What an Open Forum Looks Like »« Farah Prays for a Michele Miracle

Discrimination and the Salvation Army

Bil Browning writes a very compelling article on why you should not contribute to the Salvation Army despite the good they do in many ways. He lists the many ways the organization has worked against the interests of gay and lesbian people around the world.

Since 1986 the Salvation Army has engaged in five major assaults on the LGBT community’s civil rights and attempted to carve out exemptions that would allow them to deny gays and lesbians needed services as well as employment.

  • When New Zealand considered passage of the Homosexual Law Reform Act in 1986, the Salvation Army collected signatures in an attempt to get the legislation killed. The act decriminalized consensual sex between gay men. The measure passed over the charity’s objections.
  • In the United Kingdom, the Salvation Army actively pushed passage of an amendment to the Local Government Act. The amendment stated that local authorities “shall not intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality” or “promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship.” The law has since been repealed, but it led many schools and colleges to close LGBT student organizations out of fear they’d lose their government funding.
  • In 2001, the organization tried to extract a resolution from the White House that they could ignore local non-discrimination laws that protected LGBT people. While the commitment would have applied to all employees, the group claimed that it needed the resolution so it “did not have to ordain sexually active gay ministers and did not have to provide medical benefits to the same-sex partners of employees.” After lawmakers and civil rights activists revealed the Salvation Army’s active resistance to non-discrimination laws, the White House admitted the charity was seeking the exemptions.
  • Also in 2001, the evangelical charity actively lobbied to change how the Bush administration would distribute over $24 billion in grants and tax deductions by urging the White House deny funding to any cities or states that included LGBT non-discrimination laws. Ari Fleischer, White House press secretary, issued a statement saying the administration was denying a “regulation sought by the church to protect the right of taxpayer-funded religious organizations to discriminate against homosexuals.”
  • In 2004, the Salvation Army threatened to close all their soup kitchens in New York City to protest the city’s decision to require all vendors and charities doing business with the city to adhere to all civil rights laws. The organization balked at having to treat gay employees equal to straight employees.

I’ve seen the discrimination the Salvation Army preaches first hand. When a former boyfriend and I were homeless, the Salvation Army insisted we break up before they’d offer assistance. We slept on the street instead and declined to break up as they demanded.

Instead of donating to the Salvation Army, choose a different charity that will help everyone without prejudice. Find a local secular charity – or here are some national organizations that provide help to anyone who needs it:

I couldn’t agree more.

Comments

  1. Hercules Grytpype-Thynne says

    Some years back I read an article in the Boston Globe that suggested that some of the money I was donating to the SA might be going to proselytizing rather than to relief. They haven’t seen a dime of my money since.

  2. says

    I am sorry to learn that the SA has right-wing attitudes, for I have always felt a debt of gratitude toward them on behalf of my father. During WWII, he told me, GI’s coming back from the front for R&R were met by coffee wagons. The Red Cross charged a dime per cup while the SA gave out coffee free of charge. It meant a lot to him.
    So whatever vilification the SA deserves, the Red Cross has it coming raised to the power of 10… or 100. The Red Cross is one scumbag organization. I hope the SA sees the light.

  3. Ellie says

    I do give to other charities, but I also give to SA because I know for sure, if they were not in operation, there would be more people hungry and on the streets. I wish other organizations could/would take up the slack (or that the SA would remember it’s “whatever you did for the least of these” not “whatever you did for the least of these after a long sermon”), but right now, there aren’t enough other places, at least not in my area.

  4. Gregory says

    I have experienced their discrimination second hand.

    Back in my theist days in the mid to late 80s, I was a deacon at the Metropolitan Community Church in Tucson. MCC is an evangelical denomination that serves a mostly lesbian and gay demographic, and MCC-Tucson was, at the time, located downtown.

    We occasionally got homeless people coming by the church in need of services; often, they were gay and knew that they could get help from us. We kept a list of service agencies in the area, and would refer people to where they could get the assistance they needed, such as food, shelter and clothes. On that list was a SA men’s shelter three blocks from the church.

