lesser extent. But you do err if you think I don't fully support/defend the truth claims of the Church. It is ALL about willingly submitting our will to the will of our Father in Heaven. Something Satan and his minions will never do.

 

Thanks, your respect is appreciated and reciprocated.

 

If God had wanted us to blindly obey he could have compelled us to do so. Obedience per se is not an intrinsic good but only instrumentally good. The important thing is never mere obedience but rather coming to the right conclusions via our own moral reasoning, and then choosing to behave ethically. That's how I see it.

[thesometimesaint]

Thanks, your respect is appreciated and reciprocated.

 

If God had wanted us to blindly obey he could have compelled us to do so. Obedience per se is not an intrinsic good but only instrumentally good. The important thing is never mere obedience but rather coming to the right conclusions via our own moral reasoning, and then choosing to behave ethically. That's how I see it.

 

I've never believed in blind obedience. My mom was an school teacher most of her adult life, and my dad was in the military most of his adult life. So my mule headed stubbornness is well earned  . So I agree.

[california boy]

Because I do not ask them to change any of their behavior or exclude any of their family members (even those I disagree with) in order for them to associate or interact with me.

While I hope for change within LDS culture, and that is one of my primary purposes in posting here, I do not ask my family to change anything about their relationships. I allow they and the exercise of their religion into my life fully, without any immediate change.

That's the difference. My boyfriend is excluded. In order to attend family functions, I must choose between attending alone and leaving him at home, or staying away, myself.

My beliefs require no such sacrifice from my family. They pray in my presence. I participate. They worship as a family. I attend alongside them. I associate openly and freely with every member of their families, and all are welcome in my home.

Yet my boyfriend cannot even appear in front of them and their families without angry outbursts and causing either they or I to leave.

No. I do not buy the argument that my beliefs are a stumbling block from fully accepting them or their relationships in even a fraction of the way that their beliefs are a stumbling block to accepting me and mine.

 

I only wish that my family was as accepting as yours.  Not only is my boyfriend excluded from all family dinners/reunions/missionary farewells/ etc, but so am I.  I haven't been invited to any of these activities since I came out.  My father (who has become much more accepting of the issue lately and has actually met my boyfriend) told me that some family members are just uncomfortable with me being there.  And until EVERYONE in the family is comfortable with inviting me, then I won't be invited.  I have had a few family members reach out to me lately.  A good sign.  Oh well, it does clear up my calendar a bit. lol.

 

The truth is, I do understand.  I realize how difficult it was for me to accept the fact that I would always be gay.  If it is not easy for me to deal with, how can it possible be easy for them.  After all, it has only been a decade and a half.  

 

Right after I came out, and was excommunicated, one of the high counselors that was on my court called me and asked if he could have lunch with me.  I readily agreed and we met about a week later.  He told me that his brother came out to his family 27 years ago.  Lately he has been having regrets about how the family dealt with that situation and wish they had been more inclusive over those years.  So I guess I am only about half way through this kind of treatment by my family.  The thing I miss the most is the loss of never really knowing my nieces and nephews.  I am a complete stranger to them.  

[california boy]

 

There is nothing nefarious about yearning for acceptance. Trying to coerce acceptance is a different matter.  The “gay agenda” used to be all about “live and let live” and “what two adults do in private …”  Now its “if you want to stay in business, you must facilitate and even participate in private events which you believe make a mockery of that which you hold sacred.  Otherwise, give up the business you have spent a lifetime building (along with your financial security).”  So much for “live and let live” and “acceptance.”  

 

 BTW, since legal and financial troubles cause considerable marital stress, so much for the argument that legalization of “gay marriage” will not affect anyone else’s marriage.

 

 

When I read a post like this, I see a person so desperate to justify his attitudes towards gays that he is willing to project into situations in order to make things work for his attitudes.

 

The lawsuits against the bakery and photographer were in violation of state laws requiring businesses to not discriminate.  It was not "the gay agenda" that wrote those discrimination laws, it was state government.  It was gay couples requiring those businesses to live by state laws put in place on condition of obtaining a business license.

 

And tying it to gay marriage was even more of a stretch, since you make the argument that somehow gay marriage will cause damage when in ALL of these cases, the state that the lawsuit was brought did not accept gay marriage at the time.

