Uh, no, tolerance hasn’t changed its meaning.


Tolerance has changed its meaning

I have to say, it is really sad that christians have to outright lie in order to justify their Intolerance. I refuse to capitalize this word. They are in no way like Christ.

1. Where, anywhere in America, are “christians [are]being forced to participate in same-sex weddings…” ?? The last time I checked, weddings were by invitation for guests; if you don’t want to celebrate the union of two men or two women you DON’T HAVE TO GO TO THE WEDDING. YOU DON’T HAVE TO BE A PART OF THE WEDDING PARTY. YOU DON’T HAVE TO GIVE THEM A GIFT. If it’s your boss it might be professionally or socially expedient to do any one of the above actions, but it’s not mandated by any law in this land. And really, if you are an actual christian I would think it would make your cause look all the better by being willing to suffer job loss or lack of promotion in order to stand up for your beliefs as a CHRISTIAN. You know, like they did in the Roman times, in the Coliseum.

Where, anywhere in America, have christians been forced to marry someone of the same sex???? Because that’s the only other possible interpretation. And I’m pretty sure, in America, one cannot be forced to marry another against one’s will.

2. When one works for a government agency, paid with taxpayer dollars that include taxes paid by homosexuals, transgender individuals, and bisexuals, as well as those like me who do not in any way identify with monotheistic Abrahamic religions, one does NOT have a right to free speech such as advocated by Mr. Walsh when one is recognized as working for a public agency – at least not when one’s personal speech advocates denying rights to those who by law should be able to expect fair and equitable treatment from a representative of a government agency. I know this will piss many people off, but it’s true.

If you want to preach that stuff, then you need to leave your public service office – because I don’t want my tax dollars supporting your intolerance. If you feel so strongly about your beliefs that you have to broadcast them on your free time like he and others have, then you shouldn’t be in a position of public health and safety – you can’t do your job which is to provide to everyone equitably.

Xtians screamed bloody murder when in the 80’s when a few people here and there were fired for violating tenets of the faith of their employer. They screamed bloody murder because these people sued for discrimination, and ultimately lost – because if you go to work for a church as a housekeeper or secretary, for instance, and you know your employer is a religious organization, and you are a homosexual, you do not have employment protections afforded to you as the same homosexual could expect at say, Golden Corral. This is religious protection afforded by federal law. A religious organization has no obligation to hire someone who lives in a way contrary to the organization’s beliefs. One is a religious environment, one is not. This is the same situation in reverse as the above situation with employment at a government agency – you do not have the right to impose your religious beliefs on your coworkers nor do you get to use your position as a bully pulpit to spread your INtolerance.

3. San Antonio passed an ordinance that protects religious organizations exactly the same as it protects the LBGT community. What the San Antonio city attorney said at their meeting is NOT that churches must now marry LBGT couples in violation of their religious tenets, regardless of what this lying blog states by misrepresenting facts and only telling part of the story.

Here are a few quotes from the PDF outlining the actual ordinance:
“Provides exemptions to qualifying religious organizations” i.e., federally recognized tax-exempt religious groups which most churches ARE.

NO CHURCHES HAVE TO MARRY ANYONE THEY DON’T WANT TO.

They don’t even have to rent their facilities to such a group if they don’t want to:
“The ordinance does not require a church or other non-profit to lease its accommodations to groups covered by the ordinance provided the profits of such accommodations (above reasonable and necessary expense) are solely for the benefit of such organization.”

What the ordinance DOES do is prevent city employees who are legally authorized to perform marriages from refusing to do so based on the couple’s sexual orientation. Again, working for a government agency means you have a higher standard you must meet regarding nondiscrimination. You can read the fact sheet for yourself here: San Antonio Ordinance Fact Sheet

4. This author is correct that several businesses have been sued over their refusal to provide services to LBGT families. I am of two minds regarding this: 1. that they have a right to do so as the owner of the business, and 2. that while you might have the RIGHT, when you are providing a product or service to members of the public, it’s generally not a good idea. To me, this is equivalent to refusing service to an African American based on race. And we all know how that turned out for the Jim Crow South…

5. This woman writer whose article I am quoting gives much time to the concept of tolerance for her own religious views yet I have heard Rick Warren speak, and many others of his ilk as well – they would happily deny me my own religious freedom by jail or even death (suffer not a witch to live…though I’m not a witch, I’m a polytheistic Pagan, but to them it’s all the same). Their concept of tolerance only extends to those who believe in the same intolerant views as they themselves.