    Eventually, the Salvation Army learned that the community church down the street from them was run by and for *gasp* homosexuals, and that we welcomed people rather than condemned them. The Tucson commandery sent us a polite but pointed letter informing us that all of their shelters and other services have been instructed NOT to take our referrals. It seemed they preferred to have gay men sleeping on the streets where they might be assaulted, robbed, even freeze to death (Tucson is pretty high in the Rockies, and the very dry air means winter lows in the 20s were not uncommon) than emulate the Good Samaritan.

    I haven’t donated to them, or made any recommendation for their services, since.

  5. says

    The SA threatened to close ALL THEIR SOUP KITCHENS IN NEW YORK?!! They would have let the poorest people there go hungry, just to protect their own right to bash gays? Yeah, feel that Christian love, and know those lousy nasty heartless atheists will never match it ’cause they hate God so much or something…

  6. Hercules Grytpype-Thynne says

    The Red Cross is one scumbag organization.

    That may be true, but can you really make that assertion on the basis of one story about something that happened > 60 years ago?

  7. Trebuchet says

    The Red Cross is one scumbag organization.

    That may be true, but can you really make that assertion on the basis of one story about something that happened > 60 years ago?

    I’ve no personal experience, but that is pretty similar to the attitude of a number of WWII veterans I’ve met towards the Red Cross.

  8. whheydt says

    Re: Red Cross vs. SA in WW2.

    My father (US Maritime Service at the time) had similar opinions because the Red Cross charged for services to rescued mariners and the SA did not.

    What is missing from all of these stories is that the Red Cross was *required* to charge under British law and the SA was not. The Red Cross was in a bind on the matter.

    Now, had it been me…I would have looked the mariner in the eye and said “Take this 1 pound note. I am required by law to charge you 1 pound to provide services to you. That’ll be one pound, please.”

    –W. H. Heydt

    Old Used Programmer

  9. interrobang says

    They’re not only anti-gay, they’re also explicitly anti-feminist, anti-divorce, and anti-drinking. They tacitly or explicitly lend their support to just about any anti-woman initiative going, as well. So it’s not just TEH GHEY. (The local branch also seems to expend far more of its energies on men than women, as well, but that’s n=1.)

    A good friend of mine basically took over running the logistics for the SA relief centre a couple of blocks away from the WTC after 9/11, for the simple reason that he’s a logistics expert, and the idiots running the SA post were more concerned about which uniform was required by protocol that day and booking meeting rooms than they were with figuring out where to store supplies and getting cardboard boxes out of the rain…

  10. Jordan Genso says

    I’m surprised to see the author advocating in support of the Red Cross. I was in a discussion last year about donating blood, and my friend said that he wasn’t allowed. When I asked ‘why?’, he said ‘because they don’t allow gay men to donate.’

    Now I’m not 100% sure if that is still their policy, but I do remember last time I donated being asked if I had had gay sex, so I think it may be the case.

    I think the public should put pressure on the Red Cross to stop (if they still are) discriminating against blood donations from gay males.

  11. Aquaria says

    That may be true, but can you really make that assertion on the basis of one story about something that happened > 60 years ago?

    They were doing the same thing at military hospitals in the 80s. I saw it first hand at Ellsworth and Keesler. They would usually set up in the lobby, so everyone would see them. This included children, who never understood that the cookies and donuts and coffee weren’t for them unless Dad or Mom could afford to pay–for the pastries and for the coffee. It’s shocking how many enlisted military couldn’t afford a dime for a cup of coffee or two cookies.

    You’ve never seen a meaner looking bunch of people than those manning those Red Cross tables. But then, telling kids they can’t have cookies takes a certain douchebaggery that most people can’t pull off.

  12. mrwizard says

    whheydt:

    Not British law, a request by none other than our very own secretary of war, Mr Stimson. If the GIs would like to be pissed at someone, start with their own command. I would have preferred that the Pres of the Red Cross give the middle finger to Washington over it, but I don’t think that would have worked out any better.

