LGBT Community calls the Salvation Army Bigots

[RhombusHatesYou]

Indeed but would you trust the American Institute of Philanthropy, a public non-profit group who's purpose is to crawl up the arses of charities and see what they're up to, who have done a thorough auditing of the Salvation Army's US districts' books?

They sound promising... I checked them out. They had an article expressing concern about how the Salvation Army is run. The bigger point is not how well I trust various groups that rate charitable agencies, but how well I trust an organization that says, "give us your money, but know that we refuse to make public what we are doing with that money." Which is exactly what the Salvation Army does. And that is what I don't trust.

It's pretty easy to pull up the financial and audit reports on the Salvos in Australia...

That's odd... I just looked and it's no where near as easy to find an Annual Report to the Trustees (which is the best one to get for financial info because it's for the Territorial Command Staff and also for corporate partners) for anywhere other than Australia. Strange. Hell, in the Aussie report I just skimmed they talk about how they conform to more business standards than they are required to because it's good governance and works to maintaining their reputation of integrity with the community. You'd think the Salvos in other countries would have also twigged to that. *shrug*

 

[Mordereth]

TL;DR: The wonders of some "Christian" missionaries in Africa; http://www.loonwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/anti-gay-uganda-460x3071-300x200.jpg

Can you demonstrate a link between that and the SA work in Africa?

These people are convinced that Christianity (and the relief that comes with it) says Homosexuality is evil; most converting sects of Christianity have a stance opposing homosexual unions.

Ergo, by converting people all over Africa to Christianity, the Salvation Army apathetically continues a cycle of discrimination.



In short; no. But I didn't say I could; the Salvation Army saves many lives. But they're partisan and they have an agenda of their own, so I wouldn't donate to them.

 

[Sylvine]

I stand corrected, but my main point is still valid. If you have complete intolerance for a christian, or a christian organization, and their beliefs on homosexuality you are bigoted toward them.

In that case, I'll gladly tatoo "bigot" on my forehead. I have just as little tolerance for people claiming homosexuals are sinful/evil/whatever and don't deserve equal rights to pursue happiness with a consentual partner in a relationship as I have for people claiming black people are an inferior race, or women are worth less than men.

~Sylv

 

[Caravelle]

But marriage isn't defined as "a union between a man and a woman". I mean, some people define it that way. Others don't. And the most important memes that go along with marriage - love, joining families, sharing property, having children - don't require marriage to be between a man and a woman. In that light, defining marriage that way is hardly an innocuous, completely disinterested choice. You might as well say that defining marriage as "a union between two people of the same race" means that being against interracial marriage has no element of racism to it.

Until very recently "...between a man and a woman" was considered an unspoken but obvious part of marriage; and so central to the whole idea that a man marrying another man would be about as legitmate as a "marriage" between a man and a horse.

Yeah. That's not specific to marriage though; it's a side-effect of the fact that until recently "heterosexual" was considered an unspoken but obvious part of everybody, and every relationship. It's only a few decades ago that homosexuality stopped being classified as a mental illness in the US after all. It was a homophobic time, and the idea that marriage is between a man and a woman is a natural holdover from that time. Nowadays we know homosexuals exist, and we know homosexual relationships have as much value as heterosexual ones do. Lots of people don't agree with those things, and one word that describes that position is "homophobia". And once homosexual relationships are agreed to exist and be valid, marriage between two people of the same gender becomes a meaningful concept.

People who, still now, hold on to the reflexive image of marriage being between a man and a woman are holding on to a bigoted image. Whether they do it out of ignorance, inertia, selfishness (what with prioritizing their own definitions of a word over the well-being of other human beings), unconscious bigotry or outright bigotry isn't relevant. The idea is a bigoted one.

 

[Caravelle]

First off i dont exactly know them, so they seem to be a US specific Charity. But from what i have read so far i dont even see the Issue.

Lets be honest here, i dont mind Gays, neither male nor female. They can be as gay as they want to be, its their choice. But i have to point out that i have a strong dislike for Gays that basicly push it in my Face. You know, those who go out of their Way to be as gay as they possibly can just to point out that fact.

