How Chase Bank and other Corporations Coerce and Bully Christians

Chase Bank

How would you feel if your boss came into your office one day and asked if you are supportive of the “LGBT community”?

Maybe you are sympathetic to gays who face discrimination but you do not support the overall agenda. Maybe you are a faithful Catholic who accepts the teaching of the Church on homosexuality, that it is disordered and if acted upon, mortally sinful. Maybe you are simply bone weary of the LGBTs jamming their message into your face and the faces of your children all day long.

And there is the man who holds your job in his hands asking, just asking, if you support LGBTs. Do you feel threatened? Are you worried that if you say no, your name goes into a file and that some future decision will rest upon your answer? Are you worried that you may be compelled to take a new course in “diversity” education, otherwise known as re-education?

Word has just circulated that all the employees of JP Morgan Chase–more than likely where many of you bank–have been asked that very question by their bosses. JP Morgan Chase circulates a yearly survey of all employees and in years past it has been fairly anodyne: questions related to company performance, happiness of employees, that sort of thing.

This year, though, some employees were angry to see the following new question.

Are you:
1) A person with disabilities;
2) A person with children with disabilities;
3) A person with a spouse/domestic partner with disabilities;
4) A member of the LGBT community;
5) An ally of the LGBT community, but not personally identifying as LGBT.

Note the oddness of putting LGBT questions alongside questions about disabilities. Apart from that, note the oddness of actually asking employees about their sexual orientation. Chase Bank actually feels comfortable asking such a question. Talk about your boss occupying your bedroom. Any self-respecting LGBT ought to respond, “none of your damn business.”

And then the last question: Are you an ally of the LGBT community?

More than one Chase employee saw that and blanched. They were put into an immediate quandary. Everyone knows answering such a question incorrectly can place your job in jeopardy. Just ask Brendan Eich, short-time CEO of Mozilla, who was bounced because he, like President Obama several years ago, did not support gay marriage.

One of these employees reached out to Professor Robert George of Princeton University (and up to a few days ago Chairman of the International Commission on Religious Freedom). Professor George put this up on the legal blog Mirror of Justice. I wrote a few articles about it at Breitbart.com. Many other sites soon picked it up.

Many more employees then got in touch with Professor George, all saying the same thing. They did not check that box and they fear for their jobs because of it.

Let’s consider JP Morgan Chase. It is one of the largest companies in the world. In fact, according to Forbes Magazine, it is the largest company in the United States and the fourth largest in the world, coming in behind three Chinese banks.

JP Morgan Chase has sales of $105 billion, profits of $17 billion, assets of $2.4 trillion and a market value of $229 billion.

JP Morgan Chase is fully committed to the LGBT cause. Take a look at their corporate diversity page and arrayed across the top is a row of colored pencils making out the gay rainbow flag. Google “Chase and LGBT” and you find pictures of Chase floats in pride parades, gay-friendly signs at ATM machines, videos from the Chase in-house Pride group talking about coming out not just as gay but also transgendered. Chase is not kidding around on LGBT.

The question arises: isn’t this illegal? The answer is no, not at all. There are some queries that could land a company in trouble. There can be no job place discrimination based on race, sex, religion, national origin, physical disability, and age by employers. Some states ban job place discrimination based on sexual orientation but there is no corresponding federal law, not yet anyway. Employers may still ask questions along these lines but doing so can become evidence of discrimination.

Can someone be fired for answering the JP Morgan Chase question incorrectly? Certainly, they can. There is very little protection for holding the wrong view on homosexuality unless, that is, your opposition is explicitly based on religious belief.

Kevin Theriot of Alliance Defending Freedom says, “If there is no room in the survey to talk about religious beliefs, they should not answer, or make room. It’s very important that their answer be crafted in religious terms. Otherwise the employer can claim ignorance of their religious beliefs.”

Theriot says one way to go is for “the employee to affirmatively ask for an accommodation of the religious convictions regarding sexuality if a work requirement conflicts with those convictions. The downside is that makes them a target, but it also triggers an affirmative duty on the part of the employer to accommodate them if at all possible and avoids the employer claiming they didn’t know about the religious beliefs of the employee.” Theriot does not necessarily recommend this course of action.

Have you figured out yet that the LGBTs are the most powerful aggrieved minority the world has ever known?

Black Americans really were aggrieved: enslaved, not allowed to vote, discriminated against in housing, banking, and much else, hunted down and lynched.

In contrast, the LGBTs have bent the largest company in the US to its will, to do their bidding, to force their ideology on an entire workforce. And not just JP Morgan Chase. The Human Rights Campaign publishes a list of gay-friendly corporations and it reads like the Fortune 500. And not just businesses either. Remember, they have bent the President, the armed services, the Supreme Court, even the Boy Scouts.

Christians and others who oppose the LGBT agenda are now in hostile territory at work. You cannot let your fellow employees know about your position on LGBT. I would guess that many are afraid to express their Christian beliefs at all because it might evoke a hostile reaction from the dominant sexually correct mafia.

My suggestion? If you are reading this at work, quick, get rid of it. Your boss may be watching. When JP Morgan Chase puts up diversity posters that say, “Just be you,” they don’t mean you. They mean them.

Austin Ruse

By

Austin Ruse is president of C-FAM (Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute), a New York and Washington DC-based research institute focusing on international legal and social policy. The views expressed here are not necessarily those of C-FAM.

  • Watosh

    Did JP Morgan Chase bend under pressure from the LGBT, or did JP Morgan Chase decide the LGBT movement fit into JP Morgan Chase’s vision for the world?

    • fredx2

      Headquartered in New York.
      End of story.

    • hombre111

      However they decided, it was for the benefit of their bottom line.

      • Glenn M. Ricketts

        How does support for LGBT increase profits? There’re a tiny percentage of the overall population.

        • hombre111

          Not sure. But since profits are the basic reason for any business, especially a bank, profits must come in there, somewhere. Unless, as the article suggests, the management is either gay or has been captured by gays. I would love to hear Chase’s response.

          • Art Deco

            See Scott Adams on management fads.

        • http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/ DavidHart

          Being LGBT friendly is good for business. Forget the 5% of the population that is gay; About 40% of the population have a close family member who is gay. Then there are the allies. 54% of the population supports marriage equality.

          Here, in South Beach, I have gotten a surprising number of people to pull their accounts from Regions Bank (which has no employment protections) and move to one of several other banks that are, shall we say, enlightened.

          • Art Deco

            Being LGBT friendly is good for business.

            Let go of everyone’s leg. You’re not going to persuade anyone there’s an additional increment to your sales by asking your employees intrusive questions.

          • Glenn M. Ricketts

            That’s their choice. But failure to affirm gay marriage – simple silence – is not unfriendly. It’s simply business. It’s you who seem to see it as an instance of “either/or.”

            • Art Deco

              Perhaps for people hankering after applause, it is subjectively experienced as something unfriendly. I have long suspected that correlated with homosexuality is a histrionic or narcissistic aspect most of us do not really have. Notice me, I’m special.

        • Michael Paterson-Seymour

          Increasingly, organisations in both the public and private sector will only do business with organisations that are self-described Equal Opportunity Employees, often under pressure from trade unions, professional and trade associations.

          Major companies impose the requirement on their suppliers, the suppliers on their sub-contractors and so on.

          • Glenn M. Ricketts

            Yes, a sinister version of the proverbial “old boy” network.

  • Scott W.

    Imagine an employer giving a survey asking if the employee was “An ally of the Christian community, but not personally identifying as Christian”. The media firestorm would be colosal , and it would be right to be so. I gotta think even the most staunch homosexual ally thinks the “LGBT ally” survey question is way WAY out of bounds.

    • PeaceN

      One’s religion is a choice. Sexual Orientation however is not

      • http://eisbrener.info/blog Michael Eisbrener

        Everything is a choice and especially how you act… Sexual orientation is always a choice. You mind is the problem and as long as you believe your mind is you, you are the problem.

        • http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/ DavidHart

          What utter pretentious ignorant rubbish. Sexual orientation is innate. That is the overwhelming conclusion of science (yeah, I know – they just want to be politically correct). A few gay people may choose to lead celibate lives to conform to their religion. Very few.

          The majority of gay people have the same needs as straight people. Forming relationships and, yes, even having non-procreative sex (gasp) is generally considered a positive in regards to mental hygiene.

          • Art Deco

            The majority of gay people have the same needs as straight people.

            [chuckles]

          • FW Ken

            Well, no, it’s not the overwhelming conclusion of science, but if it were, Down’s Syndrome is also innate, as is a whole host of other birth defects.

            • Guest

              Exactly!!!!!

          • http://eisbrener.info/blog Michael Eisbrener

            Ignorance is your right David however. Show me a link to one, just one scientific proof that orientation is innate, fixed, set by anything other than choice or conditioning. Believe what you like but you don’t get to have a religion based on it when you say science confirms your theory.

          • jcsmitty

            It is not the overhwleming conclusion of science, unless you consider Dear Abby a spokesperson for an overwhelming number of scientists. At this point all the evidence points to nurture rather than nature, including the fact that victims of homosexual pedophiles tend to act out this learned behavior when they mature.

            • Glenn M. Ricketts

              What I find fascinating is the fact that our brothers on the political Left everywhere and always emphasize environmental factors as the near-exclusive determinants of what makes us into what we are. EXCEPT when it comes to homosexuality. No, that’s exclusively biological, case closed. From where I sit, it looks as if ideology is what determines how some people think, evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.

              • Art Deco

                One of the few things known fairly securely about the aetiology of homosexual conduct is that it is not a genetic trait. The different trajectories of identical twin sets discredit the idea (discordant behavior being more common that concordant homosexuality).

                • Glenn M. Ricketts

                  I agree. But, as I indicated in my post above, this subject has long been monopolized by Lysenkoists. Ideology always trumps the facts.

                  • Art Deco

                    Lysenko? I suspect you’re giving “David Hart” too much credit. “The overwhelming conclusion of science” refers not to scientific literature but to normative judgments in a certain social set (or is a reflex from a region in his mind).

                    • Glenn M. Ricketts

                      Right. You encounter the same thing with AGW routinely. There are dissenters, but they’d better be sure that they have tenure or work outside the academy.

                  • JoeNCA

                    So why would people “choose” to become gay then?

                    Ideologues never can answer that question. It trumps facts.

                    • Glenn M. Ricketts

                      Beats me, except that some do. Perhaps pleasure without the usual responsibilities of pregnancy or attachment? For much of my life, I’ve been focused on the sins of heterosexuality and how to avoid them. As I noted elsewhere in this thread, I didn’t know what homosexuality was until senior year in high school.

                • Tiger

                  …and that concordant homosexuality is drastically more common than among genetically unrelated individuals. Even when raised separately.

            • Art Deco

              I would not say ‘all the evidence’. About a dozen years ago, Jeffrey Satinover offered that there had not been much serious research into the origins of homosexuality. (His hypothesis was at that time that character and personality traits which have a heritable aspect provide prerequisite conditions which then come to fruition due to triggers found in elements of personal history – father son problems, sibling problems, peer problems, and accidents like adolescent sexual encounters; the salience of various factors will vary in each case).

              Something Edward Banfield said a generation ago: a great deal of conjecture is often antecedent to social policy.

          • Austin Ruse

            Science has not found a gay gene. Sorry, friend. It is not innate. If this were so then identical twins would universally have the same sexual orientation. They don;t.

            • http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/ DavidHart

              [Yawn] A gay gene is not a requirement of sexual orientation being innate. There is a mountain of science in that regard. For example, twin studies suggest a genetic correlation. OTOH the male sibling effect suggests a correlation to the birth mother’s hormones. The following organizations have concluded that homosexuality is innate and immutable and that efforts to change sexual orientation are futile and potentially harmful:

              American Academy of Pediatrics
              American Counseling Association
              American Association of School Administrators
              American Medical Association
              American Psychological Association
              American Psychiatric Association
              American School Health Association
              American Sociological Association
              National Association of School Psychologists
              National Association of Social Workers
              It’s not some conspiracy to be politically correct. It’s based upon a huge amount of research. While the exact cause of homosexuality remains unknown science has reached the conclusion that it is innate.

              • Austin Ruse

                And exactly none of these organizations are competent to determine what is innate in a human being. Next.

                • Art Deco

                  Nor is he even describing the marks of an ‘innate’ phenomenon.

                  These arguments get so repetitive we need to have a set of macros to save time. I’m not sure we have not got the same chaff from this soros-troll before.

                • asmondius

                  These affirmations were the result of a vote after coffee and d0onuts rather than as the result of any new scientific evidence.

                  • Austin Ruse

                    Yes, even when the diagnostic manual was changed it was not based on any new studies, only on lobbying. It was not science, it was scientism.

                    • JoeNCA

                      It was based on new evidence. Since homosexual behavior was illegal, the only cases of homosexuals they had ever known were those in their psychiatric offices, a selective subset of the actual gay community that wasn’t representative of the whole.

                      The “lobbying” was presenting the Academy with living proof that their theories were incorrect, by showing them evidence of perfectly healthy, live, functioning gay people who didn’t need to visit a psychiatrist’s office. Once presented with new evidence, they revised their theories correctly. Those theories have held up to continued testing and that’s why it stayed.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Now that’s a solid scientific theory!

                      Sorry. There was no new “evidence”. There were no studies done. It was pressure politics plain and simple.

                      Even a cursory reading of the history shows that.

                    • JoeNCA

                      Where were the “studies” supporting their initial classification?

                    • Austin Ruse

                      They still exist. They’re voluminous. Someone samesex attracted likely had a distant father and a too close relationship with mother. The boy seeks his missing masculinity in other men ( though he will never find it there ).

                      Either that or they were sexually abused by an older male.

                    • Tiger

                      Now, now Austin, don’t you know Paul Cameron isn’t the best source to be citing?
                      At the very least not since he decided it would be perfectly reasonable to co-author a book with a professional writer of white supremacist and holocaust denial literature.

                    • Guest

                      It is no different than citing “gay” sources as if they are legitimate.

                    • Tiger

                      I think holocaust denialism is a little more corrosive to one’s credibility, personally, but I guess that’s a matter of opinion.

                    • Art Deco

                      1. He did not cite Dr. Cameron;

                      2. Dr. Cameron’s publication program has emphasized placement in professional journals, especially Psychological Reports. Google Scholar and Amazon locate a half-dozen monographs published over a period of 38 years. One was a translation of a previously published volume and the translator received a byline. The others had no co-authors.

                    • Tiger

                      1. He didn’t cite *anybody* actually. Glad you noticed that.

                      2. He co-authored AIDS: Special Report (also reprinted under multiple other titles) with Wayne Lutton and David Noebel.
                      I was referring to Wayne Lutton.

                    • Art Deco

                      No, you were referring to an imaginary construct on which you slapped the label ‘Wayne Lutton’.

                      The complaint (of the characters at the Southern Poverty Law Center) was that he’d contributed book reviews during the period running from 1981 to 1985 to a dodgy history journal whose editor traded in holocaust denial. Lutton’s reviews concerned books on military history, not the holocaust.

                      It’s all rather remote from Dr. Cameron.

                  • Guest

                    100% accurate. The politicians there and their ideology rule the day. Not authentic science at all.

                • JoeNCA

                  Well, you can always settle this debate for yourself and prove homosexuality is a choice by choosing to become homosexual.

                  If you can’t, then it isn’t a choice, is it?

                  • Glenn M. Ricketts

                    Being born blind or with club feet aren’t choices either, so we typically try to “normalize” the lives of those who are by compensating for the defect.

              • Glenn M. Ricketts

                David, I think this is what’s called an “appeal to authority.” In formal debate rules, it’s considered the weakest argument, something you turn to when you don’t have anything else.

                • torrentprime

                  Yes, because medical experts should never be turned to when discussing medical issues.

                  • Glenn M. Ricketts

                    Did you read the list? More than half of the organizations have nothing to do with “medical issues.” Anyway, even if they did, this is little more than garden variety advertising that leads off with “Studies have shown……….”

                    • torrentprime

                      So the pediatric association uses pediatric studies, the psychological associations uses psychological studies, the sociological associations use sociological studies, etc? How inappropriate. Clearly we should rely on anecdotes about teh evil gays instead.

                    • Glenn M. Ricketts

                      What “studies” would they be? As it stands, it’s simply a list of organizations who’ve indicated that they support gay marriage, as they might also support a higher minimum wage or a good five-cent cigar.. As for “evil gays,” those are your words, not mine. Why not try to stop spewing? You don’t help your case at all, but that’s your choice.

                    • Guest

                      No, those political groups base their statements on ideology. Case closed.

                  • DE-173

                    Is laughable that you consider “school administrators” or “social workers” “medical experts”.

                    • torrentprime

                      It’s a good thing I don’t, or your miss of a comment might be a hit.

                    • DE-173

                      Since you replied in succession, you categorize the list above as medical experts. Of course it’s possible you don’t know how to reply.
                      Nice try, but you don’t get to back out now.

                    • torrentprime

                      Sorry, neighbor. I’m certainly guilty of failing to indicate that my comment applied to the medical studies only (which apply to studies cited by several groups listed, btw) and for that I appreciate the correction. It doesn’t make your position any more backed by science.

                    • DE-173

                      It doesn’t make your position any more backed by science.
                      Nor yours, but I’m not looking to live in a world of PHD Pharisees, either.

                • http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/ DavidHart

                  It is. However, an appeal; to authority is not fallacious per se. In this case it demonstrates the unanimous consensus of the professional organizations with expertise in this area.

                  The way to attack the argument is to call it “group-think.” Thereupon I would respond (in some detail) with some of the specifics that lead to the conclusion such as the male sibling effect and twin studies.

                  HOWEVER, there is a more authoritative source – me. You (group you) choose to disbelieve me when I say that my sexual orientation is involuntary. In my teens I went to a very conservative boarding school – surrounded by other boys. I could choose not to act (with some difficulty). The slightest hint of homosexuality would have resulted in my immediate expulsion. Nevertheless the attraction was still there and I had no interest, whatsoever, in girls. I did learn how to hide my sexual orientation – quite well. Doing so contributed to my successful career.