    For anyone wanting the whole story on the donut and coffee thing, traipse to your local Red Cross Chapter, ask ‘em to look it up on Crossnet. They can get you a copy of the letter from Stimson, and Ike’s post-war defense of the Red Cross.

  13. mrwizard says

    About the gay/bi blood donor issue-I’m pretty sure your beef should be with the FDA, who I think makes the rules.

  14. RW Ahrens says

    I was in the military in the 70’s, and drove home from Ft. Polk in La. to Beaumont, Tx after AIT one weekend. Driving back, I discovered that I was low on gas, but broke. Seeing a nearby RC building, I went in to see if I could beg or borrow five bucks for gas.

    They asked me to leave. I ended up getting gas from a nice gentleman who fondly remembered his WWII days in uniform.

    Screw the RC.

  15. carolw says

    My mom has a similar WWII story about the Red Cross, and to this day refuses to give them one red cent. I think the story was that they took donations for the boys coming home, then charged for them, and it was something like cigarettes. I don’t remember the details. I sure don’t give any money to the S.A. either. Charities should help whoever needs help, regardless.

  16. says

    The FDA doesn’t allow men who’ve had sex with men (or their female partners) to donate. The Red Cross has actively argued the FDA to change it’s rules on this. Whatever their problems in other areas may be this one is not their fault.

  17. pa747sp says

    ‘When New Zealand considered passage of the Homosexual Law Reform Act in 1986, the Salvation Army collected signatures in an attempt to get the legislation killed. The act decriminalized consensual sex between gay men. The measure passed over the charity’s objections.’

    Actually, it is worse than that. The SA used fraudulent methods to add names to the petition. It included the names of children, pets, and dead people. The SA were aware of this and still presented the petition. They were willing to lie to promote their political cause.

  18. Chris from Europe says

    Yes, there’s no complaint about the Red Cross regarding the gay blood ban. (By the way, just yesterday I read through a few threads by Ed, PZ and erv about the issue. It’s interesting that there are always people who have to defend the ban.)

    The Snopes article shows that the complaints about the Red Cross on this thread (except Aquaria’s) are uncalled-for.

    And the type of behavior Aquaria describes isn’t exclusive to the Red Cross. I’ve seen similar attempts to guilt trip people or work via their children to get donations by food banks and church charity groups. I’ve even seen them getting aggressive: One of the food bank people nearly went off on me for not donating (I had my reasons, even more afterwards).

    I don’t get why people always have to defend the SA. Why couldn’t other groups do their work if they received the donations? See the video by Zinnia Jones:

    Boycott The Salvation Army

  19. gingerbaker says

    Chris from Europe said:

    “Yes, there’s no complaint about the Red Cross regarding the gay blood ban. (By the way, just yesterday I read through a few threads by Ed, PZ and erv about the issue. It’s interesting that there are always people who have to defend the ban.)”

    I was one of those people, and what I found interesting was that the vast majority of people in those threads who were against the ban used arguments re social justice, as opposed to making detailed evidenced arguments on the public health issue.

    I would be interested to hear why the FDA has not reversed itself, and why they may be in the wrong.

  20. twincats says

    Now I’m not 100% sure if that is still their policy, but I do remember last time I donated being asked if I had had gay sex, so I think it may be the case.

    I think the public should put pressure on the Red Cross to stop (if they still are) discriminating against blood donations from gay males.

    They’re pretty picky about blood donation; Since 2002 or so, I am no longer a viable donor for them because I served (USAF) in selected regions in Europe between 1980 and 1991. Possible Mad Cow exposure, I come to find out.

  21. mrwizard says

    As you may have gathered, I’m a volunteer with the Red Cross. Oddly, I also fall under the “mad cow” prohibition due to a prolonged stay in England. I have no statistical sample to give you, but the folks I deal with would like to see the “gay ban” on blood donors lifted.

    As for the Salvation Army, I have mixed feelings. On the one hand I disagree with their sexual politics-vehemently. On the other hand they have been one of the Red Cross’ valuable partners in disaster relief for a very long time. I imagine some of their membership has reservations about our neutrality as well. I owe a personal debt of gratitude to the SA for stepping in and feeding the shelter I was helping run after Katrina when the folks who had been supplying us cut us off because they weren’t getting paid fast enough. They fed me and our hundred-fifty folks without once giving in to the urge to preach at us.