Do you see heterosexuals doing the same thing? At least i havent so far.

Have you ever seen men hitting on women ? Women talking about their boyfriends ? Men and women salivating over how hot some opposite-sex celebrity is ? Straight couples holding hands, or hugging, or even kissing ? People dressing to be attractive to the opposite sex ? Married people going around with a ring on their finger to signal their heterosexual partnership ? Either in real life or the media.

What does pushing things in your face mean, exactly ?

Well i figure i should have be a bit more specific. I dont mind homosexuals doing that, you know, kissing, holding hands, the whole relationship stuff. Its all fine and dandy in that regard. What i take issue with is when Gays all talk with that weird Accent, you know the one, thats entirely unnecessary. Or they dress in such a specific Way that it basicly screams "I'm gay!" to anyone seeing it. Again its not necessary.

Im fine with personal Choices, same goes for sexuality. If you're gay, or straight, thats fine, its your life, so go with it as you want. Just dont go out rubbing it in People's faces, or at the very least, dont do so unless they specifically ask for it. Hell i slightly disapprove of the whole "Gay Pride Parade" thing on that count alone, its not necessary, i understand what it stands for, but really, i dont see "Straight Pride Parades", so yeah, its probably down to my own point of view. To each their own and all, i'd just prefer if that "stereotypical" stuff would stop.

For one thing, you'll notice I included "dressing to attract the opposite sex" among heterosexual behaviors. Insofar as acting and dressing "gay" helps people signal their orientation to other gay people and possibly be more attractive to them, it's parallel behavior. Who are you to decide what's necessary or not to them, exactly ?

You say you're fine with others' personal choices, but the way you'll go on record on a forum expressing your distaste for people being visibly gay around you makes me think you might not be as fine with it as you think you are. (though to your credit you're more fine with it than those people who get outraged at gay couples holding hands, so good for you)

Which is OK, we all have our emotional reactions. But if you want to think of yourself as the kind of person who's fine with other people's sexualities and personal choices, maybe that's an emotional reaction you might want to examine a bit further.

(In fact from what I hear that's exactly what Pride Parades are about : invoking their right to be visible, not to have to hide who they are. Straight people don't need a Pride Parade; you can go around showing off your straightness and as long as you don't actively harass people nobody will bat an eyelash. You yourself have just demonstrated that this isn't true of gay people. That said, some people have called Mardi Gras a Straight Pride Parade )

 

[Fleischer]

Way to go, Salvation Army! You just steeled me to merrily walk past you bell ringers without giving a donation. In the same way I refuse to support the bigoted Boy Scouts of America, I shall give the Salvation Army the same treatment. The money I would've given to Salvation Army will go to Child's Play.

Someone didn't read the article, nor any of the comments apparently.

I didn't read the article fully. I went back and gave it a proper read. I believe most of what Jeffrey Curnow said, but I'd rather funnel my donations towards charities that are explicit in their support of all people, regardless of sexual orientation. To me, being open and affirming is essential to respecting other's human rights.

Thanks for getting me to reread the article.

 

[101flyboy]

They are bigots, and anyone who supports them ultimately has made the decision they don't really care about gay people and our rights. Bottom line. Making the choice to support SA is making the decision to support homophobia. They reject money from gay couples, they willingly donate to anti-gay organizations. It's BIGOTRY, and yes, they're entitled to their BIGOTED view, doesn't change the fact it's wrong.

It's just as easy to donate to other groups who do NOT promote homophobia. Not doing so is lazy and ignorant.

 

[101flyboy]

LGBT calls anyone who doesn't bend their knee and cowtow to their beliefs, bigots.

This just in, grass is green. And 10 cents is a dime.

More at 11.

It's not about LGBT beliefs, it's about human rights. And yes, being against the rights of LGBT citizens is in fact bigotry. Sorry you don't realize this.

 

[101flyboy]

BTW, SA has lost a lot of funding because of their bigoted policies so anyone saying that it's the LGBT community making ourselves look bad is mistaken. SA are the homophobes. Automatically, they look awful. Homophobia is awful.