 

So your arguments rely on two very false assertions.  Yet they were necessary in order for you to write a post against gays getting equal treatment under the law and to give you an excuse to be against gay marriage.  Somehow I think you probably already knew this, yet made the post anyway hoping that no one would call you on it.  It is not like both of these facts are now widely known.

[Tacenda]

I only wish that my family was as accepting as yours. Not only is my boyfriend excluded from all family dinners/reunions/missionary farewells/ etc, but so am I. I haven't been invited to any of these activities since I came out. My father (who has become much more accepting of the issue lately and has actually met my boyfriend) told me that some family members are just uncomfortable with me being there. And until EVERYONE in the family is comfortable with inviting me, then I won't be invited. I have had a few family members reach out to me lately. A good sign. Oh well, it does clear up my calendar a bit. lol.

The truth is, I do understand. I realize how difficult it was for me to accept the fact that I would always be gay. If it is not easy for me to deal with, how can it possible be easy for them. After all, it has only been a decade and a half.

Right after I came out, and was excommunicated, one of the high counselors that was on my court called me and asked if he could have lunch with me. I readily agreed and we met about a week later. He told me that his brother came out to his family 27 years ago. Lately he has been having regrets about how the family dealt with that situation and wish they had been more inclusive over those years. So I guess I am only about half way through this kind of treatment by my family. The thing I miss the most is the loss of never really knowing my nieces and nephews. I am a complete stranger to them.

This breaks my heart for you and them. They're really not seeing the big picture and have missed out, and missed the point.

[Sleeper Cell]

When I read a post like this, I see a person so desperate to justify his attitudes towards gays that he is willing to project into situations in order to make things work for his attitudes.

 

The lawsuits against the bakery and photographer were in violation of state laws requiring businesses to not discriminate.  It was not "the gay agenda" that wrote those discrimination laws, it was state government.  It was gay couples requiring those businesses to live by state laws put in place on condition of obtaining a business license.

 

And tying it to gay marriage was even more of a stretch, since you make the argument that somehow gay marriage will cause damage when in ALL of these cases, the state that the lawsuit was brought did not accept gay marriage at the time.

 

So your arguments rely on two very false assertions.  Yet they were necessary in order for you to write a post against gays getting equal treatment under the law and to give you an excuse to be against gay marriage.  Somehow I think you probably already knew this, yet made the post anyway hoping that no one would call you on it.  It is not like both of these facts are now widely known.

 

 

When I read a post like this, I see a person whom the mods have placed on limited status.

 

A stretch? As compared to "stretching” the definition of marriage beyond anything ever contemplated by any civilization in history until a few years ago?  This includes those societies which accepted gay relationships and even those which encouraged and recognized gay unions.

 

A stretch?  As compared to “stretching” the meaning of the “equal protection clause” of the 14th amendment to cover a scenario, which, at the time it was passed, was considered impossible by definition?. 

 

A stretch?  As compared to relabeling  “gay marriage” as “marriage equality,” by those who do not really support marriage between any two consenting adults?   Do you, yourself, believe that brothers should be allowed  to marry their sisters, or that a father should be allowed to marry his daughter or a mother allowed to marry her son?  If not, how can you say that you, yourself, believe in “marriage equality?”  

[Daniel2]

A stretch? As compared to “stretching” the meaning of the “equal protection clause” of the 14th amendment to cover a scenario, which, at the time it was passed, was considered impossible by definition?.

I see nothing wrong with the concept that the equal protection clause has been applied to many scenarios which, at the time it was passed, were considered impossible by definition.

Equal civil marriage recognition is only one such example. Prior to the time the amendment was written, several definitions were also ultimately contested. Black slaves were "defined" as "property," and were entirely excluded from the legal "definition" of "personhood" and "citizen." Definitions prohibited ownership and voting rights. Contesting "definitions" were the entire point of the amendment, and there was just as much contention over those changes as there are, today--in fact, arguably even more. Appeals to tradition ultimately have proved unsustainable and uncompelling in both cases.

A stretch? As compared to relabeling “gay marriage” as “marriage equality,” by those who do not really support marriage between any two consenting adults? Do you, yourself, believe that brothers should be allowed to marry their sisters, or that a father should be allowed to marry his daughter or a mother allowed to marry her son? If not, how can you say that you, yourself, believe in “marriage equality?”