    As far as Aquaria’s experience, I suspect the local chapter unwisely ran a regular fund-raising bake sale at the base hospitals-a serious error in protocol. We are constantly reminding our interns and fund-raising folks that they must seaparate fund raising and service delivery sites. They’re mostly (97%) volunteers, so that can be a challenge.

  22. Chris from Europe says

    I was one of those people

    I know.

    I would be interested to hear why the FDA has not reversed itself

    Well, it should be noted that the committee voted 9-6 for the keeping the ban and that the members voted 14-0 that the ban is a sub-optimal policy. One of the reasons given by the people who voted against lifting was that they don’t know how the new criteria should look like. The committee suggested further research for alternative policies.

    So their decision was a political one. They want to make sure that they are seen as cautious. As discussed in the erv thread, the policy is inconsistent (African-Americans aren’t banned despite high risk) and the committee itself agreed to that point. (You can find the videos, transcripts etc. via Google. ;-) The committee didn’t stay with the ban and added more bans for other groups, they just stayed with the inconsistent policy.

    It should also be mentioned again that the Red Cross and others were also against the ban, that erv as a virologist disagreed with the idea of a blanket life-time ban and even then other countries had more reasonable policies (one-year deferral, for example). Do you think that Australia simply ignored science and safety?

    If the added risk by allowing blood donations by certain gay men according to the risk model of FDA is unacceptable, why is the added risk of allowing other high-risk groups acceptable?

  23. gingerbaker says

    Well, it should be noted that the committee voted 9-6 for the keeping the ban and that the members voted 14-0 that the ban is a sub-optimal policy. One of the reasons given by the people who voted against lifting was that they don’t know how the new criteria should look like. The committee suggested further research for alternative policies.

    So their decision was a political one.

    At first glance, I don’t see why your conclusion that this was a political decision is necessarily justified. (I have not read the materials you have access to, and this is a bad time of year for me to find time to delve more deeply into the subject, in which I don’t have much of an emotional investment in the first place).

    It seems obvious that the ban “is a sub-optimal policy.” Any time you are reducing a potential donor pool with a ban, it is suboptimal. But the issue is not “How do we maximize the civil rights of the GLBT community re blood donation?”, the issue is “How can we most efficiently, with simple standardization, and with cost effectiveness ensure that nobody gets infected with a potentially fatal virus that we can not (evidently) directly screen for in our blood donations?”

    They want to make sure that they are seen as cautious.

    They ARE being cautious. I would dearly hope that they are VERY cautious. The difficulty is that whatever change they make to their policy down the road has to work on the ground, in thousands of clinics manned by people who are not scientists. So, it seems to me that their concerns about “criteria” are honest and well-founded.

    If the added risk by allowing blood donations by certain gay men according to the risk model of FDA is unacceptable, why is the added risk of allowing other high-risk groups acceptable?

    I don’t know. I would hope that the same level of caution be used for ANY group. That they are banning people who visited Great Britain because of mad cow encourages me that the FDA is being very cautious indeed.

    So, can we expect that it is impossible to invent a direct screening procedure for HIV virus itself? There is an obvious need for this, and a long time has passed already.

  24. Chris from Europe says

    If it’s about safety and they would be consistent, they would also ban straight African-Americans, at least in certain regions of the country. Thankfully they do not. This idiocy is reserved for gay men, which is explained by the history of HIV and because people don’t rationalize racial discrimination away as easily as seen here with anti-gay discrimination.

    And the issue is not simply “How can we most efficiently [...]?” This ban has a wider effect than just banning blood donations by gay men. It’s a government policy that uses an argument to discriminate against gay men and isn’t consistent with this argument. Such a policy has to go anyway. Either by wastly extending blanket bans or by any other consistent policy.

    Again: The claim is that they cannot tolerate more false negative blood donations from gay men, but they can from other groups. Any you defend that.