                  Every gay person of my generation desperately wanted to be straight. Most people, as they grow older, are going to seek companionship. I am lucky in that I was with the love of my life for over 30 years.

                  • Art Deco

                    Every gay person of my generation desperately wanted to be straight.

                    Leonard Matlovich, Cleve Jones, Randy Shilts, Larry Kert, Larry Kramer, Jerry Herman..

                    I don’t think so.

                    • http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/ DavidHart

                      A list of gay people means what, exactly? Kramer, for example, tried to kill himself in his teens because he feared being gay.

                    • Glenn M. Ricketts

                      Don’t forget Alan Ginsberg back in ’50s, who never lost a chance to tell people things that they probably didn’t want to know about him.

                    • Art Deco

                      And his chum Peter Orlovsky. Per Ginsburg: “Basically straight, but willing to make a life with me”. Per Norman Podhoretz, Orolovsky was already on the scene as of 1956. One of Podhoretz’ memoirs includes a scene of a multi-evening argument he had with Ginsburg at that time; he’d known Ginsburg for not quite a decade at that point. Podhoretz memory of Ginsburg ca. 1947 is inconsistent with a man who was given to homosexuality in any uncomplicated way.

                    • Glenn M. Ricketts

                      I’ve often wondered if Ginsburg (thanks for the correct spelling) was more of a homosexual or an exhibitionist who loved to shock bourgeois sensibilities. There’s some of both, but in what measure is hard to know.

                    • Art Deco

                      That was Podhoretz opinion, having known Ginsburg in his early 20s. Per Podhoretz (and in contrast to recollections I’ve heard from others living in that era, albeit the next set of cohorts older), homosexuality was not completely subterranean at that time and place (Columbia University) and there were known homosexuals in their circle of acquaintances and recognizable as such; he said the young Ginsburg was rather unlike such men.

                    • Glenn M. Ricketts

                      If I’m not mistaken, the so-called Mattachine Society was founded in 1952 in NYC, aimed at normalizing homosexuality, probably based on the “research” findings of the Kinsey report. Ah, the wages of phony science.

                    • Art Deco

                      In 1950, and I believe the principal was a Communist Party hack named Harry Hay. He’d been married at one point but also had a long history of homosexual conduct. I doubt Kinsey was an influence on him; more a useful tool. Hay concluded that the Mattachine Society was too staid and later founded a bizarre anti-organization called the “Radical Fairies”.

                    • Glenn M. Ricketts

                      I actually got my information from a former Mattachine member with whom I’d become acquainted. He himself took the “science” of the Kinsey report very seriously, but left the organization because of its Communist affiliations. A homosexual activist to be sure, but politically on the right. In my conversations with him, he continued to cite Kinsey as “science,” as a physicist would refer to Newton’s Third Law.

                    • Art Deco

                      Oh, Gore Vidal and Truman Capote while we’re at it. Ginsburg, Vidal, and Capote are likely too old to count as David Hart’s ‘generation’. As for Kramer, he said this, some decades after the fact:

                      I was at Yale from 1953 to 1957, and I tried to commit suicide in my
                      freshman year because I was gay, and I thought I was the only person in
                      the school who was. I was just totally and utterly miserable. When I
                      finally was asked to go to the university psychiatrist and I described
                      several other classmates whom I thought were gay, he said, “Oh, I
                      wouldn’t go and see people like that again if I were you.” That’s what
                      it was like being gay at a place like Yale, and that still goes on for
                      many, many people around the world.

                      and

                      When you were a student at Yale in the 1950s, did you know you were gay?
                      “I was very unhappy. I thought I was the only gay person in the world.”

                      The only gay person? Is that why you attempted suicide at Yale?
                      “I certainly didn’t see anyone [gay] there. And I got very depressed one afternoon and did it.”

                      Sounds more like someone desperate for company than someone desperate for normality.

                    • Glenn M. Ricketts

                      Maybe Kramer’s on the level, but I can’t avoid wondering how much of it is recollection and how much projection of later sensibilities into past circumstances as well.

                    • Art Deco

                      That can happen. If you do not keep a diary, your understanding of your younger self is likely to be pretty corrupted. True of everyone.

                  • Glenn M. Ricketts

                    David, look at your list again. More than half of the organizations named have no special competence in homosexuality, any more than I do. At most, it tells me that they endorse gay marriage as a political matter, and are wiling to lend any prestige that their “professional expertise” can bestow, even if that expertise is far afield. That happens frequently, of course, but I’m reminded of something similar back in the late 1960′s when marijuana use first became a public issue. Not a great deal of actual research had been done up to that point, but a number of prominent “authorities” – such as Lester Grinspoon at Harvard Medical School jumped in anyway. Tut, tut, they informed us, it’s no big deal. Sad experience and research confirms a much different reality, after being first trumped by a priori ideology.

                    As for the “authority” that you attribute to your own experience, I certainly won’t disbelieve that it’s as you describe it. I can’t accept it as Everyman, though, since I’ve known other homosexual men who’ve told very different stories. Some of them have posted at this site. In general, I agree with what a number of others have said here: the exact origins of homosexuality are still not clear, but seem to stem from multiple factors and life experiences. That means that I do not believe that it is simply innate in all cases or even most cases.

              • Orson OLSON

                And last month the Royal College (or Society) of Psychiatry (UK) changed its stance…to NEUTRAL on the issue. Change.

                • http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/ DavidHart

                  The Royal College made no such statement. Mr. Barber is certainly not a reliable source of information.

                  The college added something to the effect that there is some fluidity in sexual orientation. That is true. However, there remains no way to influence change. The outdoor temperature changes but there is not much that I can do to change it.

                  Sexual orientation is not a binary proposition. It is a continuum.

              • asmondius

                ‘While the exact cause of homosexuality remains unknown science has reached the conclusion that it is innate.’ Sounds more like religion than ‘science’.

              • John200

                (Yawn) Pediatricians would know the origins of homo”sex”uality? Counselors? School administrators would know where homo”sex”uality comes from? Psychologists? Sociologists? Social Workers?

                This is a long list, but it’s an old one. You, or one of the other homo”sex”ual trolls, pulled all this krappe before.

                No sale (Yawn).

                • JoeNCA

                  So exactly who is qualified then?

                  • Glenn M. Ricketts

                    What’s your answer, Joe?

          • redfish

            Many people are celibate for non-religious reasons, are happy with their lives, and don’t have problems with their “mental hygiene,” thank you very much. I don’t know why you have to be condescending towards celibates in order to defend gay people.

            If you feel you need sex to be happy and mentally healthy, that’s all on you. Don’t demean celibates just so you can feel better about yourself and your own dependency.

            • asmondius

              If copulation is a cure for madness, homosexuals are in trouble because they can not copulate.

          • Orson OLSON

            So THAT explains why so many hi-profile “Lesbians” in Hollywood keep shedding their gay-identity for bi, huh?

            • Orson OLSON

              And why so many men (and women) among my friend’s parents have “changed teams” too!

          • asmondius

            Yes, the reason why such a tiny group of the population leads the statistics in new and existing cases of Aids according to the CDC is because their habits are no different than that of the norm.

            • Objectivetruth

              Google “gay bowel syndrome.”

              • ForChristAlone

                google gerbil and gay

                • Tiger

                  Google Bubble-yum and spider eggs
                  Or KFC and frankenchicken.
                  Or “voting rights of black people will expire in 2007″

                • JoeNCA

                  Oh yes, if it’s on the Internet, it must be true.

          • Objectivetruth

            You don’t have sex……it’s one gay pal helping another gay pal masterbate using his rectum.

      • Glenn M. Ricketts

        Not at all. A woman of my acquaintance some years ago was in a same-sex relationship and rather strident in advertising about it when I first knew her. But when she announced to me that she was getting married, she introduced me to ………. her husband.

        • Terry Call

          Is your world so small you’ve never heard of bisexuality?

          • Glenn M. Ricketts

            Not as small as yours, evidently, since I try to make a point without snarkiness. I have indeed heard of bisexuality. I also believe, however, that homosexuality is not always innate, and can be reversed. That’s what I think happened here.

            • torrentprime

              Can heterosexuality be reversed as well?

              • John200

                Can trollerroneousness be reversed as well?

                • torrentprime

                  You’d have to ask Glenn, since he is of the opinion that homosexuality, itself simply a location on the spectrum of normal human sexuality as is heterosexuality, can be “reversed”. Maybe he thinks the same of trollerifficness.

                  • Glenn M. Ricketts

                    I’m certainly hoping that’s the case.

                  • Guest

                    Homosexuality is not a variation of normal. It is a pathosis.

              • asmondius

                No need for nature to reverse the normative.

                • torrentprime

                  Lefthandedness is normative; it’s just less common than right handedness. Same with homosexuality.

                  • asmondius

                    Natural selection does not reward homosexuality – it is not normative. Being born with three limbs is less common than being born with four, yet we don’t equate the two as simple variations .

                    • JoeNCA

                      So let’s coerce gay people to form heterosexual relationships and have children, thereby ensuring that homosexuals do indeed reproduce. Brilliant idea.

                    • Glenn M. Ricketts

                      Actually, let’s persuade them to refrain from sexual activity, so they won’t die nearly as young of AIDs and many other venereal diseases.

                    • Tiger

                      Is the plan to persuade them using the time-honored persuasive techniques of telling them they shouldn’t get the same workplace discrimination protections as others, harming their basic human dignity, ignoring them when they say something is harming them, and calling them sodomites or queers?

                      Because that seems to be what a lot of people think the plan is.
                      I personally don’t know how well you’re going to do at persuading people with that. Maybe it’s a reverse psychology thing. I don’t know.

                    • Glenn M. Ricketts

                      Tiger, you have a roundabout way of addressing the topic. Why not leave the sarcasm in your pocket, eh? Anyway, I’d recommend the time-honored method for avoiding venereal diseases of any stripe: abstinence. I really works.

                    • Tiger

                      No, seriously.
                      You say you’re trying to persuade them, but you make statements that almost seem intentionally calculated to polarize them instead.
                      And you’re in the majority of your peers in that regard, as well.

                      I’m not making some “haha, gotcha” argument. I’m saying that your (both the majority of the traditional marriage side of the argument in general, and to a lesser extent your particular) actions and rhetoric are directly at odds with your stated objective.

                    • Glenn M. Ricketts

                      Sorry, you lost me: what statements to polarize whom? How is the mention of abstinence polarizing? I’m in earnest, believe me. You’ll have to explain to me what you mean.

                    • Tiger

                      I’ll give you credit, you’re a lot
                      better than Mr. Ruse, who sometimes engages in calumny against
                      teachers when he gets too hot-blooded about a debate, or some of your
                      fellow posters who think calling people “queers” is a good way to
                      win an argument.

                      If I come off aggressive here, it’s purely to
                      sort of attempt to show some perspective on how the rhetoric can come
                      off to the people you’re trying to change the minds of…or my temper
                      slipping out at the edges and I rationalize (mea culpa in that case).
                      It’s not meant personally, there’s just a lot of emotional inertia
                      about these sorts of discussions and I’ve had the poor judgment in
                      the past of trying to seriously discuss the subject with some
                      exceptionally toxic people in the past.

                      You say your objective
                      is to persuade them, but in what you’ve written here you seem to be
                      taking the position that their experiences don’t really count as much
                      as what you have to say. Or using scare quotes when referring to
                      issues they care about. Or implying they’re defective. Or speculating
                      about their reasons for doing things rather than actually asking them
                      and finding out. Or calling people that try to protect them from harm
                      “nice people, but utterly clueless.” Or calling anyone willing to
                      debate with you a troll and imply people who disagree with you are
                      obsessive. Or jumping to the conclusion that people must not be
                      speaking from experience if what they saw doesn’t seem like what
                      you’d expect. Or characterizing the people you’d like to persuade as
                      being “in our face,” “shrill and strident,” etc. Or
                      dismissing their trials and suffering on the grounds that someone
                      else had a greater degree of suffering as if that somehow undoes the
                      emotional wounds they received. Or calling their victimization not
                      genuine.

                      Now, regardless of the validity as debate arguments,
                      how much persuasive power do you think that sort of approach is going
                      to have? How much is it going to make them see things your way?

                      As
                      I said at first, you’re still a closer to the mark than most of the
                      people around you here, and I do appreciate that you keep things
                      civil, but even so, it’s not going to persuade gay people. It’s just
                      going to make a lot of them angry, and make most of the rest just
                      dismiss you out of hand.

                    • Glenn M. Ricketts

                      Well, as that eminent sage Popeye the Sailor put it: I yam what I yam, and that’s all what I yam.” Yes I do frequently see homosexual activists as “shrill and strident,” as I do many others, especially academic feminists. And as one who endorses and embraces the Church’s position on contraception, I say you ought to see how many people react when you so much as divulge that information to them – take cover. At present though, the grand prize for knee-jerk screaming goes to AGW supporters who encounter anyone dissenting from the “consensus” ( alas, I get in big trouble there too). Wow, I mean WOW.
                      But seriously: although I’m not on a crusade to persuade you or your allies to abstain, I can’t do other than proffer that advice if the subject comes up. As a Catholic who accepts the Church’s teaching on sexuality in toto, that’s all I can do. For what it’s worth, bear in mind that that wholesome teaching applies to everyone across the board, and includes cohabitation or sexual encounters outside of marriage, etc. As I said to you in a previous post, most of the moral struggles in my life have been coping with heterosexual transgressions; homosexuality, until recently simply was not an issue, and wasn’t so much as mentioned. The steady message about sex was very simple: DON’T DO IT UNTIL YOU ARE MARRIED. Looking back, I think that was pretty good advice, even if we need to change the delivery from time to time. That’s what I’ve tried to do in the exchanges between you and me.

                    • Guest

                      Just point out the obvious.

                  • Guest

                    Left-handedness is not pathology.

              • Glenn M. Ricketts

                By individual choice, yes. Bad choice, though.

                • torrentprime

                  And you’re welcome to that opinion. Some used to think that about left vs right handedness as well.

                  • Glenn M. Ricketts

                    Actually not impossible. I’m a thorough right-hander who’s learned to use his left hand on the computer mouse due to carpel tunnel syndrome in the right wrist. I haven’t learned to switch hit yet, though.

                  • JoeNCA

                    The term “sinister” actually comes from the Latin for left-handed. The bible considers the “right-hand of God” to be the good side, and the “left hand of God” to be the evil side.

                    Ancient civilizations were misinformed about a lot of normal behaviors that way.

                    • Glenn M. Ricketts

                      There is no evil in God, Joe.

                    • Guest

                      Sodomy is not normal, healthy, or good.

              • DE-173

                Meredith Baxter. Kelly McGillis.

                • Art Deco

                  Meredith Baxter’s parents, step-father, and third husband are dead. Her first husband is not talking. The second husband had this to say.

                  The list of villains in her tale is long– all of whom ignore her, belittle her, abuse her– verbally, emotionally, physically, morally, or financially.

                  This list includes: her mother, her father, her step father– who was also her agent– all sadly no longer alive and unable to speak for themselves; her husbands, the parents of one of the husbands, various lawyers, the family court which found her tales unconvincing, and which categorically rejected her years’ long assault on the joint custody arrangement, as well as business partners and managers — the list is comprehensive and
                  exhausting.

                  Each of the people here had relationships with her of some substance and trust, relationships that were, over a period of time, destroyed. Each of the people, she claims, misused and abused her, time and again; and each relationship ends in a pattern of anger, conflict and betrayal.

                  One can’t help but finally ask, what sad tale is actually being told here as she moves through this emotional carnage? Who is actually being abused?

                  A co-worker of mind is fond of the Demotivators poster “The one consistent element in all your dissatisfying relationships is you”. (I think his estranged wife may have received one).

                  I’d say the dame is a perfect fit for the world of identity politics.

                  • DE-173

                    I see you understood the unstated subtext. Bravo.

              • ForChristAlone

                Oh but the gay Nazis try their damnest don’t they? which is why they try to groom very young males

                • torrentprime

                  *citation needed

              • Guest

                No, that is normal.

          • asmondius

            Perhaps the spouse was a man trapped in a woman’s body.

      • Vinnie

        Chastity is the choice.

      • Guest

        It is a matter of health or pathology.

      • asmondius

        Sez who?

      • Scott W.

        One’s religion is a choice. Sexual Orientation however is not

        That’s irrelevant to my point. Whatever one thinks about orientation, certainly whether one identifies as an ALLY of “LGBT” is a choice.

      • Linda Coate

        Being an “ally” is a choice. There are those who think it should be mandatory.

    • Art Deco

      I gotta think even the most staunch homosexual ally thinks the “LGBT ally” survey question is way WAY out of bounds.

      They don’t. People with a well-calibrated sense of what they can and should expect from others (and the manners to go with it) do not make a public point of this sort of thing or go casting about for ‘allies’.

      • Glenn M. Ricketts

        Right. The next question we may see is “Why didn’t you attend this year’s company Gay Pride celebration?”

        • Art Deco

          “Because I had work to do, a wife to attend to, children to attend to, household chores to do, hobbies to attend to, and a disorganized sock drawer. And I have my own causes, thanx.”

          • fredx2

            Or “I rarely go to parades where people take their clothes off and bump and grind against various objects”

            • torrentprime

              Damn Mardi Gras parades.

              • Augustus

                You obviously have not been to a Mardi Gras parade in New Orleans. The moral debauchery takes place afterwards on Bourbon Street.

          • Glenn M. Ricketts

            Or “I was attending a pro-marriage rally sponsored by my church.” Try that one.

            • Vinnie

              That would be fine. Many churches sponsor pro-homosexual marriage rallies.

              • Glenn M. Ricketts

                Maybe, but I probably would not conceal the fact that it was MY church whose rally I was attending. Unfortunately, my days in the warehouse also taught me that there are times you don’t walk away from a fight

              • JoeNCA

                Mine does.

                • John200

                  We had that figured out.

            • JoeNCA

              Pro-marriage? So you’re for giving marriage rights to people?

              • Glenn M. Ricketts

                Not to anyone, actually, because I don’t see marriage as a “right.”