I believe two consenting adults should have the right to marry one another. Although I would not personally choose the types of marriage you listed, I can see no legal justification as to why the government should be able to prohibit them.

"Removing government prohibitions" of certain behaviors, or having government licensing and regulation of such activities, is not the same thing as "supporting" them. There are many activities which I may not support, yet which are legal, including many that are regulated and/or licensed by the state.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

For years, members on these boards have suggested that as homosexuality becomes more socially accepted, organizations like the BSA and the LDS Faith will experience increasing social pressure to change.

The NFL'S pressure in Arizona was one such example that echoed the pressure that BYU football experienced over the church's racial policies of the 70's. And likely foreshadowed what is to come, regarding its policies on gays and lesbians.

Now, after its recent first lesbian couple in prime time kids' programming, Disney has joined the growing number of corporations that have entered the fray against the BSA:

The world is changing fast. I figured it's worth a head's up that, IMO, this is the type of pressure that will ultimately change the LDS Faith, as well.

Daniel,me hat is lacking is the historical. The things you cite, having commonality with issues of race,mod not extend to any group, other than the three "races" of mankind. When it comes to "races" (especially within the scope of our laws), each must be afforded the same rights, because "all men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights". Comparing SSM to rights that can and must be afforded to all races, is in error. Homosexuals are not a race of people, but unknown number and definition. Even if homosexuals could pro-create they cannot procreate their own, nor on their own. I live in the South, where there are large numbers of African Americans, I have worked with and attended Church all my like with them...my best friend living is African American, I have members of my extended family who are Black. So I have many opportunities to discuss this issue with them. With only one exception, most feel that SSM, being aquatinted with the Civil Rights movement, cheapens the struggle that Blacks have faced for hundreds of years. You are right the world is changing fast...but this not mean that we should run faster than we can run, nor refuse to stop and look back to see where we come from, lest we do something that will cause harm. I understand you problem and concerns, because they are same as one of my own children. My fear is that we are no longer willing to agree to disagree (the one thing that in many ways makes America such a wonder)...but we are heading headlong of a cliff, where it has become; "agree with me or I will punish you". When that day comes; when this is how we deal with those whom we disagree...then our Nation will perish...not due to this issue, but once this tactic has worked, it will be extended to all issues.

[thesometimesaint]

Daniel,me hat is lacking is the historical. The things you cite, having commonality with issues of race,mod not extend to any group, other than the three "races" of mankind. When it comes to "races" (especially within the scope of our laws), each must be afforded the same rights, because "all men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights". Comparing SSM to rights that can and must be afforded to all races, is in error. Homosexuals are not a race of people, but unknown number and definition. Even if homosexuals could pro-create they cannot procreate their own, nor on their own. I live in the South, where there are large numbers of African Americans, I have worked with and attended Church all my like with them...my best friend living is African American, I have members of my extended family who are Black. So I have many opportunities to discuss this issue with them. With only one exception, most feel that SSM, being aquatinted with the Civil Rights movement, cheapens the struggle that Blacks have faced for hundreds of years. You are right the world is changing fast...but this not mean that we should run faster than we can run, nor refuse to stop and look back to see where we come from, lest we do something that will cause harm. I understand you problem and concerns, because they are same as one of my own children. My fear is that we are no longer willing to agree to disagree (the one thing that in many ways makes America such a wonder)...but we are heading headlong of a cliff, where it has become; "agree with me or I will punish you". When that day comes; when this is how we deal with those whom we disagree...then our Nation will perish...not due to this issue, but once this tactic has worked, it will be extended to all issues.

 

Race is a sociopolitical word, and has no relevance to realty. The is only one race of people. The human race.

 

We in the US are governed the Constitution, not the Declaration of Independence.

 

In this country adults have a right to marriage.

 

True homosexuals are not a race of people. But that is not relevant to the law which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

 

Between 1&1/2 to 2% of the population is homosexual. The definition of homosexuality is someone whom has sex with member of the same sex.

 

So have I and I've undoubtedly worked side by side with homosexuals. So what?