  25. Chris from Europe says

    Revising the ban would also send a needed message to the population that HIV is not a gay disease. Yes, this is needed.

  26. gingerbaker says

    “The claim is that they cannot tolerate more false negative blood donations from gay men, but they can from other groups. Any you defend that.”

    Cool your jets. That’s NOT what I said.

    “If it’s about safety and they would be consistent, they would also ban straight African-Americans, at least in certain regions of the country. Thankfully they do not. This idiocy is reserved for gay men…”

    Safety is idiocy you say? WTF?

  27. scifi1 says

    Just to ad to the behind-closed-doors vileness of the SA, there is also the collection of donated toys stored and then destroyed. Not given out as they were, yes, Harry Potter toys!!

    I ‘hired’ these people to provide (paid for by us) catering for a major safety exercise at a large air and rail transportation hub. ‘Lovely’ people and did a great job.

    Only subsequently did I discover their hateful activities. Regretted using them ever since. This got me into an argument at another employers as the Xmas donation was always via food and toys through the SA. I refused. Exec asst not happy and couldn’t understand my reasoning. I don’t think she saw the background imperative of the CEO – a committed Xtian fundie pushing this in a Govt. Business Enterprise.

    I keep hearing the same old argument:
    “Oh, but they’re lovely people. Why can’t you see past their religion and accept them for who they are?”

    Except that “Who They Are” is just the problem, isn’t it?

  28. scifi1 says

    Oh, and just to wade in to the Red Cross comments….

    I’m sick of ‘em round where I live. Well, sick of their reps anyway. Fed up with them leaping out in your face and yelling “Can I ask You a question?”, aggressive and pushy. They’re not getting my coin.

  29. Chris from Europe says

    Safety is idiocy you say? WTF?

    Well, as this kind of safety is only required for gay sources, yes. When at the same time there is no blanket ban for similar high-risk sources, it becomes clear that your line of reasoning is simply dishonest. Consider that some of these groups are more numerous than gay men.

    Again: This kind of hypothetical risk is not relevant for other groups. Why do you think is it acceptable to allow African-Americans, but not gays? Can you answer this question?

    Do you think that a policy that targets an oppressed minority group while being inconsistent with stated reason should be legal at all? Don’t bring the safety argument, as it’s defeated by the inconsistency.

  30. mgroesbeck says

    gingerbaker @30 —

    “The claim is that they cannot tolerate more false negative blood donations from gay men, but they can from other groups. Any you defend that.”

    Cool your jets. That’s NOT what I said.

    It might not be what you wanted to be seen as saying, but it’s an accurate description of your position. The current FDA policy, which you defend, is that heterosexuals are to be evaluated for risk based on their individual circumstances, but MSM must be treated as a blanket group based on perceived collective risk. FDA blood donation policy, which you defend, is explicitly that only heterosexuals are to be considered as individuals. This leads to circumstances where blood is accepted from individual heterosexuals who represent a significantly higher risk than I do — in line with the FDA policy which you defend.

  31. darcy says

    All of you outraged free-thinkers…spreading gossip amongst yourselves. Besides no one sharing any sources, other than their own views which are naturally skewed by personal perceptions – did you even bother to register that it’s been 20+ years since the “shocking” story of The Salvation Army being anti-gay in Tucson? What’s more shocking is that anyone reading that story would take it out of the context in which it belongs. It was the 80s, many people discriminated against homosexuals. Why would a charitable church be any different? I’m saying this to bring some rational thought to the table, not because I think it’s right to discriminate.

    If putting your nose up in the air over something that occurred so long ago helps you feel superior and more intelligent and open minded, then I think you look like a narrow-minded fool who wants to hold onto a grudge. As much as you may dislike the organization, try exercising some of the compassion you claim The Salvation Army lacks. No organization is perfect. And many organizations, charitable and otherwise, have had to evolve with the times and evolution takes time. Which makes me think: perhaps this bad thing DID happen…but what is the state of The Salvation Army’s assistance policies NOW?