    • JoeNCA

      That’s exactly what several Catholic schools in Minnesota did. No, there was no media firestorm, even after two people were fired simply for disagreeing with their employer on this issue.

      “A fifth-grade teacher at St. Joseph’s Catholic School in Moorhead will not return in the fall because she questioned the Catholic Church’s stance on gay marriage, reports Megan Card of the Grand Forks Herald. Trish Cameron said she was told June 1 she would not be offered a contract for the following school year because of her response to a question on a self-evaluation.”

      http://www.minnpost.com/greater-minnesota/2012/06/moorhead-teacher-loses-job-catholic-school-over-gay-marriage-stance

      • Guest

        The Church is not a corporation.

  • Vote w/yer Dollars

    I cancelled my South West Visa by Chase minutes after I read the story yesterday. The customer service rep offered me 3000 bonus points to reconsider. Not a chance that I would take that bait. If every self proclaimed “Christian” would simply vote with their dollars we would not even be talking about this.

    • somebigguy

      Indeed. I’ve long said that with so many millions of Catholics, the US should be a pro-life nation. Canada even more so. But the majority of our faith have sold out to the world, the flesh and the devil. We’ve reaped what we’ve sown.

      • JoeNCA

        Actually Catholics are the ones who gave them the idea.

        “A fifth-grade teacher at St. Joseph’s Catholic School in Moorhead will not return in the fall because she questioned the Catholic Church’s stance on gay marriage,reports Megan Card of the Grand Forks Herald. Trish Cameron said she was told June 1 she would not be offered a contract for the following school year because of her response to a question on a self-evaluation.”

        The self-evaluation was sent out to all employees. Ms. Cameron is heterosexual, in a traditional marriage, mother of two, not some well-heeled CEO but a mere school teacher, never advocated her position, but just quietly believed all to herself that all God’s children deserve equal treatment under the law.

        And the Catholics fired her for it.

        What’s good for the goose is sauce for the gander.

        http://www.minnpost.com/greater-minnesota/2012/06/moorhead-teacher-loses-job-catholic-school-over-gay-marriage-stance

        • Austin Ruse

          It’s “what’s SAUCE for the goose is sauce for the gander .”

          Anyway, this lady was a religion teacher in a. Catholic school. She did not agree with Catholicism but wanted to teach it. That would beine a Chase employee saying they liked to steal but they’d never ever do it from Chase.

          • JoeNCA

            So it is okay to fire people who don’t fall inline with corporate beliefs.

            I’m glad Chase is in the right then.

            • Austin Ruse

              She was a teacher of Catholicism who did not accept the beliefs she was supposed to teach. She was not competent. You get fired for that.

              • JoeNCA

                So someone’s beliefs affect their job competence. I guess Chase is justified in querying their employees’ beliefs then.

                And fire them if they are incompetent.

                • John200

                  “I guess Chase is justified in querying their employees’ beliefs then.”

                  I am going to speak boldly because I teach Human Resource Management, Labor and Employment Law, etc. to graduate students in a university. First, I believe Mr. Ruse meant that the teacher was not suited to this job because she lacked a BFOQ (bona fide occupational qualification).

                  The teacher did not accept the beliefs she was supposed to teach. That is the reason she was fired from a teaching job in a Catholic school.

                  She might be a competent teacher; her problem is that she did not hold the necessary beliefs.

                  I leave you to discover the analogous beliefs that are required of a Chase employee. But they must be defensible BFOQs, or you are going to expose Chase to lawsuits.

                  • JoeNCA

                    So it is okay to fire someone for their beliefs, like say if they don’t believe in equal treatment for all God’s children, particularly when those beliefs run afoul of the company’s mission.

                    Remember that, Brandon Eich.

                    • John200

                      Dear JoeNCA,

                      Thank you for the tendentious (relax, I could just as well have called it stupid, silly, or passive-aggressive) reply.

                      Point 1: You equivocated on the word “equal.” Seeing that you have (thrice in this thread) shown trollerroneous tendencies, I will leave that aside.

                      Point 2: As you struggle to fix the simple point of the article in your head, consider that an unbeliever has no right to a job where adherence to the Catholic faith is a BFOQ. I know this pounds your nose right out the back of your head, and I sympathize.

                      But you can improve quickly. Stick around CrisisMag. What is beyond you today, will soon be within your comprehension.

                • Glenn M. Ricketts

                  If you work for an agency that sells a particular manufacturer’s cars, they typically don’t like it if you tell customers that the competition has a better product.

                  • Guest

                    Unless you are “gay” then separate make believe rules suddenly apply.

            • Guest

              The Church is not a corporation.

              • JulioCG

                Holy crap…I just read this whole thread. You guys really can’t piece together a simple argument, can you?
                The Church is essentially a corporation, and should be treated as one when considering its business end (Catholic Schooling, for example).
                I’ll continue posting. I don’t have an account and don’t want to make one, but I stand behind all I say. I’ll sign as JulioCG.

            • xram

              Uh, no. It is okay to fire people who do not do the job they were hired to do. If you are hired to teach and defend Catholic beliefs, then a condition of being able to do so is that you actually agree with those beliefs.

              • JoeNCA

                She was defending the church. She taught absolutely everything she was supposed to. She wasn’t fired for her actions. She was fired for her beliefs.

            • slainte

              Thomas Jefferson in his 1801 response to the Danbury Baptists made an important point about good governance which corporations, like Chase, should reflect upon.

              “…. the legitimate powers of government reach actions only and not opinions…”
              Americans have never been keen about excessive governmental interference in their lives, nor shall they affirm corporations which intrude into the private lives and thoughts of their employees absent a legitimate business purpose and a showing that the employee has not properly performed his or her job.
              I stand in solidarity with Chase’s concerned employees.

          • Tom

            Are you really saying that in order to teach about a religion, you need to believe it is true? Based on that argument, no Catholic can ever teach anything about Islam or Hinduism, or, in fact, ancient Roman or Greek religions. Indeed, it would effectively mean that no Catholic could teach any class about any other religion.

            • JulioCG

              Whether or not they could teach science is arguable, too, if we were to accept that logic.

        • Guest

          Huh? What a hypocrite. She works for a Catholic school and refuses to accept the conditions. Shame on her.

          • JoeNCA

            So if a person doesn’t accept the company’s beliefs like equal treatment under the law, they refuse the conditions of their employment, they can be fired.

            Good to know.

          • JulioCG

            Her personal beliefs don’t compromise her ability to teach Catholic beliefs. I went to Catholic School, and we had a Catholic teach us about other religions, too. Are you telling me that, because he didn’t believe them, he was not qualified to teach them? Of course not, he may know plenty about them and simply not subscribe to those beliefs.
            Similarly, this woman’s personal belief does not compromise her ability to teach the subject. Indeed, they only know about her belief because she reported it to her employer.

            A private school is a business, just like any other. If personal beliefs that have not been shown to compromise her ability to perform her duty still constitute a lack of a certain BFOQ, then both the school and the bank have a right to ask. I don’t believe this is the case. Unless job performance is being affected, the person in question should not be let go.

            • Holy smokes

              A Catholic school is not a business. There is no profit involved. Likewise, a Catholic education is a dogmatic and doctrinal based education. No one is forced to teach at one. It is expected that those who decide to teach at a Catholic school are agreement with Church teachings. One the other hand, a bank is pure business with no moral doctrine unless you consider usary moral. The beliefs of workers have nothing to do with the banks mission, unless they are opposed to usury, which would cause the business to fail.

        • Shawn Smith

          You really can’t tell the difference between working for an explicitly religious organization and working for a bank?

          Not that bright, are you?

          • JoeNCA

            Is it any different than working for a craft store?

            • Shawn Smith

              Have people been fired from craft stores for ideological differences? I am unaware of this. Could you provide me a news story please?

        • dixi3150

          IF LGBT WAS SO NORMAL AND BENIGN, WHY ARE THEY SO VICIOUSLY TRYING TO CONVICE THE WORLD TO BE ACCEPTED AS NORMAL? Loving someone and committing unnatural acts with them, is not the same. One loves your mother, father, sister, brother, dog, cat etc. but you don’t have sexual intercourse with them.

          • JulioCG

            Because sadly, religion has poisoned society’s view of homosexuality. Remember that in ancient Greece and Rome, being LGBT was completely normal.
            Also, your argument is invalid. That most, or even everyone, believes something does not make it true. Let’s go back 100 years:
            “IF WOMEN’S SUFFRAGE WAS SO NORMAL AND BENIGN, WHY ARE THEY SO VICIOUSLY TRYING TO CONVICE THE WORLD TO BE ACCEPTED AS NORMAL?”
            And 100 years before that:
            “IF FREEING SLAVES WAS SO NORMAL AND BENIGN, WHY ARE THEY SO VICIOUSLY TRYING TO CONVICE THE WORLD TO BE ACCEPTED AS NORMAL?”

            See what I mean?

            • dixi3150

              Your reply is incoherent and makes no sense. You obviously belong to the LGBT club, so there is no sense in furthering this discussion with you, I stand by my 1st comment, sexual intercourse is only normal between man an women. BASTA! In your soul you know it to be so but never the less viciously try to undermine the hetro sexual partnership by constantly pushing your agenda all the time. Get yourselves lives ans stop interfering in normal hetro sexual lives.

    • Michael Paterson-Seymour

      In choosing an alternative provider, you might like to check against the list of “allies” in the financial services industry, listed by the Human Rights Campaign:

      American Express Co.
      Ameriprise Financial Inc.
      Bank of America Corp.
      Bank of New York Mellon Corp
      Barclays
      BlackRock
      BMO Bankcorp Inc
      BNP Paribas
      Capital One Financial Corp.
      Charles Schwab Corp.
      Citigroup Inc.
      Credit Suisse USA Inc
      Depository Trust & Clearing Corp.
      Deutsche Bank
      Discover Financial Services.
      Eastern Bank Corp.
      Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. (Freddie Mac)
      Goldman Sachs Group Inc.
      HSBC – North America
      Huntington Bancshares Inc.
      JPMorgan Chase & Co.
      KeyCorp
      MasterCard Inc.
      Moody’s Corp.
      Morgan Stanley
      Northern Trust Corp.
      PNC Financial Services Group Inc
      RBC Capital Markets LLC
      RBC Wealth Management
      SunTrust Banks Inc.
      TD Bank, N.A.
      Toyota Financial Services
      U.S. Bancorp
      UBS AG
      Union Bank
      Wells Fargo & Co.

      • Amatorem Veritatis

        Hate to be lazy, but are there any banks/financial services (credit card) companies that are considered “enemies” (assuming Matthew 12:30 is operative here) by HRC? I believe in boycotting those engaged in material cooperation, but this is getting more and more difficult. Just sayin’…

        • JoeNCA

          Yes, indeed it is. :-)

        • Joey

          May be you can ask your boss to pay your salary in cash and you can take a nice sock and stuff it?

  • Art Deco

    I suspect the source of this is as follows:

    1. A nest of homosexuals have collected in a certain gatekeeper position, and are pursuing private agendas from that beachhead. (Leona Helmsley discovered to her horror that one of her managers had given a mess of free space in one of her hotels to members of a leather-fetishist club).

    2. The personnel office here as elsewhere is a collecting pool of the fatuous and the manipulative.

    3. The elites and the professional-managerial set are abnormally other-directed compared to normal people generating a culture that is vulnerable to fashion and silly self-protective and self-aggrandizing behaviors. Supposedly a great many queers in the ad business; they know something about marketing. (http://www.amazon.com/Marketing-Evil-Pseudo-Experts-Corruption-Disguised/dp/1581824599/ref=la_B001JRYOEQ_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1404481956&sr=1-1)

    It’s all an aspect of a reality of the times: our educated people are fundamentally and thoroughly silly. Think of the distance between Dwight Eisenhower and Barack Obama and you begin to get the point.

    • Glenn M. Ricketts

      They may be silly, but they are also absolutely, unreservedly DEAD RIGHT about social issues such as this one. And they’re very comfortable with accompanying idea that they should compel you to see things as they do. You, after all, are a BIGOT.

      • Art Deco

        No one can compel you to think squat. They can penalize you for being recalcitrant. You gotta play it as it lays.

        Everyone has to make their own way in the situations they face, and may get burned in the process. You can reason with some people, but not most. Using sharp humor to demonstrate the ridiculousness of it all will cause most of them to back off (but will provoke a neuralgic reaction in the pathological sorts who are regrettably common here there and the next place).

        We live in a stupid age.

        • Rock St. Elvis

          I think Glenn was being sarcastic. At least, I hope he was.

          • Glenn M. Ricketts

            Unfortunately, not totally sarcastic. The absolutism and Stalinism that has dominated the academy on this and other issues – try telling many of them that you’re a skeptic about AGW, for example – has seeped into the business world as well. Some of them are simply opting for a quiet life that doesn’t interfere with sales. others are intimidated. Others, the hardest cases, are true believers.

            • Rock St. Elvis

              I get your point. What I meant was, you were sarcastic in calling Art Deco a BIGOT, not in observing that “they’re very comfortable … that they should compel you to see things as they do.”

              • Glenn M. Ricketts

                Oh, I see. Yes, I meant “you” as in the general sense. Art Deco’s comments never fail to enrich and inform this site, so sorry about the confusion.

            • Art Deco

              I suspect that betwixt and between the true believers and those opting for the quiet life are those who are easily manipulated.

              A digression…

              My own parents’ contemporaries were notable for their general (not universal) adherence to canons of good conduct and their grace. They were also notable for their conventionalism. Observing such people over many decades was an education. They proved to be very easy meat for manipulators and exhibitionists with agendas because of certain default emotional settings – those which regarded contention as a form of wrong-doing and reacted against anything ‘divisive’. I once pointed out to one of this cohort complaining about a friend that that friend was one person she knew who hadn’t changed her opinion on a certain subject since 1968. Why did she define that woman as troublesome? I got no coherent answer, of course.

              • Glenn M. Ricketts

                I know exactly what you mean. I see the same phenomenon in the misplaced sense of Christian Charity which prevents some of our contemporaries, especially clergy, speaking up when they should.

                • DE-173

                  “I see the same phenomenon in the misplaced sense of Christian Charity which prevents some of our contemporaries, especially clergy, speaking up when they should.”

                  Or speaking up, when they should remain quiet.

                  • Glenn M. Ricketts

                    Yes, it works that way also, especially in earnest appeals for “tolerance.”

              • Michael Paterson-Seymour

                For the older generation (the pre-Boomers), the strongest expression of disapproval was, “It’s simply not done!”

                But when people (at least, people in their own social milieu) started doing whatever “it” was, they were nonplussed. The same social pressures that once supported conventional behaviour now militated against it.

                • Glenn M. Ricketts

                  Or perhaps the unconventional has simply become conventional. I think we’ve seen something like the normalization of the Bloomsbury set, those influential, upper crust Bohemians in pre-WW I Britain. The “cultural revolution” of the late 1960s similarly came from very upscale, socially privileged people who despised the institutions they commanded. That the same group would embrace something as enticingly anti-bourgeois as same-sex marriage is a no-brainer.

                  • Art Deco

                    I do not think they despised those institutions. What I think you see is an escalating divorce between the professional-managerial set and the vernacular culture as the cohorts which had universal military service grow old and die. Those Thomas Sowell referred to as ‘the Anointed’ once were concentrated in the word merchant sector and have now moved into executive suites generally, especially in the legal profession. I suspect if you carefully question today’s educated professionals, you would find they are quite guiltlessly and off-handedly hostile to people they fancy their inferiors.

                    • Glenn M. Ricketts

                      I was thinking of Sowell, but especially of Christopher Lasch and Daniel Bell on the Left, and their analysis of the “New Class” phenomenon, the rise of an affluent, socially privileged group with very adversarial attitudes toward the institutions that they would expect to lead. Think, for example,of the Critical Legal Studies movement at Harvard Law School, where faculty who teach Con, Law will teach you that the Constitution is a sham and a cover for the oppressors. Unfortunately, this permanently adversarial thinking also infected to the mainstream (including Catholic) clergy as well: the guy most likely to be the atheist in church any given Sunday was the one delivering the homily. Most of the most radical ideologues of the late ’60s, such as Bernardine Dohrn, came from extremely posh, upscale backgrounds. It would be an interesting piece of work for some future social pscycholgist to figure out.

                    • Art Deco

                      I think Stanley Rothman did some survey research on the question.

                      IIRC, Dohrn was eventually hired by the Chicago firm Sidley & Austin, not having cracked a law book in 18 years. She had connections. Michael Kinsley wrote a column about it (which began with a Scott FitzGerald quotation (“they were careless people, Tom and Daisy…”). And, of course, her husband ended up on the faculty of the University of Illinois at Chicago. I think the difficulty the Establishment had in dealing with characters like Dohrn (or, more representatively, the student disrupters at Cornell in 1969) was indicative of the pathology of a certain social set. The nincompoopery of men like James Perkins, Steven Muller, and Clinton Rossiter was more consequential than the challenges themselves. Some of the vanguard (e.g. Kathy Boudin) were red-diaper babies who were not in conflict with the substantive viewpoint of the previous generation (though the previous generation was more courteous and had better personal mores). Others were indulged children (Mark Rudd).

                      The thing is, characters like Boudin and Dohrn are not driving this. Characters with much more uneventful lives as youths are driving this, with an assist from characters like Anthony Kennedy. I have little doubt that the cohorts running major institutions are generally pleased with their stewardship, and I will wager that the median date of birth of today’s crop of Harvard administrators is about 1958 and have no connection to any student protests. The same deal with the partners in David Boies and Theodore Olson’s law firms. These are haut bourgeois who do not think ordinary people should have any say in their local communities on policy matters which exercise the haut bourgeois. The rest is trumpery.

                    • Glenn M. Ricketts

                      Yes, Rothman’s1982 book “The Roots of Radicalism” – along with Lasch’s “Revolt of the Elites” and Bell’s “The Cultural Contrdictions of Capitalism” – is well worth a look. I don’t think that Boudin and Dohrn are driving it either; rather, I see them as the products.