 

Homosexuals have had the same fight for thousands of years. I don't see where the length of the struggle for fair treatment is a factor.

[Daniel2]

As anticipated, here's the type of story that we'll likely hear in increasing numbers regarding scouting...

Eagle Scout to be forced out after BSA ban on gay leaders

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/gay-eagle-scout-to-be-forced-out-following-boy-scouts-of-america-ban-policy-257880401.html?tab=video&c=y&mobile=y

By Kara Kostanich

May 4, 2014

SEATTLE - Twin brothers Liam and August Easton-Calabria earned the coveted Eagle Scout Award on Sunday. Liam, however, will soon be forced to leave the organization as a Boy Scouts of America policy only allows gay youth - not adults - to participate. 

 

The twins are seniors at Nathan Hale High School, and have been boy scouts since they were 11 years old.

 

"I'd like to say that scouting has provided numerous opportunities to get out of your comfort zone," Liam said.

 

And while the pair is identical right down to their twenty-two merit badges, they're also very different. Liam is gay, and August is straight.

 

"I was elected senior patrol leader around the time I came out to my high school," Liam said. 

 

Last May the Boy Scouts of America held a controversial vote that allows gay youth, but not adults, to participate in the organization.

 

"It was an interesting revelation to see the Boy Scouts come together as a non-inclusive organization," Liam said. "I don't think it's true to the scouting way. I mean, absolutely, scouting should be an inclusive organization."

 

In April, Boy Scouts of America pulled the charter from Rainer Beach United Methodist Church in Seattle because their scoutmaster, Geoff McGrath, is openly gay.

 

"It's a really frustrating situation, but I think the more conversations we have the better chance we have of getting it overturned. So props to Geoff McGrath," Liam said.

 

Liam's sexual orientation has never affected his standing in the Scouts, but on his twenty-first birthday, when he completes his commitment to BSA's Venture Crew, he will no longer be allowed to participate with the Boy Scouts of America. 

 

Some of the twin's best memories are those spent with their father who was also a scout. The pair also say past camping, kayaking and hiking trips with their troop are memories they'll never forget.

 

Memories Liam says he wants someday with is own children.

 

"It's really, really important to me, and I'm going to do as much as I can, to see my children in scouting with me involved," Liam said.

 

Jack Calabria, the boy's father, says the policy is disappointing because he had a wonderful experience participating in scouts with his sons.

 

KOMO News reached out to the Boy Scouts of America for comment, but did not hear back.

[Daniel2]

The New York Times weighs in...

Compromise on Gays Pleases No One, Scouts Are Learning

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/05/09/us/compromise-on-gays-pleases-no-one-scouts-are-learning.html?_r=1&referrer=

Pascal Tessier, a gay Eagle Scout, says Scouting taught him important lessons. But he opposes the organization’s policy on gays.

DREW ANGERER FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES

By KIRK JOHNSON

May 8, 2014

SEATTLE — Pascal Tessier is a 17-year-old Eagle Scout in suburban Maryland who says scouting made him who he is today, with its lessons about morality, leadership and responsibility. And those very strengths, this openly gay high school senior said, are what compel and equip him to fight back now against Scout policies on gays that he believes are wrong.

After long, anxious debate, the Boy Scouts’ national board voted a year ago to allow openly gay youths to participate in scouting, while continuing to exclude gay leaders age 18 and over. It was promoted as a compromise intended to offer the organization time to figure out how to proceed.

Instead, it has brought the Scouts only more ire from all directions and produced a house divided.

The awkwardness of the compromise — don’t-ask-don’t-tell silence on the one hand, and a supposedly welcoming embrace on the other, with an 18th birthday dividing the two — has emboldened gay scouts like Pascal to step forward with passionate editorials and online petitions.

From left, the Rev. Monica Corsaro of Seattle; Kevin Reed; and the sons Mr. Reed adopted with his husband, Angel Arvizu and Adrian Benitez. Angel and Adrian are members of the Scout troop that Ms. Corsaro’s church lost its charter for because it refused to dismiss its gay leader.

DAVID RYDER FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES

Conservative critics have been no less vehement. Rob Schwarzwalder, a senior vice president at the Family Research Council, a Washington-based group, said: “Judeo-Christian sexual ethics are fixed. Dislike or reject them, if you wish, but they are not malleable. How can two boys both pledge to be ‘morally straight’ when they operate out of two different moral perspectives concerning human sexuality?”