ETA:  Well, in actuality I’m a henotheistic Pagan, who believes in the overarching unity of the consciousness of the entirety of the universe, but who also believes in individual deities as well.  I’m big on logical paradoxes, they keep me from getting too rigid in my thinking 🙂

Finally, I believe the entire foundation this blog and others like it are based on is flawed. Our founding fathers and our elected representatives stressed repeatedly, into the middle of the 1900’s, that the United States is NOT a christian nation. See the Treaty of Tripoli for the most outstanding example, it says that explicitly.

In the 1860’s, an amendment to the Consitution that would state that we are in fact a christian nation never even made it out of the House Judiciary Committee who ultimately noted this about the amendment:  “the dangers which the union between church and state had imposed upon so many nations of the Old World” in times past … like the purging of Catholics in England in Tudor Times, the purges of the Huguenots in France, the displacement of Catholic Irish in favor of Protestant transplants who would support the British government, etc… it’s a very long list and the founding fathers were fully aware of the dangers of supporting one religious group over another.

Further, members of the Judiciary Committee  directly stated that in light of the above abuses it was felt to be  “inexpedient to put anything into the Constitution which might be construed to be a reference to any religious creed or doctrine.” Because that would have overturned the foundation of our nation, that of a nation based on humanistic ideals of equality.

Xtians have been trying to overturn the foundational religious freedom our country was founded on since before its official inception. Luckily for them, those of us who don’t subscribe to their beliefs actually DO believe in tolerance for others’ opinions, no matter how at odds with our own they are. And no matter how dangerous if officially promulgated, ultimately to themselves or their progeny – after all what is currently ‘in fashion’ can change, even with religious views (it has happened frequently after all) and those that gain power due to one fashion can lose their power with the rise of another. See Oliver Cromwell for the best example of that.

Yes, they are free to spew their hatred and intolerance, in the image of Jesus, who after all promoted lots of hate *sarcasm* because we live in a country that honors its promise of equality and tolerance of unpopular speech, even for those who would deny it to others. And lie about it to promote their hate filled fear driven views.  What would Jesus lie about? How would Jesus twist facts to suit his own agenda?

Federal funds earmarked to offset Affordable Care Act insurer losses


tomfernandez28's Blog

Federal funds earmarked to offset Affordable Care Act insurer losses

Reporting from WASHINGTON—
The Obama administration has quietly adjusted key provisions of its signature healthcare law to potentially make billions of additional taxpayer dollars available to the insurance industry if companies providing coverage through the Affordable Care Act lose money.

The move was buried in hundreds of pages of new regulations issued late last week. It comes as part of an intensive administration effort to hold down premium increases for next year, a top priority for the White House as the rates will be announced ahead of this fall’s congressional elections.

Administration officials for months have denied charges by opponents that they plan a “bailout” for insurance companies providing coverage under the healthcare law.

They continue to argue that most insurers shouldn’t need to substantially increase premiums because safeguards in the healthcare law will protect them over the next several years.

But the change in regulations essentially provides insurers with…

View original post 542 more words

Sometimes the boss needs to kick me in the butt.


I do work for a company every weekend; I do that to pay my bills and support our family while we complete school.  That I’m not talking about — I’m highly motivated to keep that job and do the best I can before I become an advanced practice nurse.  I believe in the saying that you should make yourself so valuable to your employer that they will want to keep you.

That’s not the boss I’m talking about. 

I warped my loom for some napkins; the idea was that I would use mainly white with green as an accent color for the napkins then weave a matching set of place mats in mainly green with white as the accent color.  Well, the napkins didn’t turn out well at all; I didn’t calculate the sett well (sett is how many threads per inch you use for the warp) though it was within the acceptable range for this fiber.  So the draw in (how much they shrink width wise while on the loom) was pretty severe and will be worse when I wet finish them.  then I discovered I misthreaded and had to put in a repair heddle.  Then my selvedges (the sides of the weaving) were crap because of the draw in problems and I didn’t have the tension tight enough. 

Long story short, I HATED these but couldn’t bring myself to cut them off the loom and cut my losses.  So the weaving went in fits and starts.  Mostly fits. 

Since I have a project that MUST be done by May 10, my procrastination has cost me much in terms of time!  I finally finished the napkins last night.  They are in a pile with several other projects awaiting the hemming and wet finishing.  If my boss (ME) were a good boss, the pile wouldn’t be still sitting and the napkins would have been done last week. 

If I’m going to make a business out of weaving I need to be a better boss to myself…