    And here is the clencher. The Salvation Army is a Christian organization. I know, it’s almost too much to handle. If you are 1) an Atheist who can’t STAND to give to a charity who preaches the word of God and/or 2) you hate helping people because people don’t deserve shelter, food, clothes, or toys at Christmas then DON’T DONATE!

    If you want to shoot off details about this organization and that organization, at least show some legitimate support for your claims. I claimed that the 80s incident was 20+ years ago – we can all do basic math. What we should NOT do however, is take the word of one or two as gospel and as forever true. Isn’t that something that drives Atheists crazy about Christians in the first place?

  32. eamonnmaccrossan says

    Ed,

    You report as “compelling”, a touchy-feely article so clouded in vague half-truths and outright lies and by that reporting are guilty and tainted of discriminating against an organization you obviously know nothing about, nor cared even to examine. It simply lined up with a few core beliefs you may or even may not hold dear (but it sure is nice to be popular in the LGBT Community and it sort of makes you feel all cool about yourself!) and that was the only impetus you needed. While I consider you an incredibly smart man, this was just lazy writing.

    You probably know exactly why the SA adopted their position, that is, to protect their own church status, because of all out deliberate attacks by progressive and “caring” LGBT activists performing their usual covert lobbying. Consider these equally as five attacks on the Salvation Army and ask “who shot first?”.

    Five disparate moves to protect a churches religious, employment and charitable status does not constitute an all out attack on the LGBT Community but certainly makes supporting any LGBT position less palatable to me now, because of the particular Machiavellian maneuvers they engage in.

    The Salvation Army did what they did to protect their church (which I now know you and the LGBT don’t agree with) but to mainly protect the tremendous work they perform for millions of people worldwide, without discrimination, (except of course for Bill Browning and his buddy who they deliberately prejudiced against, one cold, harsh, winter’s night, twenty years ago in Indiana. Please!)

    I know a little of Bill Browning and I have some serious doubts about what actually led the the denial of services to him, if such an event actually ever occurred. He says his “unnamed Partner’s” AIDS T-Shirt apparently led to some judgement on their relationship. I am willing to concede this could have been an individual’s response to Browning, but is certainly not true of the SA as a whole.

    There are two sides to every story and obviously an activist I can imagine Browning laid down some sort of deliberate gauntlet to those who were trying to bring aid and comfort to him. In other words, I personally believe him to be what is known in the current vernacular as a purveyor of half truths, or AKA, “a Liar”.

    A course in Anger Management couldn’t hurt him right now,(me either :-)) but instead, Browning is allowed, nay encouraged, to turn his anger into a campaign of vilification of an entire organization at a time when they are helping people through some of the worst years since the 1930’s. I will express my true feelings here. What an utterly angry, selfish, fecked-up little B****d, masquerading as a champion of Human Rights he is. God bless him!!

    Ed, I despise discrimination too, but nothing galls me more than the dishonest and manufactured groundswell that this has become. Just who is prejudicing whom here? Why, isn’t the LGBT itself just a collective repository of bad childhood rejections, inappropriate anger management, self-loathing, mental imbalance, intolerance and above all humorlessness, at least in any contact I have had with the LGBT and its communities and it should be shut down and funding withdrawn at once, because I believe the LGBT is victimizing me and everyone else, because we get headaches every time we have to think about them.

    I of course don’t believe a word of anything I have just written and know there is evidence to the contrary that the LGBT is an organization defying anything I have written (Well, I had however hoped tolerance and humor were some of these things). Thus is equally true of the Salvation Army who one hoped would have been judged overall for their innumerable good works worldwide instead of being targeted because of an immutable consideration, not any different from similar, yet polarized and immutable discrimination’s that the LGBT hold dear. (Discussion for another day!)

    The biggest enemy of the real Gay community right now is the LGBT. If the LGBT continue to discriminate (and I mean discriminate in every sense of the word) against the Salvation Army, this will not go well for them and will undo years of progress for the Gay Community as a whole. There are certain institutions one does not speak badly about, not because of any fear of retaliation, but because they speak falsely against the undeniable evidence of their good works.

