Tuesday, November 18, 2008


Proponents of legal definitions of marriage maintain fervently that their ideas are Bible based and therefore, not discrimination. The issue is about the sanctity of the institution of marriage not civil rights. Others of us speak often about the discrimination that occurs. Springfield’s own Positronics is just one example of how those marriage laws are really about mandating morality and about discriminating against a population.

According to several news reports (including this one) Positronics sent out a memo stating that employees could only bring spouses or those who could legally be spouses to the company’s Christmas party. One man spoke out and seems he’s now out of a job. Curiously, we see that age-old equation occurring again: news reports = change in policy. So now employees can bring the guest of their choice, assuming the person is 18 years old.

No one is so stupid as to believe the policy was to keep employees from bringing a homeless person to the party. It was intended to keep the queers in their place, to keep them down, to keep them from flaunting. I know it, you know it, Positronics knows it, and so do the proponents of the gay marriage ban. The thing is, this kind of discrimination is unethical but perfectly legal.

(AN ADDITIONAL THOUGHT: If some Christians continue on this path of Bible-based discrimination, there will come a point when anger will turn against all Christians. A world where discrimination based on religious beliefs is not out of reason, yet some Christians continue their campaign to oppress others using the law and the Bible. We ought to be careful lest we cut our own nose to spite our face. By the way … I don't think the Bible supports discrimination. That whole love thing kinda prevents it. But we Christians who believe that are a minority lot.)


Anonymous said...

I know you are an educated person because I know you quite well. But if you actually believe that Sarah Overstreet did any kind of research as to what the whole story was, then I would like to sell you some oceanfront property.

She essentially is a gossip columnist with an agenda. She knows that a company can't reveal many things without being sued.

There are so many lies and quotes out of context in this story that it is rediculous. How about this one--This jerk sent this email to the press before the majority of the people in the company even saw it. And he never, ever spoke to anyone in "upper management".

But that wouldn't be a good story.

Someone who was misquoted :)

Anonymous said...

Sorry about the typo of the word "ridiculous." I do know how to spell, it truly was a typo.

Jack said...


I'm glad you spoke up and gave the people the other side of the story. We only know what is reported and that sucks sometimes. We do know that people can (and often do) get misquoted.

We have always thought a lot of you and we take your word over others. If you say the person didn't go to management, then we believe you. We have faith in you and have always thought you were (and are) a great person.

You are right about the media seeking of "good stories".