                      But think also, for example of Betty Friedan who, in “The Feminine Mystique” complained that women were “slaves” in American society. Except that she herself was “enslaved” in suburban Westchester NY, where other women whose ancestors undoubtedly were slaves scrubbed her floors and did her laundry while she was writing books about how hard life was. When I was doing some honest toil during the late ’60s in my factory job, I worked every day with Viet Nam war widows, often in their middle twenties and several children and their lives shattered. This is when Gloria Steinem cameup with “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle. The ladies at the factory didn’t get the joke.

                      But I agree, most of the makers of the trend we’re trying to pin down here are low-profile but usually very affluent professionals who live in gated communities or West Manhattan, contribute regularly to PBS, send their kids to prep schools, observe Earth Day and, while they aren’t Boudins or Dohrns also know that anyone who opposes gay marriage is a bigot. Usually at the country club.

                    • Art Deco

                      It’s been remarked about Steinem that her mother and father were (in different ways) enough of a ruin that she lacked an ordinary person’s appreciation of family life. She had a long succession of men friends but refused to marry any of them until she was 66 years old (and was sadly widowed after three years).

                      You mentioned Critical Legal Studies. Duncan Kennedy, the Crit-guru at Harvard Law School, once gave a lecture in which he suggested that the law professors and the janitors switch jobs. A student reporter collared some of the janitors and asked them what they thought. They were not impressed. One of them said ‘law professor’ was an apt employment for ‘the sort of guys who don’t know how to do anything’.

                    • Glenn M. Ricketts

                      As I said in an earlier post – not entirely in jest – I’d love to send the Three Stooges to Harvard Law School. They had a way of handling pompous phonies. And the students would also learn something. probably.

                    • DE-173

                      “These are haut bourgeois who do not think ordinary people should have any say in their local communities on policy matters which exercise the haut bourgeois.”

                      That’s great, just great.

                    • Micha Elyi

                      I will wager that the median date of birth of today’s crop of Harvard
                      administrators is about 1958 and have no connection to any student
                      protests.

                      You just named a demographic with a lot of members who resent having been born too late to be in college during the ’60s.

                    • DE-173

                      “I suspect if you carefully question today’s educated professionals, you would find they are quite guiltlessly and off-handedly hostile to people they fancy their inferiors.”
                      Which is why there’s such a well trod bidirectional walkway between the halls of the corporate and media elite and the government elite.

                  • Michael Paterson-Seymour

                    « Épater la bourgeoisie » is itself a convention in certain circles.

                    • Glenn M. Ricketts

                      Indeed. It’s positively de rigueur.

                    • Art Deco

                      I think in our time it’s more ‘abimer les bourgeois’. The perpetrators are appellate judges, the abused auto-parts dealers.

                    • Glenn M. Ricketts

                      Yes, think of Kennedy’s opinion in the DOM case. Not much Con. law, but plenty of NY Times editorializing.

            • fredx2

              The brilliance of their position is that they never even had to get any legislation passed to achieve their aims. Basically, they use pressure groups to bully employers, and the employers cave since they don’t want controversy, hoping it will all go away.
              Then, they use corporate policies to intimidate workers by threatening them with loss of jobs if they don’t act in the approved PC manner.
              Brilliant.
              Evil, but brilliant.

              • Glenn M. Ricketts

                They don’t need legislation, because the courts and the bureaucrats usually line up with them. They are the “law,” actual statutes notwithstanding.

              • JoeNCA

                So, you’re fighting for the right to fire gay people, and you’re complaining that you might be fired?

                Freedom for thee, but not for me?

                • Guest

                  You make no true moral distinctions that is why you are confused.

        • Glenn M. Ricketts

          I know, I know, I’ve been dealing with it in the academic world for more than 30 years. Fortunately, I once worked for a living for a decade as a fork-lift operator and warehouse foreman, so I learned some great techniques for BS coping. I wish I could send in the Three Stooges, who really had a great approach to situations like these.

          • Art Deco

            Well, I take it you’re near retirement and if you can still drive that fork-lift, you have other options, which is helpful.

            • Glenn M. Ricketts

              Not close actually, with three living parents and some still-dependent children. But I have tenure and they’re stuck with me. And I still like to hear occasionally from students who appreciate the lack of political harrangues in my classes. I’ll hang in as long as I can.

            • DE-173

              The only power anyone has, is the power of an alternative.

        • DE-173

          ‘No one can compel you to think squat. They can penalize you for being recalcitrant. ”

          Corporate coercion is nothing new. There was a time prior to my arrival at a certain “rocky” insurer when stories abounded about employees being invited in to their manager’s office when they had not contributed their “fair share” to the United Way, usually right before their performance appraisal was due or when there was an opening at the next level up.

      • Orson OLSON

        “They [Chase] may be silly, but they are also absolutely, unreservedly DEAD RIGHT about social issues such as this one.” And pray tell (I’m an atheist) precisely how is this MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS VIOLATION a remedy for whatever perceived injustices” you claim? (MY closest family member is gay.) What this is really about is neo-Nazis Gleichschalung (Wiki it) – the monitoring and enforced co-ordination of Beliefs in society under an increasingly fascist (NSA, Obamacare, etc) government.

        • Glenn M. Ricketts

          I think you’ve misread my comment, since it was intended to be a tongue-in-cheek depiction of the mindset of some of the people at Chase – and many other venues, especially universities. I was trying to parody how they see themselves. I must have been too subtle. Otherwise, I’m not sure what your point is.

  • somebigguy

    Excellent, Austin. Excellent. And unfortunately for all of us, including the sexually deviant, too true.

  • Art Deco

    There was a millwright at Eastman Kodak fired from his job about 10 years ago for sending a reply to the personnel office asking them to quit sending him spam on this topic. People who have unserious jobs can be quite vindictive to people who have actual work to do.

    • DE-173

      And in a bit of poetic justice, EK is now EKDKQ, no long a “blue chip”, but on the “pink sheets”.
      Last trade, 3 (three) cents. Fifty two week high 48 cents.
      The one thing in common here? All heavily regulated appendages of the state.

      • Art Deco

        Come again? Kodak was never an appendage of the state. The financial sector is intensely regulated and aspects of the division of labor within it and its market structure are attributable to the regulatory regime. AFAIK, film and camera production labored under the standard regulatory regime; it was a natural oligopoly.

        Kodak’s main problem was an insufficiently rapid adjustment to an abrupt technological shock. They were pioneers in developing the technology but failed to get their product to market in time. They were a good company back in the day, with good relations to employees and the local community alike. From what I’ve heard, for those who managed to keep their jobs, the business was satisfactory and institutional culture therein remained agreeable up until about 2003. Community relations were increasingly attenuated as they moved production abroad after 1978, of course.

        • DE-173

          “Kodak was never an appendage of the state. ”

          Errata: That comment applied to the list of financial organizations, not Kodak, I should have made that clear. My mistake.

  • Art Deco

    And there is the man who holds your job in his hands asking, just asking, if you support LGBTs.

    Try saying, “I’m an accountant, not a professional gal pal”; I don’t ‘support’ anyone”. He’ll either be embarrassed enough to leave you alone or in a slow burn about it for as long as you work there (especially if he’s a nasty poof).

    • DE-173

      If one really is an accountant, one is under a professional obligation not to opine on matters where they do not possess adequate technical competence.

  • Rock St. Elvis

    I’d be tempted to answer that I’m a gay man married to a woman (hey, my body, my choice), just to see if I could catch a head or two explode down at the HR office.

    • fredx2

      Or a gay man married to a gay woman and another gay man

    • DE-173

      Or a lesbian trapped in a man’s body.

    • JoeNCA

      Considering the answers are anonymized, they probably would get a good chuckle out of it.

  • DrTJEckelberg

    Maybe I’m off base here, but I think it would not be intellectually dishonest to answer the “ally” question in the affirmative. As faithful Catholics, we want everyone to experience the Beatific vision. So in that sense, we are allies of all of humanity. Just a thought. Not a particularly brilliant one, but in earnest nonetheless.

    • fredx2

      Nah, Just check “person with a spouse with disabilities” Since everyone can claim their spouse doesn’t hear a word they say.

    • Glenn M. Ricketts

      That’s certainly true, but we also want everyone to attain that status by embracing the moral teachings of Christ and His Church. Can’t really separate the two, can we?

      • DrTJEckelberg

        Of course. I had hoped that notion was implicit in my identification with “faithful” Catholics. I will be more specific next time! Peace and all good on this glorious Independence Day.

        • Glenn M. Ricketts

          Thanks, same to you.

  • hombre111

    “A list of gay friendly corporations.” Do you have a list of corporations hostile to gays, which we could all support as loving Christians?

    • Guest

      How do you define hostile? You mean not affirming vice?

      • hombre111

        Probably needs a refinement. Maybe, “Corporations who have publicly announced that gays are to be scorned and excluded from American life.”

        • Glenn M. Ricketts

          Father, is that what you really think most of us here are looking for?

          • hombre111

            Of course not. But what is a corporation supposed to say? We despise gays? We respect gays as fellow human beings? If they respect gays as fellow human beings, does that make them “gay friendly?” I have no idea what is on Chase’s agenda in this issue, and I would be alarmed if I were asked to fill out such a questionnaire. If you are asked to fill out such a questionnaire, maybe the approach I learned in moral theology could help. Is the truth owed to the other person? If it is not owed to other person, then you are free to lie. Does Chase have a right to your answer on this questionnaire? I don’t think so. So, lie. At least that is the way I remember that argument, way back in seminary days, which respond to a question asked by a Nazi at your door: Are there any Jews here? He does not deserve the truth, so you can say, no. I think the argument was also proposed as an answer to the local gossip, who would use the truth against you. Sounds like something figured out by a Jesuit, but some of my best friends are Jesuits. :>)

            • Art Deco

              But what is a corporation supposed to say?

              How about nothing, which is precisely what corporations said 25 years ago. They’re in the business of selling financial services, not sodomy.

              This isn’t that difficult.

              • Glenn M. Ricketts

                Yes, isn’t that raher obvious and easy?

                • Art Deco

                  I’d suggest ignoring him at this point. He hasn’t uttered one remark in good faith.

                  • Glenn M. Ricketts

                    I may have to do that. I keep looking for an argument, but keep getting shotgun blasts of silly hyperbole.

                    • tamsin

                      I think of it as ground glass in the hamburger.

              • hombre111

                Agreed. But saying something is what they chose to do. And, saying something, what were they supposed to say? By the way, the questionnaire could also be interpreted as a way of weeding out gay and gay-friendly people. As a matter of fact, if I had received the thing out of the blue, that is exactly the way I would have interpreted it.

                • Art Deco

                  You’re taking it as a given that they raise the matter gratuitously. You never stop playing games with people.

                  • hombre111

                    I am not sure how they raised the matter. The Google search showed this sudden change in a questionnaire the company asked every year or so as a matter of course. The person who reported the questionnaire reported it as alarming, and I am taking his word for it. But he did not say why it was in favor of gays, instead of against. By bringing up this not-yet-devoloped controversy, Mr. Ruse is the one shouting wolf. More questions need to be asked, plus we need a response from Chase. Now that the Right has sounded the fire alarm, maybe Chase will be forced to answer. But as I said, a gay site has accused Chase of being anti-gay!

                    • Art Deco

                      I am not sure how they raised the matter.

                      Again, an employee of Chase in Robert George’s circle of friends passed that fragment of the questionnaire to him.

                    • hombre111

                      As I said, I went on Google to see what was going on, and concluded that it was all still pretty fragmentary. I will stay tuned.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      crying wolf? How in the world am i crying wolf. The survey is real. The question is real. The umbrage of many employees is real. Wolf? the boy who cried wolf cried wolf when there was no wolf. Please inform what part of this story is false?

                    • hombre111

                      I didn’t say the story was false. I was saying that the alarm was hysterical. Really, Austin, stay away from the gay issue and get your blood pressure back under control.

                      I encountered what might have been the first report on issue on the site The Escapist, via an “anonymous source.” The blog conversation that followed was interesting, because several readers pointed out what I also pointed out: The last two questions could have been understood in two different ways: As pro or anti-gay. As one writer working at Chase said, he was more worried about what the very conservative Christian man who was his boss would think when he saw his answer to the survey.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Dear boy…the crying of wolf mean lying…
                      Moreover, if you know anything about Chase’s commitment to lgbt, which you obviously do not care to learn, you would know the question is quite obviously not meant in anything other than an lgbt friendly way. But you are a blinded partisan of the sexual left.

                    • hombre111

                      According to the fable that I remember–granting that I could be wrong–the shepherd boy kept shouting that the wolf was coming when it was only his fearful imagination. Maybe he shouted wolf to get attention, which I also vaguely remember. Anyway, I meant in terms of shouting out in alarm, over and over.

                      Am I a blinded partisan of the sexual left? What I really am is a priest who has worked with people struggling with their sexuality. For instance, when I was a campus minister, there was this depressed girl who attempted suicide several times. I visited her in the mental ward, but she was not open about her basic problem. Then she graduated and quickly came out of the closet. The next time I saw her, she had changed completely: self-confident, a leader among the other nurses in the hospital, and, eventually, a deacon in the Episcopal Church. I don’t think sin explains what happened.

                      Or two friends of mine who are gay, celibate priests who do wonderful ministry. They both admit they have been gay as long as they remember, but they refuse to call it a “disordered condition,” which would plant evil at the core of their lives. With great struggle and soul-searching, they came to terms with their sexuality, the way a heterosexual who is celibate has to come to terms with his sexuality.

                      If I disagree with what you have to say about gays, it is because I think you take a complex subject we are barely beginning to understand, and turn it into something that is at least warped.

                    • Objectivetruth

                      If you were to walk in to a Catholic Church, would you burst in to flames?

                    • ForChristAlone

                      now his meme i to parade out the mentally ill he fashions himself to have saved from committing suicide….aren’t you just wonderful…and, the person who’s struggling with homosexual feelings just happens to be you…

                    • hombre111

                      I did not save her from suicide. Her decision to admit she was gay is what saved her. I did not even imagine she was gay.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Can you show me where this came from. Where was this said?

                      “As one writer working at Chase said, he was more worried about what the very conservative Christian man who was his boss would think when he saw his answer to the survey.”

                      7:31 p.m., Friday July 4

                    • hombre111

                      It was part of the discussion below The Escapist piece, which started this whole thing.
                      At this point, I want to back away from this discussion because, most of the time, I admire your writing, which is clear and forceful. I don’t agree with you about the gay thing, but you still touch that grain of truth about the destruction of our moral values. I also admire the way you don’t hesitate to get into a fight in defense of your basic Christian principles. So, even thought I muttered away in some of this post, keep up the good work. If some hard-headed conservatives hadn’t stayed behind, all the lemmings would have jumped over the cliff. :>)

                    • Austin Ruse

                      I looked it up. It was a wild claim by an anonymous person, such as yourself, who said he/she had spoken to “dozens” of Chase employees who said the story was false. He has spoken to not one or two or even three but dozens! Right.

                      Sorry, dude, the story is solid.

                    • Objectivetruth

                      Not “hard headed conservatives”, you pompous arse.

                      Orthodox Catholics that are sick and tired of your constant urination on the teachings of the Catholic Church.

                    • hombre111

                      actually, that was a compliment. Mr. Ruse is a tough guy who sticks to his principles. Good thing.

                    • Objectivetruth

                      If I were to sprinkle holy water on you, how would you react?

                    • DE-173

                      The same reaction as when matter and antimatter contact.

                    • ForChristAlone

                      you do spend an inordinate amount of time on google. is that so you can get ammunition to argue with others in your imimical adolescent style?

                  • Guest

                    How can an honest person not see his propaganda points?

                  • Objectivetruth

                    You can’t argue with demons. Hombre is a gay troll.

                • Austin Ruse

                  Actually, there was a response from Chase. They said they do not comment on internal surveys. So, what is your point?

                  • hombre111

                    Until Chase explains their point, we have nothing but speculation. You accused Chase of bullying, and, choosing one of two possible explanations, screamed to high heaven. You sound like Rush. By the very paucity of info on Google, the issue is still being considered, and your article seems premature. If you want people to take seriously your admirable support for pro-life and marriage, you have to do a better job than that.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      By the way, at least one chase branch said Christmas trees were offensive to some and could not stay: http://www.examiner.com/article/jp-morgan-chase-bank-says-christmas-trees-offensive
                      Try taking down a rainbow flag and see what happens…

                    • hombre111

                      I think you make a good point. It is a safe enough thing to scorn or mock Christians, or use the name of Jesus in vain in movies or comedy routines. Among some very intelligent people, maybe the last acceptable prejudice.

                    • ForChristAlone

                      so you’ll be protesting this to Chase? I doubt it since you’re more interested in rainbows than crosses

                    • Art Deco

                      maybe the last acceptable prejudice.

                      I’ll wager the number of acceptable prejudices over time bounces around a set point. That’s the workings of vanity.

                    • hombre111

                      Not sure what you mean.

                    • Objectivetruth

                      I was always fascinated how Padre Pio used to physically fight the devil. Did the old Itallian monk hurt ya bad during those battles, hombre?

                    • hombre111

                      o o o o o

                    • Objectivetruth

                      Noooo……for you……666……

                    • ForChristAlone

                      spend some time viewing the just released film ‘deliver us from evil.’ we’ll even pay for your ticket

                    • ForChristAlone

                      now the liberal meme of hating rush and o’reilly is paraded for us

              • hombre111

                Just returned from another Google search, which yielded sparse result. But, interesting, one site, named Queers Anonymous, was accusing Chase of being anti-gay! As I said, the questionnaire could be interpreted in that way.

                • Austin Ruse
                • Austin Ruse
                  • Objectivetruth

                    This is disgusting. JP Morgan is rolling over in his grave.

                • Austin Ruse
                • Austin Ruse

                  You are a profoundly dishonest person. It is remarkably easy to find out that JP Morgan Chase is gay friendly. They score 100% in the HRC ranking of gay friendly businesses…and below this link are a couple more links that show their commitment.