    Quite simply put, am I to understand that the Gay (LGBT) Community apparently now hate the Sally Army because a gay man and his “unknown” partner supposedly/allegedly didn’t get their charitable way over twenty years ago, oh, and that they are also guilty of trying to protect their church from prejudicial legislation and bigotry constantly manufactured by LGBT lobbyists in different countries for the past fifteen years?

    Am I to also understand that the LGBT would like for the Salvation Army to change their Religious beliefs and adopt the more secular, yet everso reasonable amendments proposed by the LGBT, and thus if adopted adopted the LGBT will no longer sully the reputation of the Salvation Army, particularly at Christmas, nor challenge them politically using government funding, thus allowing hungry and homeless people to eat and survive the present government’s regime of poverty here, and overseas?

    I may have missed something here, but overall, I think this is essentially what the LGBT are saying and asking of us as a community, people, nation? Anything else you want from us, bitches? Also, all things being equal Ed, would the LGBT care to draw some major Muslim Charities and Foundations into the debate as they would certainly benefit from your and LGBT neo-enlightenment. Oh Allah, that would be special indeed!

    I do not speak for the real Gay Community but someone needs to put a word in the LGBT’s ear-hole for their part in deliberately discriminating against a wonderful organization. It’s all live and let live until the LGBT decides it isn’t. And since when did the LGBT get to decide what is discrimination and then discriminate. Why do the media (and now you Ed)choose to discriminate at the beck and call of the LGBT on what is essentially a cobbled together non-story?

    Perhaps I’m overdoing it a bit here, but I believe it is fascism when an individual or organization “calls out” another organization or people with the intent of marginalizing and destroying everything they are, using distortions and misrepresentations. Something similar to this happened in the 30’s and seems to be happening again. The LGBT Community are no different from any other organization that starts with high ideals and principles and subsequently degenerates into a herd mentality (they are human beings after all, no different, just the same as you and me). Judging by the popularity of this article, other distortions just like it, and then the rash of Tumblr posters it seems the herd is alive, well and at work, not unlike its counterpart in the Christian Community the progressive LGBT seems to believe it is above. While this appears to be a tremendous victory for L’s, G’s, B’s, T’s, Q’s, MF’s, H’s and TN’s everywhere it is sadly, very sadly a victory for no one else.

    A few questions! Have the LGBT ever performed charity work for anyone outside of Planet LGBT? Would they know how to actually feed the poor and house the homeless outside of their middle-class, politically blinkered houses? Do they have any infrastructure outside of gay lobbying. Why is their continual lobbying/proselytism of Government, military and school systems (going beyond the brief of equal rights) not equally under the microscope?

    More importantly, who would I give my money to this Christmas? In the end it went to those annoying people with the annoying bells outside of some select stores. I even doubled up because of this article and others like it. I felt smugly better.

  33. Chris from Europe says

    and by that reporting are guilty and tainted of discriminating against an organization you obviously know nothing about

    We know more than enough about them. Your claim of discrimination is simply bullshit. Criticizing and withholding donations aren’t discrimination.

    (but it sure is nice to be popular in the LGBT Community and it sort of makes you feel all cool about yourself!)

    Oh, among the first things you do is to reveal that you’re a bigot. It’s great to have that established in the beginning.

    The biggest enemy of the real Gay community right now is the LGBT. If the LGBT continue to discriminate (and I mean discriminate in every sense of the word) against the Salvation Army, this will not go well for them and will undo years of progress for the Gay Community as a whole.

    No, the biggest enemies of the LGBT are people like you and their empty threats. And again, it’s not discrimination, at least not in the desired meaning.

    Quite simply put, am I to understand that the Gay (LGBT) Community apparently now hate the Sally Army because a gay man and his “unknown” partner supposedly/allegedly didn’t get their charitable way over twenty years ago, oh, and that they are also guilty of trying to protect their church from prejudicial legislation and bigotry constantly manufactured by LGBT lobbyists in different countries for the past fifteen years?