The partial ban is also proving legally problematic with two distinct classes of members treated differently.

In California, for example, state judges could be barred from involvement with the Boy Scouts under a proposed change of the rules on judicial ethics, which bar participation in groups practicing “invidious discrimination” but currently exempts “nonprofit youth organizations,” like the Scouts.

In Louisville, Ky., the county attorney, in an opinion last month, said the city could no longer make contributions to the Boy Scouts because the organization violated the city’s antidiscrimination policy.

Video | Indecision on Gays for the Boy Scouts Parents like Kelly Williamson say the Boy Scouts of America should stick to traditions and keep out gay scout leaders, while others like Jon Langbert want the Scouts to embrace diversity.

And of the dozen or so major corporations and foundations, from Alcoa to Intel, that dropped funding for the Scouts last year under pressure from gay advocacy groups like the Human Rights Campaign, none have reopened wallets under the new policy, a Human Rights Campaign spokesman said.

A spokesman for the Boy Scouts, Deron Smith, said the organization had no count of how many churches or other organizations opposed to gay membership may have left after last year’s vote, or of how many gays might have joined. Nationally, he said, the Scouts lost 6 percent of their total membership in 2013, falling to about 2.5 million youth members and 960,000 adult members. The Scouts lost 4 percent of their membership in 2012, before the vote.

“Our membership policy is that we do not ask people about their sexual orientation, and it’s not an issue until they deliberately inject it into scouting in an inappropriate fashion,” Mr. Smith said in an email. “Nor do we act on hearsay, allegations of belief or reports of past activities.”

But what is clear, many scouts, leaders and parents around the nation said, is that the discussion itself has shifted, as openly gay scout leaders stay in, or try to; straight scouts speak up for their gay parents; and straight parents speak up for gay friends.

“We all believe that it’s going to be a — gosh, I hate to say infiltration — but basically recruiting more people to take leadership positions that believe that this policy is wrong,” said Cate Readling, a straight mother of twin Cub Scouts in Oak Park, Ill., just outside Chicago.

A friend of her sons’ in another Scout pack — 8-year-old Jordan Arnold-Anderson, whose mother, Mary Anderson, is a lesbian — has taken a different approach. On his own, Ms. Anderson said, Jordan went door to door in his neighborhood last fall, asking neighbors and friends to donate directly to his pack, so that none of the money would go to Boy Scout headquarters.

“I don’t want money to go the B.S.A. because they have discriminatory policies against my mom,” Jordan told the neighbors, his mother said. In liberal, affluent Oak Park, that approach worked: Jordan raised $200.

What it means to “deliberately inject” homosexuality into scouting is another question opened by the new policy. And it leads, people on both sides of the issue said, to Geoffrey McGrath and the Rainier Beach United Methodist Church here in Seattle.

Mr. McGrath, a 49-year-old gay, married software engineer and an Eagle Scout, was the scoutmaster of Troop 98, formed last year at the small, 108-year-old church in a racially diverse, mixed-income neighborhood south of downtown.

Church leaders knew that Mr. McGrath was gay. The committee leader at the local Scout Council that oversees the troop said he knew, as well. Mr. McGrath even went so far, in a nod to making the new troop welcoming of gays, to give it a number important to gay advocates: 98, the year that Matthew Shepard, a young gay man in Wyoming, was beaten to death.

But after Mr. McGrath spoke about his homosexuality in a television news profile of the troop in March, that quietly shared knowledge became public, and an order came from Scouts headquarters in Irving, Tex., demanding his dismissal. The church refused to comply, and just before Easter, its charter to have a troop was revoked.

“We were a reconciling church before he got here,” said the pastor, the Rev. Monica Corsaro, referring to the United Methodist movement specifically aimed at gay and lesbian inclusion. “We’re not going to change that.”

What hangs over the Boy Scouts in all its discussions about leaders — how to pick, train and monitor them — is the specter of the past, when some sexual predators were able to use scouting to gain access to victims. Mr. Smith, the Scouts spokesman, said the organization makes “no connection between the sexual abuse, or victimization of a child, and homosexuality.” Still, there is no question that scouting’s detailed rules on “youth protection” are mostly about heading off inappropriate sexual behavior.

