Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
-------------------
Here is another person who is apparently qualified to tell people whether or not they're true Christians.
--------------------
Every time I read about the proposed non-discrimination ordinance, I lose a little faith in humanity because of the comments of those opposed. My biggest issue is when they identify themselves as “Christians,” as if it were some exclusive club the LGBTQ community is not part of. (As if? Does Ms. Hoepfner have any information to this effect, or is she speculating? Has she actually talked to any Christians to find out for sure?)
There are many LGBTQ Christians. (Probably. Or perhaps more precisely, there are many LGBTQs who identify themselves as Christians. Ms. Hoepfner seems to have the special ability to discern if people are Christians, and if they're being good enough Chistians.)
The words are not mutually exclusive and there is no “Christians” vs. “The Gays” war going on here; let’s be clear. (Quite true. It's actually the bigoted Left vs. Christians. But I'm splitting hairs...)
Bigotry, fear and ignorance cloaked behind religion doesn’t change the nature of the beast. (An expert in Christianity, now Ms. Hoepfner demonstrates yet another uncanny ability to know peoples' emotional state. In her world, the only opposition to the gay agenda must only be "bigotry, fear, and ignorance." Abandoning her civility, she now gets down and dirty.)
We can still see you, much in the way a child who holds his hands over his eyes in an attempt to hide can still be seen. (Yes, those child-like Christians. Backward. Immature. Unsophisticated. Thankfully we have Ms. Hoepfner to yank the veil from our eyes. Can you imagine? She insults people in the vilest ways, and then somehow expects them to change their mind.)
That being said, religious dogma should not be a factor when considering an NDO. (That is, Ms. Hoepfner wants peoples' motivations examined to make sure they aren't acting on religious principles as they state their preferences for a proposed ordinance. Yet we are supposed to accept her pronouncements about proper religion as a basis for decision. So why should we listen to her religious perspectives about Christianity, but not others?)
Churches preach different interpretations of the Bible – some say being gay is a sin; others say women shouldn’t cut their hair or wear pants; others preach against contraception, divorce, drinking caffeine, dancing. (Ok, so now she acknowledges a variety of perspectives on what the Bible says. Indeed, she has one herself, as we have seen. So we must conclude that only her biblical perspective is a valid one, only her biblical perspective is the one that should be considered, only her biblical perspective is worthy.)
If laws were based on what was preached from some pulpits, women wouldn’t be voting or working and there certainly would have been no Civil Rights Movement. (So she likes what is preached from some pulpits but not others. Again, her religious dogma is valid, but the other varieties are not. But beyond that, notice how she attempts to equate her doctrinal adversaries as being one in the same as those who opposed voting rights and civil rights? This is a common Leftist rhetorical technique, which relieves the Leftist from actually addressing any counter arguments.)
Asking for protection against discrimination for the LGBTQ community in employment, housing, and in public accommodations has nothing to do with freedom of religion, rape statistics, pedophilia, sex cults, a secret gay agenda or the boogeyman. (Bare assertion. She simply restates her premise without providing any evidence it's true.) It does have everything to with making our community a safer place where every person can pursue life, liberty and happiness.
Additionally, our lawmakers were not elected to interpret religious dogma or let it influence the governing of the city. (Unfortunately, that train has left the station. Anti-religion is a religious stance.) They were elected to represent all the people of Bozeman. (Except for those with contrary religious convictions. Those people have to shut up.)
Adopting an inclusive NDO would distinguish Bozeman as a welcoming place that respects diversity, equality and dignity, and one that stands on the right side of history. (Amazing how Leftist buzzwords just flow off her word processor. What, no eeevil Koch brothers? "Faux" News? I guess she just couldn't fit them in.)
Denise Hoepfner
Bozeman
No comments:
Post a Comment