                  A website called Queers Anonymous that says Chase is anti-gay. Prove it.

                  http://hrc-assets.s3-website-us-east-1.amazonaws.com//files/assets/resources/CEI_2014_final_draft_7.pdf#__utma=149406063.934953541.1404350458.1404350458.1404510658.2&__utmb=149406063.2.10.1404510658&__utmc=149406063&__utmx=-&__utmz=149406063.1404510658.2.2.utmcsr=google|utmccn=(organic)|utmcmd=organic|utmctr=(not%20provided)&__utmv=-&__utmk=163960383

                  • hombre111

                    And, for whatever reason, you are simply consumed by the gay issue. I don’t follow links. I will have to back on Google and find the site I was referring to.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Maybe you have not noticed but the main stream media, hollywood, corporate america, the president and just about all the elite institutions are “consumed by the gay issue.” The culture war was started by the left. We, I, simply react.

                    • hombre111

                      I understand that you simply react, the way racists reacted to the blacks when they began to assert themselves. Conservatives would have endured forever the endless suffering of people of color, and they would have endured forever the humiliation of gays. It was the way they arranged the furniture in the living room, and it is alarming when someone moves things around.

                    • Objectivetruth

                      If I were giving shelter to two angels in my house, would you be stalking my front door all night demanding to send them out?

                    • ForChristAlone

                      and now the meme calls for playng the race card to display his liberal bona fides

                    • Guest

                      And low intellectual wattage

                    • hombre111

                      Please read the comment by DavidHart somewhere on this thread. He says the whole thing perfectly. Your article is an oversimplified controversy piece. He sets down some of the things you might have considered if you were really looking for anything but a horror story. Let me repeat myself: Mr. Ruse, you are a better thinker than this. This article is anything but your finest effort.

                    • Objectivetruth

                      When Paul teaches us that “man lying with man is an abomination”, do you look to this as a Truth of Christ, or just another Friday party night at your place?

                    • hombre111

                      He also wanted women to keep their heads covered and their mouths shut.

                    • Objectivetruth

                      Carrrrrreful, hombre. Your rainbow flag colors and lack of scriptural understanding are exposing your fraudulent charade.

                    • Guest

                      Apparently St. Paul was not enlightened as the sodomists of today are. Such evil.

                    • ForChristAlone

                      which is why you should cover your head and shut your mouth

                    • Glenn M. Ricketts

                      And that a man has no right to his body except through his wife.

                    • DE-173

                      The “love that dare not speak it’s name”, now can’t shut up.

                    • Objectivetruth

                      Go away, ya fraud. You’ve been exposed.

                  • Objectivetruth

                    I don’t think hombre is even Catholic.

                    You’re a gay troll hombre that with your lies really shows the evilness of the gay community.

                    I’m guessing there’s a special place in hell for sodomites pretending to be Christ’s priests.

                    • Guest

                      Google Sinkspur.

                • Objectivetruth

                  Just returned from the Catholic Catechism, which yielded the fact that 90% of your postings fly in the face of Catholic moral teaching.

                  Go away, ya lieing fraudulent gay troll. You’re not anymore a Catholic priest than my golden retriever is.

            • Glenn M. Ricketts

              Corporations are neutral with regard to my values on marriage, etc. Why do they need to endorse gays in particular? And do honestly believe that we “despise gays” is the only alternative?

              • hombre111

                Mr. Ruse speaks, disapprovingly, of “gay friendly corporations.” So, apparently, he is looking for corporations that are against gays. Maybe neutral, as you suggest? How would that be expressed?

                • Glenn M. Ricketts

                  Unfortunately, “gay friendly” usually means “everybody else” unfriendly. We’re having this discussion because gay activists keep getting in our face, not vice versa. As they become more shrill and strident, and move from one conquest to the next, their claims of victimhood also increase.

                  • hombre111

                    I deny your major, as the logicians say. “Gay friendly” does not mean “everybody else” unfriendly. Yes, gay activists get in your face and, unfortunately, sometimes act like idiots. Unfortunately, for time out of memory, they have been victims. The gays I know simply want to be mainstream, that is, feel some respect, have a job, and have a life.

                    • Art Deco

                      The gays I know simply want to be mainstream, that is, feel some respect, have a job, and have a life.

                      Yeah, that’s why Brendan Eich is out of a job.

                    • Glenn M. Ricketts

                      “Gay friendly” in our present circumstances unfortunately means exactly that. Failing to endorse same-sex marriage – simply keeping quiet – is usually suspect.

                      I also don’t see how homosexuals have been “victims, time out of mind.” They certainly can’t point to the degradation, public humiliation, lynchings, etc. that blacks have endured until recently, especially the economic disadvantages. The owner of the two pharmacies in the rural Kansas town my father grew up in back in the 1930′s was homosexual, and he lived quite a bit higher on the hog than most other townspeople did. It was a small town and “everyone” knew about him, of course. But that was his private life, and he was left alone. That is, until he try to pcik up a 12-year old boy, when he was administered some street justice and told not to cross that line again.He didn’t.

                      Until I was a senior in high school, I didn’t even know what homosexuality was – we Catholics came to Leviticus somewhat later than our Jewish brothers. I got plenty of repeated moral thunder, of course, but it was all about absolutely not “doing it” until we married. In my cohort, most of us did it that way.

                      So if homosexuals are “victims,” it must be in a very different sense than the genuine version that I mentioned earlier.

                    • hombre111

                      Thanks. Very thoughtful. My memory is different. It started, if I remember correctly, at about the 7th. grade, when feminine boys began to get kicked around by the classroom bullies. That was the first time I heard the word “queer” and “fairy.” This was a Catholic grade school. We know now that such bullying produces actual brain changes, and that bullied children are more depressed for a lifetime, and don’t live as long.
                      By the time I got to high school, boys would be merciless with each other over this issue. My brother, who was quite feminine, but heterosexual, received some really tough treatment. By then, we were both in the seminary. I am sure now that some of this bullying led to his lifelong depression and early death.

                    • Glenn M. Ricketts

                      I heard those terms also, but had no idea what they referred to. I myself was bullied quite a bit until I took out one of the bullies and ended up getting suspended for fighting, which made me a hero. After that, I always gave as good as I got. But homosexuality? That had to be explained to me by the football coach during hygiene class.

                    • hombre111

                      I salute you for your innocence. I guess it was only when I was a philosopher that I understood the rule in the seminary against “intimate friendships.”

                    • Glenn M. Ricketts

                      My father lost his innocence somewhat more directly when he was in the US Army in WW II. Notwithstanding the episode I described in my previous post, he was oblivious to any tangible sense of homosexuality or some of the things associated with it. Until, that is, he was asked to bunk one evening with someone from a visiting USO show that was passing through. In the middle of the night, he suddenly felt hands stroking him and moving slowly toward parts of his anatomy that were typically off limits. He froze for a moment – this is how he recalled it to me – and wondered why a man would be doing this to another man. Then he reacted and decked the guy, and ran out to the mess hall, quite shaken. There he – a second lieutenant – was comforted and given a cup of coffee by a paternal and worldly-wise master sergeant. I think my experience was the better one.

                    • John200

                      Father hombre,
                      Like you, I was raised in innocence and did not know the meaning of “intimate friendships” until the 7th grade. A 7th grade classmate asked me what “blow” meant. I didn’t know. An hour later I knew; he spit up some teeth. Until I did it, I did not know I could punch that hard.

                      Aside from that, I know you better than you know yourself. As you add to your parade of buncombe, don’t try to tell us you are a philosopher. It is much too late for that (see CrisisMag archives).

                      And I’ll say the same thing if you — slippery little boy that you are — claim to be a theologian. Just back it up. I know you better than you know yourself.

                    • Objectivetruth

                      Hombre’s a fraud, and looks like a very good fictional story teller.

                    • hombre111

                      As an old priest with fifty years of scholarship and parish work under my belt, I let my words stand for themselves.

                    • Objectivetruth

                      As being pro gay, pro contraception, pro abortion, didn’t you choose to excommunicate yourself from the Church long ago?

                    • hombre111

                      Don’t fall into the sin of calumny. I stand by the Church 100% on its teaching about abortion. `But I find the Church’s teaching about birth control unconvincing, and believe that, one day, the Church will finally understand how unfair she has been to her gay children.

                    • ForChristAlone

                      we just don’t get to pick and choose which teachings we like and intend to follow and which we don’t. why not salvage some integrity and quit the active priesthood? your friend weakland will be going to st. vincent’s archabbey soon. why not join him there?

                    • hombre111

                      What we do get to do is follow our conscience. St. Thomas said we have to follow our prayerfully formed conscience, even if it goes against what the Church is teaching. If we do not follow our conscience, he said, we will be damned.

                    • Guest

                      You place yourself above Christ and above His Church. St. Thomas would never agree to that propaganda point.

                    • Guest

                      Such diabolic nonsense.

                    • John200

                      You let your words stand for themselves? I have not seen you do that. I see you spending lots of time here composing and selling a borderline heretical, in some cases schismatic, offshoot of the RC faith (see archives).

                      Sometimes I know you better than you know yourself.

                    • Guest

                      There was a guy named sinkspur on a site like this. Claimed to be a deacon. he was a fraud and a software salesman.

                    • Michael Paterson-Seymour

                      “Particular friendships” is the usual phrase

                    • hombre111

                      Mmm. You’re right. Been a long time.

                • Guest

                  Not affirming vice.

                  • hombre111

                    It would have to be more specific than that.

        • Guest

          Which planet?

          • hombre111

            If there are no such corporations, are the rest to be considered neutral, or gay friendly?

    • Terry Call

      A Christian looking for corporations hostile against others. What a fine example for all Christians. Just like the good old days and dealing with those uppity negroes who wanted to join you in church or even “your” schools.

      Sort of like Hobby Lobby’s protests about birth control medicines while at the same time investing in corporations that manufacture those same medicines.

      Have you people no sense of the shame you bring with such talk?

      • Glenn M. Ricketts

        Sorry, this is nonsensical.

        • John200

          Glenn,
          Don’t expect anything else. Terry Call is a homo”sex”ual who thinks he is a “married.”

          Pity him. A prayer is in order.

          Terry,

          Try to climb out of the swamp. No need to recount the problems you are causing yourself, the man you are destroying, those who wish you had done better, and society as a whole. Your interlocutors know the problems.

          Just quit it. Quit.

          • Glenn M. Ricketts

            Yes, that was my impression.

      • hombre111

        Preach it Terry. But be aware, you are casting pearls. Just be glad that you spoke truth to hysteria.

        • Objectivetruth

          Why don’t you just admit to us hombre that you are an openly gay activist pretending to be a priest? You’ll feel better instead of purporting the anonymous charade that you do.

      • asmondius

        If homosexuality were a race it would have died out long ago.

  • Older_postie

    That last two sentences encapsulate the argument. “Inclusiveness” has become so exalted, and so redefined in practice, that it no longer means what the dictionary says.

  • clintoncps

    Dear Austin,

    Thank you for a very blunt and very accurate article. I have a comment, though, about one section of it:

    “Have you figured out yet that the LGBTs are the most powerful aggrieved minority the world has ever known?

    Black Americans really were aggrieved: enslaved, not allowed to vote, discriminated against in housing, banking, and much else, hunted down and lynched.”

    The issue I have with the above section is that, whether intentionally or not, you are doing something that homosexualist activists have long sought: you are equating sexual inclinations and behaviour (which can be treated or modified with therapy, ministry, and self-control) with something that is truly innate and characteristic of a person’s being (in this case, their race). You are identifying people who experience similar disordered sexual impulses and appetites as a legitimate community, equivalent to a race or sub-species of humanity — an “aggrieved minority”. Would it be fitting to use the phrase “aggrieved minority” to describe alcoholics, or crack users, or pyromaniacs, or pedophiles, or rapists?

    It’s not surprising that the incessant assault — as with a blunt instrument — of homosexualist propaganda has dulled our senses and traumatized us to the extent that we can barely articulate any objection to this moral evil. I’m no exception: I pray every day that God will help me not to be swept away in the flood issuing from the drangon’s mouth. What I find helpful is to seek the Lord’s grace to remember that no person is identical to the impulses they feel or the actions they do — Jesus came to call sinners to repentance and to heal the sick — not to affirm immoral behaviour or distribute self-adhesive labels. Christ’s redemptive and life-transforming power is the very essence of our faith; for a Christian, true love can only issue from that fount of divine grace.

    Another helpful point of reference is to remember the most vulnerable victims of LGBTQ mythology: children. Just yesterday, I saw a photo of two homosexual practitioners, shirtless, kissing as they held “their” new-born baby in their arms. An abomination of desolation, the image appalled me — more, it assaulted me. Not surprising, since this is the devil’s play and so many pawns are under his control to push the envelope ever further toward complete psycho-sexual anarchy and child abuse. This baby will be deliberately, brazenly deprived of its human right to be raised and cared for by its natural mother and father, just so that two people suffering from sexual disorientation can act out their fantasy of family life. This is no where near “love” or “justice”. When we begin to see the victims, we not only realize the deep moral insanity and depravity that the exaltation of homosexualism has caused, but we also realize that we are complicit to the extent that we think people self-identifying under the concocted label of “LGBTQ” can’t be anything else but one of those sexual caricatures and therefore have an excuse to abuse others in order to “just be themselves”. People caught in the grip of disordered sexual obsession need help and healing, not access legislative and coercive power over others, especially children.

    This really is a battle for souls, and for the Soul of Man as such. The only way we can shed some light in this culture — and avoid ending up marching in the Parade ourselves — is to articulate that homosexualism and its outgrowth are truly disordered, abusive, and dangerous, and in no way constitute immutable characteristics of a person, who is called to curb his appetites and regulate his behaviour in order to be in solidarity with the common good and the protection of the vulnerable.

    Thank you for taking the time to read this. God be with you!

    In the love of Christ,

    Clinton

    • JoeNCA

      Comparing gay people with “alcoholics, or crack users, or pyromaniacs, or pedophiles, or rapists” is exactly why nonreligious people can’t possibly relate to Christianity.

      • Guest

        Because they have seared consciences.

  • http://dabidross.com David Ross

    The LGBT agenda is silly, sick, and satanic.

    Having said that, we faithful Catholics already know with complete certainty that demons have snared the unrepentant perverts and their legion of unrepentant allies.

    Because it is simple, effortless, and success is guaranteed, shooting fish in a barrel is fun; but it is dangerous if it leads to smug self-satisfaction. Should we be content with congratulating ourselves for seeing the obvious manoeuvres of Satan? Doesn’t Christ warn us to be ever on our guard against the more subtle and the unseen wiles of the evil one?

    We expect the followers of Satan to be hateful and irrational.

    We expect the followers of Christ to be loving and rational.

    Yes, I am horrified by the blunders of the spiritually-blind enemies of Christ, but I am more horrified by the hateful and irrational treatment that some of us have received from Catholics on this very forum, simply because we love our homosexual enemies.

    All manner of worldly conformists will play the flute for us, but we don’t have to dance; they will sing their dirge, but we needn’t mourn.

    God help us all.

    • http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/ DavidHart

      Oh do tell precisely who did what to whom here and how this correlates to some agenda. Do you have any idea how many semi-autonomous there are within JPMC? Thanks for speculating.

      Equal protection under law and due process seem to be prevailing. If your religious beliefs cause you to think that striving for equal protection (the agenda) is “silly, sick and satanic” then it is YOU who have the problem. The overwhelming majority of Catholics do not share your point of view.

      Justice Alito’s dissent in Windsor expressed the concern that people who opposed equal marriage would be considered bigots or superstitious fools. You are making his concern prophetic.

      • Art Deco

        Equal protection under law and due process seem to be prevailing.

        Prevailing where? Equal protection jurisprudence is utter humbug, on this issue and just about any other. ;in any case, we are talking about corporate policies, not public policies. The word which ‘due’ modifies is ‘process’, so it would not apply to any substantive public policy (much less a private corporation’s personnel office nonsense).

        • http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/ DavidHart

          I don’t know if he is lying. He recently got caught with a whopper on another issue. I DO know that George will demagogue and prevaricate in support of his religious beliefs.

          • Glenn M. Ricketts

            How and where. specifically, has he done that? It’s a heavy charge that needs to be substantiated in very precise terms. Otherwise, it’s simply scattershot calumny that probably gets instant credibility on other web sites, but won’t work here..

            • http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/ DavidHart

              None of this (http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2014/06/irs-admits-guilt-in-a-gross-act-of-abuse-of-power) is true starting with the title. The IRS admitted what a Reagan-appointed judge concluded – a low-level employee made a clerical error. There isn’t a scintilla of evidence in the alternative (according to said judge). Robby goes on to imply that this incident had something to do with politicization of the IRS. A clerical error? Robby claimed this was an abuse of power. Long ago, Maggie Gallagher concluded (quite correctly) that this was a low-level error. Suggesting that this was an abuse of power is simply dishonest.

              • Glenn M. Ricketts

                The link doesn’t work, although I’m familiar with the article. Anyway, you’ll have to do much better than that to support your charge of demagogy and prevarication. At this point, it’s still simply unsubstantiated calumny. But Robby George is a gentleman, I’m sure he’s untroubled.

              • Art Deco

                Given the behavior of the two most recent IRS commissioners in the last year as regards inquiries, I’d regard the agency’s word with some reserve. Maggie Gallagher’s successor has noted that the gay activist in question had told correspondents a month before this ‘error’ occurred that he had a conduit inside the IRS; it has also been remarked that the ‘error’ of the supposed perpetrating clerk amounted to a catastrophic and thorough failure to do her whole job re this particular set of forms.

                Not surprising some people not buying.

              • Art Deco

                Rogue-Employee-in-Provo = Rogue-Employees-in Cincinnati.

              • Art Deco

                Cannot help but note the gay activist in question took the 5th at a deposition.

              • ForChristAlone

                trolling for your boy in the WH. I get it now

      • http://dabidross.com David Ross

        DavidHart: Don’t be too quick to judge me, friend.

        We’re all in the same boat; we all have struggle against pride and fight concupiscence. I have no intention to look down my nose at anyone–in fact my own agenda, to the extent that it deviates from God’s, is silly, sick and satanic, too. God help me.