But the new approach since last year’s vote, with what amounts to essentially a code of silence about homosexuality, with little to no guidance in the training materials on how to incorporate gay scouts into a troop or to discourage bullying of a gay scout, sends the wrong message, said Pascal’s mother, Tracie Felker.

“If you connect the dots, it’s still saying that being gay is unacceptable,” she said.

Mr. Smith said Pascal’s Eagle Scout status was an honor for life, whatever his age. “We would not revoke it,” he said.

Pascal said he planned, for now at least, to study psychology at the College of Wooster in Ohio beginning this fall, with the idea of becoming a counselor for adolescents and applying some of the lessons he took from scouting.

“They gave me all the good morals that I have,” he said. “How to value people, how to value their ideas.”

Correction: May 8, 2014

An earlier version of this article gave an incorrect home town for the families of Cate Readling and Mary Anderson. They live in Oak Park, Ill., not Oa

[Daniel2]

This news item is, I think, an issue that will eventually reach BYU.

I believe this is the type of issue that will cause further social discomfort with the exclusion of gays and lesbians. Expelling students because they get married will likely feel wrong and invasive to an increasing number of people, both inside and outside the church.

Student: Expelled from college after gay marriage

http://news.yahoo.com/student-expelled-college-gay-marriage-001243061.html

Associated Press By KEN MILLER 19 hours ago

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — A woman said Monday that she was expelled from a private, Christian college in suburban Oklahoma City because she married her same-sex partner.

Christian Minard, 22, said she received a letter last week from Southwestern Christian University notifying her of the expulsion after returning from her honeymoon in Las Vegas. Minard said she did not know how the university learned of her March 17 marriage in Albuquerque, New Mexico, though she did say she posted her marriage license on Facebook.

"I'm not friends with anyone from my university. And there have been pictures of us because we've been in relationship for 3½ years, and no one ever said word," Minard said.

University Academic Vice President and Provost Connie Sjoberg said Minard had been a student at the school in the Oklahoma City suburb of Bethany but no longer was. She said federal privacy laws kept her from providing details.

"We are limited in what we can discuss," Sjoberg said. "We would definitely love to address that (reason for expulsion), but we need permission from the individual to speak in depth."

Minard admitted that she violated her signed student conduct code, known as a lifestyle principal, which prohibits homosexual relationships. The code also includes prohibitions on smoking, drinking, cheating, premarital sex, discrimination, harassment and profanity.

"I do acknowledge to breaking that covenant," Minard said, but she said other students break the code without facing consequences.

Sjoberg referred questions about student code violations to the student handbook, which includes the lifestyle covenant.

"We definitely are open to discussing (with students) any situation that we have here at the university," Sjoberg said. "We are committed to our founding principles and our lifestyle covenant"

The Christian liberal arts university was founded in 1946 by the International Pentecostal Holiness Church as Southwestern Bible College. It became Southwestern College of Christian Ministries in 1981 and Southwestern Christian University in 2001.

Minard said she plans to transfer to a public college in an effort to complete her degree in sports management and hopes to eventually work as strength and conditioning coach.

[ERayR]

This news item is, I think, an issue that will eventually reach BYU.

I believe this is the type of issue that will cause further social discomfort with the exclusion of gays and lesbians. Expelling students because they get married will likely feel wrong and invasive to an increasing number of people, both inside and outside the church.

 

 

The proper question is:  Did she or did she not violate her code of conduct contract.

[Daniel2]

Based on the article, it seems to me she was very candid in admitting she did.

[ERayR]

Based on the article, it seems to me she was very candid in admitting she did.

 

Then she has no reason to complain about the discipline.  She willingly agreed to and signed a contract.  She violated that contract.  It appears the university gave her all the leniency they could possibly give without destroying their ability to have standards.  It appears it is another case of someone thinking they are entitled to special dispensation.

[Daniel2]

Then she has no reason to complain about the discipline. She willingly agreed to and signed a contract. She violated that contract. It appears the university gave her all the leniency they could possibly give without destroying their ability to have standards. It appears it is another case of someone thinking they are entitled to special dispensation.