    First, there are many cases, not just Browning’s. They do have a reputation for being anti-gay and anti-trans for some time now. The kind of legislation you describe can’t be reasonably called prejudicial as it didn’t target the SA in any way. Why should organizations be allowed to use public or tax-exampt money and then target vulnerable minorities? (Most LGBT people are neither powerful nor rich.) The claim about bigotry by LGBT lobbyists is simply unsupported bullshit by a godbot.

    Among those “prejudicial legislation” was decriminalizing gay sex. Other such legislation were anti-discrimination measures for LGBT people. This makes clear that you have a problem with treating LGBT people as equal.

    Am I to also understand that the LGBT would like for the Salvation Army to change their Religious beliefs and adopt the more secular, yet everso reasonable amendments proposed by the LGBT

    Again, it’s about treating LGBT people as human beings. Which is certainly reasonable. If you mock that, you just reveal to be an stupid bigot. Does that really require them to change their beliefs? Maybe they should just emphasize being good Samaritans instead of pushing questionable Bible interpretations on society while demanding other people’s money. In many places the SA is also simply irrelevant because other better private organizations provide services or the government does its job. Nobody demands that it’s the SA that has to do it. They can go away if they don’t want to do the job because of conflicts with their beliefs. There are enough that will step in.

    Also, all things being equal Ed, would the LGBT care to draw some major Muslim Charities and Foundations into the debate as they would certainly benefit from your and LGBT neo-enlightenment. Oh Allah, that would be special indeed!

    That doesn’t make much sense. Ed criticizes hateful Muslims. LGBT groups speak out regularly. Those Muslim groups just aren’t major actors in the US culture wars, more often they are victims. That LGBT organizations may support other minority groups that are discriminated shouldn’t be surprising.

    While this appears to be a tremendous victory for L’s, G’s, B’s, T’s, Q’s, MF’s, H’s and TN’s everywhere it is sadly, very sadly a victory for no one else.

    Many of the groups referenced are still far from being equal and are still threatened with violence, losing home and work in many areas of the world including many US states. I think a normal, not bigoted person would see improvements as a victory for everyone, especially as hate and discrimination also affect misidentified targets. “No one else” seems to refer to people like you who are enraged that they either can’t continue to discriminate or, in the many cases one still can, will feel societal pressure.

    Perhaps I’m overdoing it a bit here, but I believe it is fascism when an individual or organization “calls out” another organization or people with the intent of marginalizing and destroying everything they are, using distortions and misrepresentations.

    No, you are completely wrong and quite ridiculous. It has nothing to do with fascism. In this case, it’s simply self-defense. The intent is to get the Salvation Army to change their policy. If discriminating against LGBTs is everything they are, then why do they deserve to be preserved? Your claims of distortions and misrepresentations are more than just weak. The Salvation Army has repeatedly attempted to use its influence against the LGBT community as in New Zealand. They haven’t just discriminated against LGBT people.

    Have the LGBT ever performed charity work for anyone outside of Planet LGBT?

    Very likely “the LGBT” behave like the rest of the population or maybe a little bit worse due to discrimination and being worse off finanically than the majority population.

  34. Chris from Europe says

    @darcy
    There are enough sources. You can find them using a search engine. Of course, you will dismiss any reports by LGBT people, as we know people like you. Unfortunately, it’s documented that they tried to prevent decriminalization of gay sex in New Zealand. Or more recently, when even the Bush administation refused to give in to their demand a right to discriminate against gay people using public money.

    you hate helping people because people don’t deserve shelter, food, clothes, or toys at Christmas then DON’T DONATE!

    If you want to help people, especially all people, donating to the SA may not be the best idea. Especially as they use some of the money for church purposes and don’t have the reporting requirements of other charities.

  35. lynair says

    I would like to thanks for the efforts you have made in writing this informative post , you are professional writer , I like your informative content ,thanks for sharing useful info !

    3PL warehousing

Trackbacks

  1. [...] are so opposed to LGBT rights that they have lobbied multiple times for exemptions from Federal and Local anti-discrimination laws, and threatened to withdraw their [...]

  2. [...] are so opposed to LGBT rights that they have lobbied multiple times for exemptions from Federal and Local anti-discrimination laws, and threatened to withdraw their [...]

Leave a Reply