        The human race is fallen. Whoever does not gather with Christ, scatters (Matthew 12:30.) Therefore every choice we make is part of an agenda, whether we like it or not.

        We humans cannot be neutral in our thoughts, words, or deeds, because Jesus brings not peace, but a sword (Matthew 10:34.) His sword divides. If you don’t believe me, just ask yourself who Jesus is. (see Matthew 16:15.)

        God help us all.

      • Objectivetruth

        Jamming…..

  • http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/ DavidHart

    As both a consultant and a CEO I have done a considerable number of employee surveys – both anonymous and employee identified. Their intent (as part of the quality-management process) is sometimes misunderstood (usually at lower levels of employment). Misunderstanding creates paranoia. I have done my part in creating paranoia by using the wrong words or the wrong packaging.

    In this instance there are far more questions than answers.

    Thus far, people are reporting anecdotes as fact. Moreover, we have not seen the purported questionnaire in full nor the materials that accompanied it. Moreover, JP Morgan Chase is comprised domestically of numerous separate divisions; each with their own HR and management development departments. Within each division there are departmental HR/EEO policies. It is profoundly complex.

    Yet, when it comes to persecution, people willingly presume something nefarious without asking the necessary questions. Critical thinking requires intellectual curiosity. I’m curious even if it supports the allegations. I made several calls to JPMC (starting with some executives known to me) and came up empty. It is a huge decentralized global enterprise.

    As for Dr. George, he has, of late, seriously compromised his credibility. In this instance, he has not dug into the details. George, lately, has been a professional victim.

    • Art Deco

      As for Dr. George, he has, of late, seriously compromised his credibility. In this instance, he has not dug into the details. George, lately, has been a professional victim.

      Since he knows the employee personally, either say he’s lying and present your proofs or shut up.

      • http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/ DavidHart

        This is my last response to you. Use a real name with a real profile and we can have a conversation.

        What I DO know is that George has not presented all of the facts necessary to form a judgment. The purported employee may not have presented all of the facts. In some locales it would be illegal to ask people to disclose their sexual orientation. Yet the employee (of unknown position, in unknown area in unknown locale in unknown country, performing unknown tasks) claims that this survey was not anonymous.

        • Art Deco

          This is my last response to you. Use a real name with a real profile and we can have a conversation.

          I use one handle. If you don’t care for it, tough. No one asked you to troll this site or to defame Robert George.

          • Objectivetruth

            Having David Hart defame and attack Robert George tells me Dr. George is doing good work. Truth to guys like Hart is like a crucifix or sunlight to a vampire.

        • Captain America

          “DavidHart” = obvious stunt troll. Waste case.

        • slainte

          David Hart….Art Deco’s real name is irrelevant in a forum which is dedicated to a substantive discussion of issues, not personalities. If you are unable to match him intellectually, then simply concede.

          As to the allegations raised in the article, Chase does not appear to have a compelling business interest which would require its employees to respond to a survey raising intrusive moral questions unrelated to job performance and which may cause these employees to reasonably believe that their jobs may be jeopardized by politically incorrect responses.

          This ill advised over-reach by an employer against powerless employees may end up costing Chase not only its good will with the investing public but forfeiting many accounts as well.

          People, in solidarity with frightened Chase employees, may choose to vote with their feet and there are many alternative banks with which to do business.

          • http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/ DavidHart

            There is a difference between anonymous posters and people with a name, profile and history.

            As for Chase, my first reaction to Robby’s post was that it is illegal in many locales to ask employees if they are gay. I called a couple of executives, well known to me, at Chase and they know nothing about this survey. Chase is an enormous global enterprise with multiple HR departments, numerous divisions and thousands of departments.

            Your assumed victimization is based on inference with respect to very incomplete information. To assess this one must view the entire questionnaire and collateral materials. One must also know to whom it was distributed.

            • slainte

              David Hart writes: “…Chase is an enormous global enterprise with multiple HR departments, numerous divisions and thousands of departments….”

              As a Chase account holder, I am concerned by the ramifications of your statements regarding Chase’s allegedly discordant policies in the area of Human and Employee Relations. Your statements taken as a whole suggest a more widespread lack of internal controls within Chase bank.

              Should I be concerned about the integrity of my bank accounts within an institution that has grown so large that it permits some of its offices to unfairly burden and frighten its employees with over-reaching surveys which appear not to be approved by upper management? Where are the controls?

              Chase should respond to the issues raised in this article.

              • DE-173

                Your statements taken as a whole suggest a more widespread lack of internal controls within Chase bank.

                And therefore a “Section 302″ violation of Sarbanes Oxley, and well as a “Section 404″ violation, along with a similar requirement under FDICIA to its auditors.

              • Tiger

                You’re worried about having accounts with a bank that unfairly burdens its employees?

                Better move to First Coffee Can Under the Mattress then. I’ve never met an employee of a bank’s call center that didn’t consistently feel unfairly burdened and have concern about their job security…and they can usually see all the details of your account the moment they answer your call.

                • slainte

                  A survey with no legitimate business purpose which requires disclosure of one’s privately held thoughts on matters unrelated to job performance constitutes an unethical act by that employer.
                  I find Chase’s actions profoundly disturbing.

                  Consequently on Monday, I will likely conclude a business and personal relationship with Chase which exceeds 20 years.

                  • Tiger

                    As long as you can find a bank that you can convince yourself doesn’t do unethical things on a daily basis, more power to you.

            • John200

              “There is a difference between anonymous posters and people with a name, profile and history.”

              The implication that using a real name in a combox is better than anonymity is silly. Having run across a parade of of homo”sex”ual trolls in this one combox alone, I made a prudential choice. Others do the same.

              Thus you do not know my real name, profession, or anything else. It is my prerogative to remain anonymous and to participate as I think best. I will not give you ten reasons for anonymity. I will not correct you… just let it hang in the air, slowly rotting and smelling worse by the hour.

              Nothing prevents an anonymous poster from keeping an open profile and history on Disqus.

            • ForChristAlone

              Why the ardent defense of Chase? They’re big boys and can stand on their own.

            • asmondius

              Well, then get on it and get back to us. If you think that the executives in a company are the best source for knowing wast is going on in the trenches, I question your credibility as an ‘insider’.

            • Objectivetruth

              Without disclosing too much, I have a very close relationship with someone who was on the short list to replace Jamie Dimon if/when he is to retire. One of the reason this person moved on after decades with JP Morgan was issues such as this. He has always pointed at the merger with Chase as bringing a less than moral/ethical culture to the merger. JP Morgan had always been a button up, conservative corporation only concerned with hard, ethical work habits and not putting out any agenda. Chase changed the culture, pushing agendas such as that of the LGBT.

          • tamsin

            We need to pass the hat to defray expenses so Art can legally change his name to Art Deco (no middle initial). Is incorporation possible?

            • slainte

              Incorporation may be possible if he seeks life in perpetuity in this vale of tears. : )
              I personally prefer transcending to the Beatific Vision.

          • ForChristAlone

            You’re right on. We have our accounts with Wells Fargo, otherwise I’d be marching myself down to Chase to close out our acounts and telling them why. For the same reason I will never go to Burger King. I want hamburgers not the homosexual agenda shoved down my throat.

            I would ask Mr Hart (since he’s into full disclosure) to tell us the name of the company of which he is CEO. Then we, too,, can exercise our freedom of choice and refuse to conduct any business with it. (But you wouldn’t do that, would you Mr hart?)

        • Objectivetruth

          How do we know that “DavidHart” is your real name? And how does it add to/subtract from the discussion?

        • Austin Ruse

          Actually, David, it is not illegal to ask. It is illegal in some locales to act upon the information to fire someone but it is not illegal to ask.

          • http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/ DavidHart

            According to Jackson Lewis, the labor attorneys I used for years, it is illegal to ask for protected information. The exceptions are in connection with affirmative action compliance of federal contractors with (LBJ) executive orders 11246 and 11375. That compliance is by entity and not corporate.

            Of FAR greater importance is the fact that once you ask for protected information, it puts the organization at considerable risk. Either a gay person or a Christian could claim discrimination when they do not get a promotion.

            That is why something does not add up here. There is a piece missing. BTW, this was probably not company wide as JPMC is decentralized and global.

            On this issue, Austin, we agree that this is inappropriate based on the small amount of information that has been provided. There is more to this than the information that Robby received.

            • Austin Ruse

              Yes, not globally. They did not send it to employees in Saudi. Wonder why? If you knew the sources we have on the survey, you would understand it was across all lines of business.

        • Austin Ruse

          David…i urge you get these types of denials out onto the blogoshere, most especially the LGBT blogs…get it out there, David!

      • hombre111

        As usual, you missed the wisdom of what DavidHart is saying. But what the heck, any good conservative knows there is only one side to any issue.

        • asmondius

          Pulling out the alter ego again, eh David?

        • Guest

          Gay propaganda is never wise.

    • Guest

      Yes, but you are a propagandist.

    • asmondius

      yah, everything the corporation does is Always beneficial for all of the employees.

    • Objectivetruth

      As claiming to be “Mr. Full Disclosure” on com boxes, give us the name of the company you are CEO of?

      • Objectivetruth

        ………still waiting for the name of your company……..I’m eager to explore what your culture and values are to decide whether I (and many others) want to do business with you.

    • Austin Ruse

      It was company wide…

    • Austin Ruse

      Yes, and Robert George’s credibility is so compromised lately that he was just reappointed for a second term on the International Religious Freedom Commission and just came off a term as Chairman. Right. whoever you are, right. And this is hardly the only honor he has received. You should have such credibility.

  • Art Deco

    Another emissary from the sorosphere. Sigh.

    • Glenn M. Ricketts

      That’s OK, they’re always fun.

  • Captain America

    I jumped immediately out of the Boy Scouts once they pulled the fast act with the membership policy change. Had to do it.

  • tamsin

    If you rise to the level of managing even one other person at my husband’s company, you’re put through mandatory training to learn to affirm every other employee’s choice of gender identity, sexual orientation, and gender expression. You can be called to account for creating a hostile workplace environment if any other employee interprets your silence as disapproval. So, no surveys, yet, but everyone is on notice.

    • torrentprime

      It’s almost like no one is allowed to disapprove of things like sexuality or gender (since they don’t affect job performance) anymore. Sad day.

      • tamsin

        Truly a sad day when no one is allowed to refrain from approving of harmful behaviors.

        • torrentprime

          Like going on a date or having a crush.

  • Orson OLSON

    Anyone know the next best alternative?

  • raymarshall

    “Bent” is a good choice of words when referring to pressure placed by homosexuals on corporations. “Bent Day” should be the name of their summer nudity bashes.

    • John200

      There was a homo”sex”ual troll who called himself “Bent Angle” until I revised the name to “Ben Tangle” in honor of his tangle of nutty thought (don’t ask for details, it was awful). I showed a lot of respect, in fact, I referred to him as Mr. Tangle.

      He went away, alas!

  • Michael Paterson-Seymour

    Commenting on the growing number of businesses who describe themselves as “equal opportunity employers, Alain Badiou asks, “Do we really need to be told that there is no one whose labour they are not willing to exploit for profit?”

  • ForChristAlone

    The irony of this survey BS is that it’s nothing but an opportunity for all respondants to dissimulate. Could you imagine if everyone actually spoke that they REALLY thought?

    I long to live in a world where everyone shows their hand because we are living in a world of outright liars. It’s a ‘top-down’ phenomenon.

  • Bruno

    I should be outraged but I’m actually glad to have read the article.

    How long have these sinister ideas lurked in the dark, how long has truth been assaulted indirectly, specially by those who claimed to be its guardians, how long has iniquity took the cover of justice? If evil and iniquity are to be made, and taught, is it not better that they are not credibly disguised as good, lest we don’t have any defence against evil?

    Each day evil grows worse and good grows better, as foretold, and, though growing together, the difference between wheat and chaff is ever more marked, so that no one may be excused for collecting chaff instead of wheat.

    If anyone happens to be fired because of that questionnaire, I will not cry “what an injustice!” but rather praise the fired one for his integrity, which is sure to be rewarded by something better than Chase’s dirty taxpayer money.

  • http://rosarynovice.stblogs.com/ Augustine

    I commend JPM for listing LGBT as a disability.

  • Tiger

    I imagine in that situation you’d feel about the same way I’d feel if my boss, who holds my job in his hands, were to ask me if I were gay, and for basically the same reason.

    Except that you actually would have legal recourse by arguing that it is a tenet of your religion, whereas I’m in a state where (predominantly Catholics) actively shoot down any attempt to grant us the same protections you’ve had for more than half a century.

    Funny how “you also can’t fire people just for being gay, along with just for being Catholic or black or a woman” causes hundreds of times more outrage than a man being singled out and beaten so badly he had to be hospitalized (felony assault, that), in view of a courthouse, a block away from a police station, all the while the assailant is shouting about all the perceived sleights gay people have caused him in front of numerous witnesses.

    Never heard a single Catholic say a word against that incident (in fact, all I heard was vague grumbling about hate crimes, because apparently felony assault isn’t necessarily something to *automatically* condemn), despite happening just blocks from where they canvassed for petition signatures to preserve legal discrimination of the sort even your own faith calls unjust.
    Even your bishops twist the arguments around to say “Well, it’s bad, but this isn’t the way to fix it…” and promptly provide NO suggestions whatsoever regarding even partial solutions they would not find objectionable.

    Even when we ask what could be done to reduce these things that the Church would stand with, there’s just uncomfortable silence and no move to support anything that would be effective in reducing needless suffering.

    But helping the poor! Like the effort to feed the hungry that I personally kept operating because the Catholic parish running it couldn’t be bothered to provide enough volunteers, despite the same people taking credit for it turning around and arguing they shouldn’t be forced to work with the likes of me.
    Who cares that I was putting in more work than any 4 other volunteers combined and spending at least half of the gas money used for the entire operation out of my own pocket.
    They couldn’t even manage the self-awareness to not make disgusting “gay jokes” in the presence of the gay guy who was often the single solitary reason they had ANY food to give out to the literally hundreds of impoverished people their parish was taking credit for helping.

    You want us to believe you want what’s best for us? Put up or shut up. Get angry when a gay guy gets his head beaten into a curb. Get angry when a kid is assaulted in his school for being “effeminate” and therefore assumed to be gay. Show one TENTH the outrage at real physical violence that you show at the idea of us having the same job security you generally have taken for granted for 60 years.

    Do that, and you’ll have my attention. It’s a simple request, really: Get pissed off when people walk home from school bleeding and bruised or get sent to a hospital by someone who thought he could get away with felony assault in front of a courthouse if the target is a homo.

    Be one tenth as angry at violence as you are about religious liberty. Not much to ask, I should think.

    • Scott W.

      Be one tenth as angry at violence as you are about religious liberty. Not much to ask, I should think.

      It is because your evaluating Justice based on emotion rather than Truth. Unprovoked violent assaults on anyone are unjust and criminal. But no one disputes that and there is no point wasting time discussing something that isn’t in contention.

      • Tiger

        If no one seriously disputes that, why did the perpetrator think he could get away with felony assault in view of a courthouse and numerous witnesses since the target was gay? Obviously at least one person was unclear on that issue.

        And I’m not saying justice is measured by emotional response, I’m saying there is a serious problem when a violent crime is not condemned, especially by people who are very quick to condemn on most other related issues. Even then-Cardinal Ratzinger said, “Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church’s pastors wherever it occurs.”
        My problem is that that didn’t happen, particularly from the specific pastors that make a big deal of teaching (sections of) the Catholic Church’s teachings about homosexuality. They’re conspicuously silent on certain parts of that teaching.

        It is not a demonstration of justice or injustice, it is a sign of people having a distorted attitude toward justice and injustice. A distorted attitude that needs to be remedied for the sake of everyone.

        • Scott W.

          If no one seriously disputes that, why did the perpetrator think he could get away with felony assault in view of a courthouse and numerous witnesses since the target was gay? Obviously at least one person was unclear on that issue.

          Obviously, I can’t speak to the motives of a violent criminal. This story is highly anecdotal and as such is a terrible piece of evidence of trying to prove bad faith on the part of Catholics. There is always a worse case out there, but it’s presence here is a rabbit trail, and if you going to insist on that, well, have a nice day.

          • Glenn M. Ricketts

            Not only that: how many hundreds of violent assaults occurs regularly that sadly don’t rise to anyone’s notice? No doubt the perpetrators in many of these cases also thought that there was an easy score, and they were probably right. I don’t see how Tiger’s incident is different from many others that occur in broad daylight. Violent assault is violent assault, most of it not directed against a particular subset.

            • Art Deco

              You’re referring to assaults on ordinary urban residents minding their business, bar patrons who’ve had a few too many, young men in the sort of arguments young men sometimes get in, and cohabiting couples with bad tempers. They’re not Special, so they’re not the clientele of the Democratic Party or of the establishment Bar.

              • Glenn M. Ricketts

                To paraphrase a familiar expression: it’s not what you do, it’s who you are.

            • Tiger

              How is it different?

              Because the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith said events like that one should be condemned by the Church’s pastors.

              That’s why it’s different.

              It’s also different because the lack of condemnation from a group typically very eager to speak on the subject of homosexuality and even discrimination and prejudice surrounding it was eerily, inexplicably silent when it was their responsibility to be speaking out.

              It begs a very bad question, and *something* should have been said just to clear the air of that, if nothing else.

              • Glenn M. Ricketts

                How do you what the Church’s pastors did or did not do? Do you attend Mass regularly? As Scott W. said, you refer anecdotally to a single case that all of us should somehow have also known about and proceed to condemn the entire Catholic hierarchy and Magisterium for failing to notice as well. Seriously? As I said, most violent assaults don’t involve homosexuals. But if they do, they’re a violent assault, and should be treated accordingly.

                • Tiger

                  It just so happens that it occurred in the parish I’ve lived in my entire life. The parish that we have attended since before I was born. It’s where I was baptized, where I received my first Communion, and where I was confirmed. Where I’ve driven through snowstorms to get to Mass, where we had how early to leave home to get a seat on a holy day down to a science.
                  This is not a distant community I just read about. It’s my neighborhood in my town, right next to my University.