It's entirely within the right of the school to expel her for violating their code of conduct.

Its just as much her right to voice her view to call attention to what she perceives as injustice.

Now that everyone's rights have been clarified, I submit that socially speaking, one of the above will eventually result in a losing strategy in the long term.

Society isn't likely to look unfavorably on calling attention to perceived injustice.

[ERayR]

Society isn't likely to look unfavorably on calling attention to perceived injustice.

 

Perceived is probably the best description.

[Daniel2]

Perceived is probably the best description.

And open dialogue in the realm of public scrutiny and debate will test both's sides' stance and perceptions about the matter, ultimately resulting in the healthiest social outcome, based on the most informed understanding of the issues at play.

[Daniel2]

Target officially weighs in:

Target publicly endorses same-sex marriage

http://news.yahoo.com/target-publicly-endorses-same-sex-marriage-145800032.html

Associated Press 1 hour ago

MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — Target Corp. is adding its name to a legal defense of gay marriage, joining other large companies that are taking a stand, just four years after the retailer came under criticism for supporting a strident opponent of same-sex unions.

Target said it has signed a court brief backing marriage equality in a pending court case and publicly declared its support of gay marriage, a move similar to those taken by Starbucks, Intel and Apple.

"It is our belief that everyone should be treated equally under the law, and that includes rights we believe individuals should have related to marriage," Target Executive Vice President of Human Resources Jodee Kozlak wrote on the company's blog.

Target has come under fire in the past from gay rights activists who threatened boycotts after the retailer — along with Best Buy and 3M — donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to an organization that supported Republican Tom Emmer, a vocal opponent of gay marriage, in the 2010 Minnesota governor's race.

Target has worked to win back customers in the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community and has long offered benefits to the same-sex partners of employees.

Nearly all of Minnesota's biggest corporations declined to take a position on the 2012 state referendum to ban gay marriage except for General Mills, which opposed the ban. The referendum failed and the state Legislature passed a bill recognizing same-sex marriage in 2013.

Phil Duran, legal director of OutFront Minnesota, which worked to defeat the state's referendum to ban gay marriage, called Target "a powerful voice."

A spokeswoman for the Minnesota Family Council, which led the charge against gay marriage, predicted that the move will backfire.

"This is a very risky business decision and ultimately the wrong one because it is families that shop at Target," Autumn Leva told the Star Tribune (http://strib.mn/1qUU8DQ ). "People in Minnesota are still deeply divided on this issue."

The case in which Target has filed a brief combines legal actions in Wisconsin and Indiana. Federal judges overturned gay marriage bans in both states and state officials appealed. The case is scheduled for an Aug. 26 hearing in the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

From Target's blog:

"Target Signs Amicus Brief on Marriage Equality

http://abullseyeview.com/2014/08/target-signs-amicus-brief-marriage-equality/

AUGUST 5, 2014

A Bullseye View “Perspectives” is a forum for Target’s top executives to share their point of view on everything from industry trends to best business practices. In the story below, Jodee Kozlak, Executive Vice President and Chief Human Resources Officer, details Target’s decision to sign the amicus brief on marriage equality.

“At Target, we are committed to creating an environment where team members and guests feel welcome, valued and respected.”

If you’ve been a fan or follower of Target for some time, you’ve likely heard us say those words. You may have heard us talk about our long-standing commitment to inclusivity and diversity. Those aren’t just words. They are how we conduct ourselves – as a business and as a team. And as a part of that belief, we continually evaluate where we are as a company to ensure we are taking steps that balance doing what is right for our business, guests and for our team.

It is in that same spirit that, this week, Target joined several other national companies to sign on to an amicus brief in support of marriage equality. The brief is currently pending in the Seventh Circuit.

As our leadership team discussed signing on, we took time to consider the bigger questions at hand. This brief is important, as the issues it addresses have significant impact on businesses. But it is more than that and we agreed that now is the right time to more directly share our views on this issue.

It is our belief that everyone should be treated equally under the law, and that includes rights we believe individuals should have related to marriage.

Without getting into the specifics of a court case, this brief evaluates the issues created by states that both prohibit same-sex marriage and also refuse to recognize marriages that were conducted legally in other states. This position is particularly challenging for a large organization that operates nationally, such as Target. At Target, we have long offered comprehensive, competitive benefits to our LGBT team members and their families, often above what is legally required. We continue to do so today because we believe doing so is right for our team and for our business. But current laws — in places like Wisconsin and Indiana that are addressed in this brief – make it difficult to attract and retain talent. These disparate laws also create confusing and complicated benefits challenges across multiple states.

We believe that everyone – all of our team members and our guests – deserve to be treated equally. And at Target we are proud to support the LGBT community."

[Daniel2]

And the calls for boycotting commence...

From the American Decency Association's Lisa Van Houten:

The American Decency Association has issued a call for its supporters to boycott Target and mail the chain their destroyed charge cards. Lisa Van Houten writes for the group:

Someone should explain to Target that “equality” doesn’t mean sameness. I as a female may be equal in worth to a man, but I am not the same. There are many things we as individuals are not legally allowed to do without meeting certain criteria – that does not mean we aren’t treated equally under the law. And certain criteria and limitations have always applied to marriage in this nation of freedoms. Any adult can be married – as long as they meet the criteria. And the criterion that has stood since God ordained the institution of marriage is the union of a man and a woman. As we see those beliefs under attack with growing intensity each day, I pray we will wake up, speak out, and act in defense of biblical Truth – and that includes applying biblical stewardship to where we shop. Besides not shopping at Target, here a couple of other suggested actions to take: If you have a Target credit card, cut it up and return it to the company, or send copies of past receipts, with a note expressing your displeasure at the company’s choosing to align with the LGBT agenda instead of remaining neutral on this issue. If you know of a family member planning a wedding or expecting a baby, urge them not to use Target’s bridal and baby registry.

They've posted a complaint letter to Target for its followers to sign.

From the National Organization for Marriage president, Brian Brown:

"Dear Marriage Supporter, On Tuesday, the retail giant Target signed on to an amicus brief for the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in two pending cases challenging the definition of marriage in Indiana and Wisconsin. Target joins with a number of other companies in signing the brief, including the Starbucks Coffee Company. But it is the spirit behind the brief, and its language, which are most noteworthy. The brief uses extremely charged language to refer to laws defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. It calls them "the states' bans [on same-sex marriage]" and, even more radically, 'marriage discrimination' laws!

"Without providing any rationale at all, the brief states bluntly that 'Same-sex couples should have the same right to marry as opposite-sex couples,' and refers to Indiana and Wisconsin's traditional marriage laws as 'an unproductive, inequitable, and unjust status quo.' Perhaps most ridiculously, the brief—while touting the benefits of pro-LGBT businesses—presents the claim that 'corporate cultures that don't encourage openness and inclusiveness leave employees feeling isolated and fearful.' Well, tell that to the employees at Chase bank.

"Join me in telling Target today that they are out of touch with consumers and they have insulted the millions of Americans who have voted to uphold marriage as the union of a man and a woman—tell them how much we resent being fashioned 'bigots' and 'haters' for doing so! Click here to pledge to take your business elsewhere. Target and its peers in the corporate world need to realize that the countless Americans who believe in marriage as the union of a man and a woman will not stand for being insulted and demeaned. The rash of corporate meddling in the politics of marriage and family will only continue if we do not stand up and say enough is enough. Please join me in this boycott today, and please forward this message to your family and friends urging them to do the same."

From The Liberty Council's founder, Matt Barber (who has characterized boycotts led by the LGBT community as "economic terrorism"):

"It is just poor business Target, just like other corporations across the country, should at least remain neutral in this ongoing culture war. And at best, they should be endorsing the age old institution of natural marriage, which is the cornerstone to any healthy society. I hope people will go into Target stores across the country and tell them that they are no longer going to buy products there because Target has joined in the attack on the institution of natural marriage. They need to let it be known that they will take their business elsewhere and tell why they are doing so. That's what individuals can do about this."

REMINDER: When powerful national Christian groups with millions of members call for boycotts, that is a righteous use of the free market in order to preserve morality, marriage, family, and the American way.

But when the gay community calls for a boycott, THAT is homofascist intimidation, intolerance, bullying, a stifling of religious liberty, and an attempt to deny the freedom of speech.