                  So don’t go thinking you can rewrite details of the situation to paint it in a light you’d like better.

                  And I was entirely attributing wrongdoing regarding silence about the issue to the local community and the priests and other ministers in the community.
                  You apparently didn’t realize that you invented the idea that I was “condemn[ing] the entire Catholic hierarchy and Magisterium” out of whole cloth.

                  And since the Church has *specifically* called out violence against gay people as needing to be condemned by the front lines of the Church, I am entirely in the right for criticizing their completely uncharacteristic silence on this particular homosexuality-related occurrence.

                  • Glenn M. Ricketts

                    There was nothing to re-write, since you made some broad un-anchored generalizations, which said very little. It’s the kind of thing that limits combox discussions, whatever the subject. I’ll take you at your word for what happened locally, but I still think that you’re way over the top otherwise.

                    • Guest

                      You are too kind. The examples we have seen here reveal the typical syndrome of drama, persecution complex, acting out like an immature teen girl, the need to be the center of conflict.

                      Prayer, fasting are needed.

                    • Glenn M. Ricketts

                      Yes lots of that, and attempting to overcome the obstacles you mention. Let’s persist.

                    • Art Deco

                      A metropolitan center of ordinary dimensions (e.g. Omaha) will see 15 or 20 aggravated assaults in a typical week. Evidently it’s odious for the local ordinary or for Crisis magazine to fail to remark on the subset thereof in which Tiger/Patrick takes particular interest. Or something like that.

                    • Guest

                      Yes. Me, me, look at me. Me.

                    • Tiger

                      You make a compelling point. I will now have to review my beliefs in light of the new information you have provided, Mr. Can’t-even-pick-a-guest-name.

                    • Tiger

                      Interesting attempt to try to reveal personal information of a person you disagree with, but you seem slightly confused.

                      I’ve appreciated Patrick’s posts here for quite a while, and in fact, I know him, but Omaha? Really? Omaha?

                      And again, it’s the Church’s standard that violent malice against gays should be condemned wherever it occurs. I’m just telling you about what the Church has said for 28 years.

                    • Art Deco

                      Yes, Omaha. No clue what you have against Omaha. Substitute Sarasota or Rochester if it pleases you. They are useful reference points because about half the population of the U.S. lives in larger settlements and half smaller.

                      What personal information? I know no personal information about you. I merely remark on the similarity of postures and fixations (though ‘Patrick’ professes to have been a newspaper reader 30 years ago and you profess to be a college student).

                      And again, it’s the Church’s standard that violent malice against gays should be condemned wherever it occurs.

                      You fancy that your parish priest or local ordinary should keep up a running commentary on the police blotter, and that the catechism commands that. That’s just silly.

                    • Tiger

                      Who said catechism?

                      I said Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

                      It seems everybody you disagree with and what they have to say are blending together in your head. Might wanna do something about that.

                    • Art Deco

                      The CDF has not advised people to keep up a running commentary on the police blotter either.

                    • Tiger

                      “It is deplorable that homosexual
                      persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or
                      in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church’s
                      pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others
                      which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society.
                      The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in
                      word, in action and in law.”

                      Someone obviously cannot
                      condemn an incident they haven’t heard about, but upon hearing about
                      it, that excuse ceases.

                      And for the particular people called
                      on to condemn it “wherever it occurs,” prudence would suggest
                      that they at least keep an eye out for that which they are called to
                      condemn. Or at the very least, when there is a public outcry about
                      it, they should respond at that point, since they have then heard
                      about it and know that many others in the community have as well.

                      If
                      I’d heard about it in some classified document, that would be one
                      thing. But it was all over social media and had repeated coverage in
                      the newspaper. In the actual stories, not just the police
                      blotter.

                      Try again without inventing fictional mitigating
                      circumstances to rationalize with.

                      Why you’re trying to rationalize other people’s behavior that you aren’t responsible for is a little odd, but I expect you’re just trying to win an argument at this point, regardless of the facts or issue at hand.

                    • Tiger

                      Ouch, copy/paste really mangled the line breaks there. Sorry about that.

                    • Art Deco

                      In any city of a decent size, there are dozens of instances every week of violent crime. If parish clergy and bishops were to issue public remarks on it all they’d scarcely have time to undertake any other tasks. None of their parishioners nor any but the most obtuse and malicious members of the general public fancy that aggravated assault is an extension of Church teaching, so chattering about local crime stories is not notably educative. There is also nothing special about sexual deviants which would induce you to take notice as a matter of course when you remark on nothing else.

                      Quit scamming around. (Or quit being stupid).

          • Tiger

            I’m not talking about motives.
            My point was that the perpetrator was an exception to the statement that “no one” disputes that that kind of violence is unjust.
            He clearly–at least in the heat of the moment–thought that unprovoked violence against a gay man he had never even met was an acceptable course of action.

            Furthermore, I’m not inventing some new goalpost to expect the Church leaders here to have reached. The Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith established (nearly 30 years ago) the standard they failed to achieve.

            That’s what I’m on about. It doesn’t necessarily mean bad faith, but it is still a failure to live up to the standards the Church holds for its leaders regardless of the cause.

        • Objectivetruth

          Show us evidence that this person was attacked because of his/her “gayness”, or was this an assault and battery victim that just happened to be gay?

          • JoeNCA

            I can speak from personal experience. In my early 20s, we were at a party, and three young men were harassing people as they were coming and going because they heard “f–s” were inside. That’s the only reason they were there. When my best friend asked them to leave, one of them took a baseball bat to his back, knocked him unconscious, broke four of his ribs, he was in the hospital for a week and out of work for six.

            They had absolutely no reason to be there other than the fact that the people coming and going were gay. And they were just repeating what their preachers told them: Gay people are worthy of death, just like it says in Leviticus 20:13.

            You might as well have handed them the bat.

            • Guest

              Read the entire quote from the Ratzinger document. That may help you grasp the real point. You focus only on one so-called incident and ignore the greater issue.

              • Tiger

                And in the course of a few days, Crisis goes from saying all unprovoked violence is unacceptable to trying to deny concrete, documented instances of violence.

                I’d be willing to wager that within another few days some of you will be arguing that bias motivated crimes against gay people is a myth.

                • Guest

                  Give it up. You want to spread your agitprop and no one is buying. Stop with the straw men. Tiring.

                  • Tiger

                    Accusing people of agitprop is part of the syndrome.
                    ;)
                    You see what I did there?

                    • Guest

                      You did nothing. You elevate mere words above common sense? What syndrome? Homosexuality is pathology. Which pathology are you referring to?

                    • Tiger

                      Oh, do please use your one-sentence catchphrase again. It’s sure to convince someone who disagrees with you this time.

            • Objectivetruth

              ” And they were just repeating what their preachers told them:”Gay people are worthy of death, just like it says in Leviticus 20:13″

              C’mon……..really??

              I’m not saying that you’re lieing, but do you really expect me to believe that statement?

              Maybe you need to take some quiet time tonight and really think over what you’re posting here.

          • Tiger

            Well, the FBI was officially called in to determine if it was a hate crime, as it was a violent felony that police had reason to believe might have been a hate crime.

            And, well, the perpetrator was shouting in front of numerous witnesses about his belief that gay men were the reason he couldn’t find a girlfriend as he attacked the first man to walk out of a gay club while talking with a woman at the same time meant it was pretty clear that the victim was targeted because of the victim’s perceived homosexuality.

            They’d never met before and the perpetrator didn’t demand money or steal anything, but still initiated the confrontation even with witnesses on hand. In fact, he was outside the club before the even victim left the building.

            • Tiger

              Oh, and a little detail about the incident I just discovered: The primary witness to the attack was a police officer who was on the scene.

            • Objectivetruth

              Details? When and where did this happen? Can you provide a link? As uber sensitive that gay friendly outlets such as CNN and MSNBC are, why haven’t I seen 24 hour constant coverage on this incident? If a gay man trips on a crack in the sidewalk in front of a Catholic Church, MSNBC and CNN send 50 reporters trying to make a claim that it was the Church’s fault and therefore a hate crime. How come I haven’t heard anything from these outlets on your anecdotal incident?

              • Tiger

                Ooh, outright denial of a crime the perpetrator pleaded guilty to.
                That’ll certainly persuade me.

                I’d scan a copy of the police blotter report from the local newspaper, but well… it was a few years ago, and I recycle paper.

                But please do try to turn this into a situation where members of the Church not only do not condemn a crime but try to argue that it never happened in the first place! That’s *definitely* in the spirit of what Cardinal Ratzinger said 28 years ago.

                • Guest

                  Ratzinger would in no way support what you are doing here. Your propaganda is transparent.

                • Objectivetruth

                  Huh?? Your comments are like a car without a steering wheel.

                  • Tiger

                    You seem to be trying to set up some argument to deny the “validity” of the violence that I was speaking of, or even that it ever occurred.

                    Just one increment closer to my prediction of someone in here claiming hate crimes against gays don’t even exist.

        • JoeNCA

          And yet, they’re just repeating what they learned in the bible, that gay people are worthy of death.

          “If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” – Leviticus 20:13

          Isn’t that what your bible says?

          • Scott W.

            The death penalty for grave moral transgressions was eliminated in the New Testament.

          • Guest

            Oh such silliness. The bible does not support your wicked ideology.

            You only accent the part of the law you like. It is not only unjust violence that offends our Lord but wickedly immoral acts especially when they are taught as good and lead others astray.

          • Glenn M. Ricketts

            Joe, perhaps we could agree to some limit of absurdity here? No one says that, as I’m sure you know, so why make the statement? No doubt there’s a 15-member “church” somewhere in the mountains of Idaho that might think that way, but that ‘s about all. Otherwise, it’s very hard to take you seriously.

          • Objectivetruth

            I’m guessing you’re a gay atheist? Then possibly your agenda on this website is actually to attack the Catholic Church?

      • Tiger

        Sorry, forgot part of my response.

        I totally agree the survey is sleazy. I don’t think I know a single person who wouldn’t find that survey at least a little bit hinky, no matter their position on the issues.

        At the same time, I don’t think it warrants such a disproportionate response, compared to other, more serious problems. Some response, absolutely, but I still believe it’s a sign of some seriously problematic priorities when an unquestionably serious issue is faced with near silence and an isolated instance of sleaze by a bank (hardly a sleaze-free industry, I might add) gets a deafening roar across the internet.

        • Scott W.

          Most of us thankfully, never experience violent criminals in our daily lives. Most of us however, have jobs, so it is entirely reasonable and proportionate that people pay more attention to a story about employment that has a real chance of affecting them in the future. That doesn’t fairly translate into being callous and uncaring about serious violent crimes or their victims somewhere out there. There’s always a more serious issue out there, but most people only act when there is something they can actually do about it other than blow hot air. Using the lack of blowing hot air as evidence of Catholic shortcomings is a BS move and jamming.

          • Tiger

            “Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church’s pastors wherever it occurs.” – Cardinal Ratzinger.

            It’s not just *my* standard that the parishes here failed to live up to.

            I’m not saying they didn’t spend much time on it because most of their parishioners didn’t expect to experience it.
            I’m saying there was nothing but crickets and awkward silence and people trying to pretend it didn’t even happen.
            Not one word from the Bishop, despite the crime happening down the street from the former Cathedral. Not one word of a homily, not a paragraph in a bulletin. It certainly didn’t make the diocesan newspaper in any way.

            To be clear, I am not criticizing a merely weak condemnation. I am criticizing a total lack of any official condemnation of any kind.
            It’s not like they hadn’t gotten the memo, either. “On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons” was around for more than 20 years before this incident.

            • Guest

              I posted the complete quote from that document. You have a persecution complex. There is no conceivable right to vice. None. That some particular incident is not mentioned in the venue you desire is of no consequence. NONE!

              • Tiger

                So, do you disagree with the quote from Cardinal Ratzinger?

                Do you think you have some special right to the vice of being permissive of violent malice?

                • Guest

                  No one here is permissive of violence. That is your straw man.

                  • Tiger

                    Being loathe to condemn violence is permissiveness of it.
                    It doesn’t mean approval of it, but that’s a separate thing from permissiveness anyway.

                    When asked if violent malice against gays is deplorable, every Catholic should be able to immediately and confidently declare that it absolutely is.
                    When instead they try to change the subject repeatedly even when pressed for the answer, permissiveness is the conclusion that assumes the *least* bad faith or incompetence. Not just you, either. Most of the Catholics in my community have the same peculiar problem.
                    They’re nervous of being seen as pro-gay or just plain adversarial or for some other reason I cannot discern, they are loathe to just unambiguously affirm the Church’s clear position on the matter.

                    I really do make an effort to remind myself that there is not intended approval in their peculiar silence, but to impressionable young people’s minds, widespread silence can imply approval or at least tolerance.

                    The problem is not what the priest who’s hesitant to speak out on the issue *means* but what the impressionable people who learn from his example take his silence to mean.

                    • Guest

                      You are jamming. Stop deflecting the argument. You brought up violence. There was no need to. You, like a magician, want people to look only where you want them to look. But, here we do not fall for that propaganda.

                    • Tiger

                      Apparently you didn’t read my original point.

                      I was initially asking why only some aspects of dealing with homosexuals in the way the Catholic Church expects gets the level of zeal expected. In this case, an isolated, sleazy survey that even the pro-gay people here thought was bad gets several orders of magnitude more anger and indignation than things the Church says need to be condemned.

                      Seriously the survey was some stupid thing some person in middle management somewhere decided would be a good idea, and it’s treated like a national crisis. The dissonance in the reaction was my original point.
                      I didn’t start pushing people to affirm their opposition to unprovoked violence until they (you) started conspicuously avoiding saying anything that could even imply opposition to it.

      • Guest

        Propagandists always spew propaganda.

      • JoeNCA
        • Scott W.

          Actually yes it is because teachers at Catholic schools are not merely teachers, but ministers, which was affirmed in the recent SCOTUS Hosanna-Tabor ruling.

          • JoeNCA

            And now that corporations have beliefs, Chase can do the same thing. Thanks Hobby Lobby!

            Yeah, you never thought that was going to bite you, did you?

            • Guest

              Relativists like you cannot make correct distinctions.

    • slainte

      Tiger, violent and brutal acts perpetrated against any person are abhorrent and unacceptable in a civilized society and I condemn same.

      Any person who perpetrates such acts should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and, if found guilty, jailed. That person should further be compelled to make reparation to the victim for the crime and its consequences.

      Equal justice for all under the law.

    • Guest

      Persecution complex is part of the syndrome.

      • Tiger

        Projection, my friend. Projection.

        • Guest

          Projection, my friend. Projection.

          • Tiger

            Don’t give up, you’re sure to win the argument if you keep this up!

            • Guest

              Just admit it. You will feel better.

              • Tiger

                That’s the spirit! Keep up using one-liners instead of actual arguments that have merit or reason of any kind! Persistence will pay off in the end! If you start trying to use reason and facts now you’ll just be a quitter!

                • Guest

                  To deny the obvious is intellectually dishonest. Homosexuality is a deviation from the norm. It is not some insignificant finding like having one blue eye and one green eye. The syndrome carries with it several problems including this persecution complex that is so common.

                  • Tiger

                    But if you start making arguments with any substance now, it’ll look like you were being a real jerk earlier. Stay the course!

    • cestusdei

      What would happen to a professor of sociology who wants tenure if he chose to publicly state that marriage is only between a man and a woman? We know the answer to that don’t we?

      • Tiger

        I imagine what would happen would depend on which institution he was seeking tenure at. I can think of at least a few that wouldn’t give it to him unless he affirmed that belief. There are probably a few that wouldn’t even hire him otherwise.

        • Glenn M. Ricketts

          There would indeed be a few who wouldn’t hire him unless he made such a a declaration. They’d no doubt be right up front about it. But if he’d like to work just about anywhere else, he’d better keep very VERY quiet about such beliefs, including signing church petitions on Sunday. If the school’s HR office or “tolerance” dean finds out, it’ll be big trouble.

          • Tiger

            You apparently went to a much more liberal place for college than I did. And trust me, that’s saying something.

            I mean, you’re probably right about Berkeley or places like that, but I think those places reputations precede them just as well as the places I referred to.

            But at normal, midwestern universities? That wasn’t my experience.

            • Glenn M. Ricketts

              I graduated from college some time ago, when burning issues were different. But if you simply keep up with publications like the Chronicle of Higher Education or Inside Higher Education, you’ll see what happens to people in mainstream mid-western universities who dissent from homosexual marriage on their own time. If you like, I’ll cite some specific and very recent cases for you.

              • Tiger

                I’ve known of more than a few teachers, professors, adjunct professors, and lecturers who were quite clear in their position on the issue and faced no repercussions at all.
                They were certainly outnumbered by those that disagreed, but they had never made a secret of it and were still entirely employed.

                But like I said, I don’t doubt it’s happened in some places, I just don’t believe my experience was such an extraordinarily edge case that I could believe that it’s a “sure thing” anywhere except a few easily identifiable exceptions.

                • Glenn M. Ricketts

                  But then in what context? Don’t you expect to encounter controversy and opinions greatly at variance with your own in an academic setting, so why should it be a secret? Obviously my opinion is fundamentally at odds with yours as well. Believe me, I’m accustomed to being a minority of one in the academy, as the opinions I express here from time to time will confirm. I don’t advertise my views on abortion or homosexual marriage, although I don’t keep silent either. My colleagues are actually rather tolerant, and I usually enjoy partying with them. Friends of mine, however, have had very different experiences.

                  • Tiger

                    I’m saying that I, as a student, was able to readily discern their position against same-sex marriage purely through on-campus interaction.
                    It wasn’t–and didn’t need to be–a secret. They weren’t worried about their job security because of it either.

                    This is only from a student’s perspective, I admit, but things certainly didn’t resemble the sort of distopia Cestus was describing in any way.

                    • Glenn M. Ricketts

                      I guess the appropriate question becomes one of why one person or another – such as myself – opposes homosexual marriage. Is it purely reflective of malice, or is there something else? I’m well aware, for example, that many people cohabit outside of wedlock, but I can’t endorse that state of affairs either. Ultimately, it is traceable to religious convictions, but I’m also obliged to make sense of them in practical terms. The Bible condemns stealing and murder, period. Are there practical consequences that flow from observing those injunctions? Obviously. I guess I approach questions of marriage and sexuality in a similar manner.

        • cestusdei

          He would be denied tenure, period. We call that “persecution.”

          • Tiger

            You’re saying Bob Jones University (to pick the most vibrant example that came to mind) would deny that professor tenure for that reason?

            I’m pretty confident they’d fire any professor who disagreed that marriage is only between a man and a woman.

            But don’t go venturing out of your echo chamber of persecution narratives on my account.

  • Tiger

    Huh, I’m not used to Crisis having moderators who delete any inconvenient post.

    I’ll just leave the words of Cardinal Ratzinger this time,

    “It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church’s pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law.But the proper reaction to crimes committed against homosexual persons should not be to claim that the homosexual condition is not disordered.”

    Think on that next time you’re less outraged at a gay man being sent to the hospital than by a poorly thought-out survey.

    • Tiger

      I stand corrected… Apparently new posts just appear several pages down in the middle of the comments. My apologies for jumping to that conclusion.

      • ForChristAlone

        No matter what the Pope says, there is no such entity as a “homosexual person.” One’s sexual proclivities – perverse and otherwise – do NOT define one’s personhood. Male and female He created them.

        • Tiger

          So how about the point of the message instead of the particular wording the translator happened to use?

          Do you disagree with the part about violent malice in speech or in action being deplorable?
          Do you disagree that such treatment deserves condemnation?
          Do you think it doesn’t reveal a disregard for others that endangers the fundamental principles of a healthy society?
          Do you think the intrinsic dignity of each person need not always be respected in word, in action, and in law?

          Oh, but do just ignore the actual point of the quote and stop reading it 6 words in. That’ll make a really compelling argument.

          • Guest

            If you post the entire Ratzinger document you would see your point is hallow. He, clearly, points out just discrimination is necessary and much needed.

            • Tiger

              I’m talking about violent malice and the proper and improper responses to it.

              How about you answer the questions I asked instead of trying to change the subject?

              Do you believe violent malice in speech or action against individuals with homosexual inclinations or proclivities is NOT deplorable and does not warrant condemnation wherever it occurs?

              The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith already told Catholics what the correct answer to that question is.
              Why do so many actively try to avoid answering it?
              You know the answer! I quoted it for you directly! From the Church herself! From nigh on thirty years ago!

              Why is this such a slippery issue to get some people to answer?!

              • Guest

                You are jamming. You bring up a straw man and then argue against it. No one supports violence here. You are simply smearing others.

                Let us read the Ratzinger document in complete context:

                “10. It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are
                the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves
                condemnation from the Church’s pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of
                disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a
                healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected
                in word, in action and in law.

                But the proper reaction to crimes committed against homosexual
                persons should not be to claim that the homosexual condition is not disordered.
                When such a claim is made and when homosexual activity is consequently condoned,
                or when civil legislation is introduced to protect behavior to which no one has
                any conceivable right, neither the Church nor society at large should be
                surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational
                and violent reactions increase.”

                • Tiger

                  1. I kept pressing the issue because you kept shying away from condemning violence. That doesn’t mean you support it, and I never said you did support it.

                  I just wondered why you were spending so much effort to avoid directly condemning it.

                  2. If you had read closely, you’d notice that the first time I quoted the letter, I even included the beginning of that second paragraph.

                  But I started focusing on the first couple sentences because that was the part a few people here were shying away from like vampires and garlic.

                  I still have to wonder why it’s like pulling teeth to get some people to just say “Yes, of course violent malice is bad.”
                  I’m not assuming they support it, but there’s *some* kind of cognitive dissonance or concern about being perceived as pro-gay or *something* going on, because it’s an exceptionally uncontroversial statement, yet many people seem almost ludicrously loath to say it.

                  • Guest

                    No the problem is the gay people trot out violence as a type of trump card. No one here supports violence. It is a straw man.

                    • Tiger

                      “I never said you did support it.” -Me. In the second sentence of the comment you were replying to.

                      I am not accusing anyone of supporting violence, I am asking why so many people are not just reluctant, but outright resistant to condemning the violence they do not support.

                      I really would like to know.

                    • Guest

                      They do not need to answer straw man arguments.

                    • Tiger

                      But they do need to condemn violent malice in speech or action against gay people wherever it occurs.

                      The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s words, not mine.

    • cestusdei

      I don’t see any outrage from homosexuals when Christians are arrested or lose their job or businesses because they refuse to bow to the idol of homosexuality.

    • Derek Schramm

      Gay men require medical attention more often from their horrific sex acts than assaults upon them by homophobic straights. Assaults are still wrong and assault motivated by theft is much more common the homophobia. The dignity of people to not recognize gay marriage should also be respected by law and culture.

  • don Pavao

    They can do what ever they want because there is nobody to fight them,Church is number one among those who have surrender.

    “All those who support and vote for laws that allow homosexual “marriages” are
    effectively excommunicated” – it`s that simple to send a strong message

    But then again,how would Obama and Hollande see the Vatican,as mere tourists?That would not be in the spirit of dialog.

    We celebrate those early christians who refused to bring offerings to pagan gods and were punished but do nothing for christian who are forced to participate in homosexual “marriages” because they work for the goverment.

    What has Church done for those catholics in France? And it`s only getting worse and more wide spread.

    For me war is over, Church has surrender, now we as catholics have to endure what comes,because that is the faith off those who are defeated.

  • Sam Johnson

    Include Dell in your list. We are all required to take Diversity Training, included in that – acceptance of LGBT in the workplace. Dell and Dell Software also has an entire Executive branch dedicated to this, as well as an official LGBT corporate group. Dell often advertises just how highly they score in the LGBT-supported corporations. This company is also a veritable cult in most senses of the word.

    • Scott W.

      Would you elaborate a little more on “acceptance of LGBT in the workplace”? What specifically do they require you to do?

    • Art Deco

      Some of the shizz is indubitably prophylactic, meant to ward off lawsuits of a certain sort, and would go away if employment discrimination law were amended or junked. I’ll wager its mostly management fad driven by the personnel office or the legal department (and perhaps by a gay nexus in one or the other). Raw material for a Dilbert strip.

      • Scott W.

        Exactly. The Political Correctinistas have done an excellent job of inventing a problem and selling the cure. The have effectively imposed on corporations a PC gramaje. That is, an informal layer of taxation relatively immune from a richly-deserved RICO charge. Chase however seems to be taking it up notch in a kind of corporate Stockholm Syndrome.

      • ForChristAlone

        When hiring, you have to learn to look for the clues about whom to avoid. For instance, I never hired anyone with a hyphenated name.

      • Michael Paterson-Seymour

        That is certainly true, like the ubiquitous warning on foodstuffs of all kinds, “this product may contain nuts.”
        Also, declaring somewhere in one’s mission statement that one is an Equal Opportunities Employer is increasingly becoming a requirement for membership of various professional bodies and trade associations, to advertise vacancies in various newspapers and journals or with some recruitment agencies, tendering for some contracts &c
        Most people simply do not feel strongly enough about it to resist the trend, as including an essentially meaningless statement costs nothing and may prove useful.

        • Glenn M. Ricketts

          If you compare most people’s take on life with the homosexual trolls who post here and on other sites, you’re probably struck by the level to which the latter are obsessed with their sex lives and the need to know that others are thinking approvingly of them. Most people, as I stated in a previous comment, are not fanatics about much of anything and will usually opt out. Plus the fact that for some time, those could speak up and present an alternative case – I have our spiritual shepherds in mind – have chosen “tolerance” or easy silence. We haven’t seen the likes of St. John Fisher recently.

          • JoeNCA

            Well, that’s your fault. The moment you put the rights of gay people up for a public vote, you made it their business. In order to get 50%+1, you have to convince people of your cause.

            Gay people didn’t put it to a public vote. You did.

            And as for the minority who didn’t vote our way? I could really give a flying f— what you think of me.

            • Glenn M. Ricketts

              Joe, why don’t you take a deep breath and tone it down? This doesn’t make sense.

            • Guest

              This is a false view of rights. There are no rights to vice.

            • Art Deco

              The moment you put the rights of gay people up for a public vote, you
              made it their business. In order to get 50%+1, you have to convince
              people of your cause.

              Rights to what? If they have not been extended in statutory or customary law, how are they enforceable entitlements? If they are not enacted by bodies of elected officials or incorporated into common law, how can they be regarded as positive law?

              • Glenn M. Ricketts

                I think Joe is of the view – very common these days – that if he wants something, he must have a “right” to it. The social contract, longstanding custom, etc., are dispensable if the “right” can’t be found in any of those places.

          • Tiger

            You know, it’s funny. I’ve seen people argue that it’s wrong for gay people define themselves by their sex lives and then insist–in the very same paragraph–on defining those same gay people by their sex lives, only with a more derogatory term.

            In fact, the latter seems to almost always be present somewhere nearby when the former argument is made.

            • Glenn M. Ricketts

              As I see it, I’m responding to what you and the others have posted here. I’m more than willing to leave you alone, even if we disagree very fundamentally on matters of sexuality. But you’re the one who’s decided to come trolling at this site, and now seem angry at the responses you could have expected. You’re welcome to come, of course, but you can’t say you didn’t know what you were getting into. For my part, I don’t feel the need to visit the sites more in line with your thinking. Do you think I should?

              • Tiger

                What?

                I wasn’t angry at the responses I was getting, I was pointing out how they are sometimes directly contradictory to their own position.

                I was criticizing the structure of a particular argument because it invalidates itself.

                If defining a person purely by their sexual inclinations is wrong, then it is wrong both for the person self-defining AND for the person saying people need to start referring to those people as “sodomites” and thereby doing the exact thing they were criticizing others for.

                • Glenn M. Ricketts

                  As I see it, I’m taking many homosexuals at their word, and disagreeing with them. It’s their definition, and my dissent.

                  • Tiger

                    Okay, and I credit you for not engaging in the hypocrisy I normally see following your argument. I was intending to head it off at the pass since it usually follows shortly thereafter in discussions I have read or heard, but I was presumptuous. I apologize.

                    • Glenn M. Ricketts

                      Not at all, this is a combox, remember, and the discussion cab get tangled. But could I suggest that if you and your firiends return – and why wouldn’t you? – don’t come out swinging. You know what the particular orientation of this site is, so just keep it at this level. We won’t agree, but that’s OK. Charity in all things, eh?

            • Guest

              The designation is a way to convey how one mistakenly defines oneself. You have to use some word to convey the thought, but that is much different than wearing the disorder as a badge of honor.

              • Tiger

                The point I was making is that the people who most often condemn it do so by saying it is wrong for a person’s entire identity to be defined by their sexual inclinations.
                Then, probably 80% of the time by my count, they proceed to insist on defining other people’s entire identity based on their perceptions of that person’s sexual inclinations. The only difference is this time it’s using a pejorative term with a long history of being used to bully people.

                Isn’t the contradiction there kind of obvious?

                • Guest

                  It is not a contradiction at all. They are using the criteria the “gays” use themselves. They point out if one defines them self by their disorder then what follows is not good.

                  • Tiger

                    No, I’m seriously talking about people whom I’ve seen make the argument that it is wrong for them to self-identify as “gay” because it’s defining a person by their sexuality alone, and then two sentences later SERIOUSLY insist that it’s also wrong to refer to people as “having same-sex attraction” because he felt calling them sodomites (and thereby doing what he said was wrong for them to do) was more appropriate. Not as some rhetorical stunt, either. He was justifying his long-standing habit of calling them sodomites to someone who was criticizing it.

                    And seriously, when I see that particular argument about why they shouldn’t self-identify as gay, a majority of the time I see someone else in the same combox saying we don’t put enough effort into the labels used to reduce them to just their sexuality and how we should have much more biting labels.
                    It’s not always the same person, to be fair, but I am unaccustomed to seeing one without the other they coincide so often.

                    • Guest

                      This is all pedantic. Anyone who self identifies by their disordered sexual desires is not being fair to themselves or others. It is necessary, at times, to correctly label behavior and ideology.

                      The real contradiction is when people claim to be “gay” and then demand all accept this label as normal and good.

        • slainte

          Revelation 13:16-17

    • Art Deco

      Did you ever have to sit through one of those inane sessions on Total Quality Management? I was a shift worker at the time so our sessions were held at 11:00 at night. A verbally agile fellow on the custodial staff had some fun with the presenter from the personnel office, who was then taken outside by her supervisor for some sort of dressing down.

      New a fellow who worked at Nixon, Peabody at the time. He said the effect of TQM there was that ‘no one will take responsibility for a decision ever again’.

      • Art Deco

        Knew a fellow… ach.

      • ForChristAlone

        This is when I left my Northeast hospital management position. We were spending more time with nonsense like TQM than treating patients. I will be going offshore for my medical care now (Guatemala City has a great private Catholic hospital).

    • ForChristAlone

      Thanks for the info. My next computer was going to be a Dell; not now.

      • JoeNCA

        Apple has one too. IBM. Microsoft, HP. Pretty much anything with an Intel chip (yes, Intel as well).

        • Liars

          Worked at Apple until earlier this year. There was no such survey or requirement there.

  • sparrowhawk58

    Would it be legal to ask, during an interview, if a person is LGBT ? If not, then how can this question be asked in a survey?

    • Art Deco

      Cannot say anywhere else. In New York, if you’ve a corporate employer concerned with compliance, job interviews are kabuki theatre. You get tip sheets from the personnel office about all the ways you cannot ask a question. My office once granted an interview (no clue why) to a woman professing to want to return to her earlier career. She’d been out of circulation for more than twenty years doing – guess what? – practicing labor law. One of the people on the core interview committee told me ‘she seemed to be maneuvering all of us to ask a ‘bad’ question’. They figured post hoc that she was trolling for material for a lawsuit. (As I say, I cannot figure out why the management even consented to an interview; red flags all over that resume).

  • Funbud

    Um…maybe they were just trying to determine how many disabled and gay people they have on staff? Along with how many may have children/spouses with disabilities?

    The “ally” question is a bit odd. Maybe they are trying to determing level of interest in sponsoring a Gay Pride event?

    Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar.

    • Scott W.

      That’s not where the smart money is.

  • thebigdog

    The Gaystapo continues its goose prance across America… complaining that normal Americans are “forcing their religion” on them. Too funny.

  • Howard

    Stick with local credit unions.

  • Macmooski

    I wish there was a comprehensive list of agencies, companies, organizations and celebrities that aggressively support the LGTB agenda; then I would boycott every single one. I have already begun with those elements that have been exposed in the news. No more silent/passive agreement from me. I can’t change the world, but I can choose on what and where I spend my money, time and talent.

    • Alias Darker

      although i keep in touch with all the news and topics going on through my computer, i havent watched tv since 2011. its freedom . I carefully read critics reviews on rotten tomatoes , especially the bad ones , and the minute I suspect the typical brainwashing movie or tv show, i just drop it (needless to say that lately i have almost stopped watching movies lol) . I want a clear mind and yes i boycott everything that is being dictated to me

  • cestusdei

    This kind of thing will grow until Christians are relegated to only menial labor. Just like back in pagan times.

    • John200

      I think the opposite result is more likely.

      Certainly, our secular brethren are full of themselves. So they will continue to make themselves obnoxious. At some point, Christians might declare that we will not fool with them anymore, that is, they can (figuratively, of course not literally!) go to hell. This could happen any day.

      The seculars would then experience hell on earth. Who would bake their homo”sex”ual “wedding” cakes?

  • AugustineThomas

    The bitter fruit of Baby Murder Nation.

  • Clint Pate

    If my employer does not like my views, they can tell me. I will in turn tell them to kiss my…, as I will remain a free American as long as I have breathe in me. This is as close to hell (hell on earth) as I will ever see. Looking forward to my permanent placement in my Lord’s villa.

  • KCCCC

    I worked at the Springfield MO call center in Customer Care for Chase United customer service several years ago before this question was added to the surveys. Every year they had a gay pride day, seriously? The managers, which were glorified supervisors were very mean, corporate drones that went by the book like a bunch of Nazi fascists. They would scream and yell at employees for not making their Minutes on the phones, or achieving required sales goals or for not getting their script correct as they made changes by the day for legal reasons. It was a horrible, tyrannical place to work. I had a manager that refused to pay me my commission one month because she didn’t like the fact that I had to use the restroom more than twice in a 9 hour day. I’m a female, we need to take bathroom breaks. The Director at the time was married, having an affair with two married managers at the same time, would lurk around the twenty something’s desks, putting his hands on their shoulders. He was fired eventually and was written up in the paper about it. The gays in this town are heavily employed in the many call centers, the supervisors love them because they bring in all their buddies, it’s a never ending stream of workers for the high turnover at most call centers. The reverse discrimination that goes on in these centers is glaringly obvious to anyone with eyes, yet our local government is trying to pass a law that protects homosexuals specifically from employment discrimination. The discrimination laws already protect people from being terminated for religious, gender, and disability. Why do we need a gay clause so that they can sue a company for terminating them when we live in a state that allows employers to terminate employees at any time for any reason, there is no contractual agreement between employer and employee. They can fire you for wearing a pink shirt, but now they can’t fire you because you can claim you are gay and that was the reason? I am sick of the gay bullying, Christian bashing, moral decline in our society. This country and it’s Constitution was written based on our society having a morality based on Judeo Christian values. It doesn’t work in an immoral society as we can so plainly see today. This is the reason I am not an ally of LGBT anything. I don’t have anything against gay people as individuals, I don’t care what they choose to do, but to force acceptance for their lifestyle, to change the biblical concept of marriage and put children and heterosexual people in the service of homosexual’s so they can have their “family” is beyond reasonable. Forcing their sickness on children when they are growing up to confuse their own sexuality is a human rights issue if there ever was one. It is so true that Liberals turn everything on it’s head, what’s evil is good and what’s good is now evil. God help us all.

MENU