 

[MorgulMan]

In answer to the three questions posed:

What do I think? I think both sides are right, more or less.

Does this change my opinion of the Army? Not an inch.

Will I still give to them next time? I never have.

I think, as I said, that both groups are operating in good faith. If you disagree with the views and goals of an organization, then don't donate to them, and by all means, make others who are of like mind aware of that. On the other hand, the services offered by the Army are made available to anyone regardless of pretty much any grounds, and from the snippet offered, it sounded like the activists didn't make the distinction between services offered and theological and political support for their ideology. "Active discrimination against homosexuals" sounds an awful lot like "No stew for you, nancy-boy!"

That said, I think a great number of people, even supporters of the activists, would adopt the attitude that they agree with the charitable work done, and the impartial way in which it is done. "These are the people with the boots on the ground in my town."

I myself do not give, for a similar reason; theological disagreements with the Army. However, as part of another Church that also has boots on the ground, I give my money and time there.

I would simply say, if you are sympathetic to the hue raised against the Army, make sure that doesn't stop you from Giving. Make a conscious effort, if you were in the habit of dropping a dollar in that red bucket, to instead donate it to the United Way, or the Red Cross, or whatever your go-to charity is locally. The Army makes it easy to do something good, but don't let your disagreement with their theology lower the overall charitable giving you're doing.

 

[101flyboy]

People who operate in good faith do not discriminate or justify discrimination against LGBT citizens.

 

[101flyboy]

They are bigots, and anyone who supports them ultimately has made the decision they don't really care about gay people and our rights. Bottom line. Making the choice to support SA is making the decision to support homophobia. They reject money from gay couples, they willingly donate to anti-gay organizations. It's BIGOTRY, and yes, they're entitled to their BIGOTED view, doesn't change the fact it's wrong.

It's just as easy to donate to other groups who do NOT promote homophobia. Not doing so is lazy and ignorant.

I would rather help the oh so biggoted people helping the homeless, addicted and starving, than a community wh gets offfended at the smallest things.

The "smallest things"? Right, like being able to see a dying partner in the hospital or being able to take a cab with a boyfriend. Like those small things. That, you know, same-sex couples can be denied.

Typical privileged response.

Good job oin the hypocricy, condemning an entire group, hoow are you any ess f a bigot when your saying the SA is biggoted ? We have had folks from the SA post and say htye dont care abut sexuality, but oh no, the SAis just evil and biggoted.

Yes, because their policies are bigoted. Just because not everyone who associates with them are bigoted doesn't make the organization itself any less homophobic. They're collateral damage. Also, I'm not a hypocrite. Not all views are OK. Some things are wrong. That's common sense.

I think the trnsexual wh started this with his vids, is an asshole wh tried to stir up truble, missin acomplished.

No, the point was to expose bigotry for what it is. Mission has been accomplished, as SA has lost a lot of funding because of their behavior, and will continue to do so.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

They are bigots, and anyone who supports them ultimately has made the decision they don't really care about gay people and our rights. Bottom line. Making the choice to support SA is making the decision to support homophobia. They reject money from gay couples, they willingly donate to anti-gay organizations. It's BIGOTRY, and yes, they're entitled to their BIGOTED view, doesn't change the fact it's wrong.

It's just as easy to donate to other groups who do NOT promote homophobia. Not doing so is lazy and ignorant.

nope, I support the SA and I don't support homophobia. Your making foolish comments.

 

[girzwald]

LGBT calls anyone who doesn't bend their knee and cowtow to their beliefs, bigots.

This just in, grass is green. And 10 cents is a dime.

More at 11.

It's not about LGBT beliefs, it's about human rights. And yes, being against the rights of LGBT citizens is in fact bigotry. Sorry you don't realize this.

What human right is the salvation army violating? None. Sorry you don't realize this.

What human right does saying "I don't agree with or accept your lifestyle" violate? None. Sorry you don't realize this.

Not everything is an act of bigotry.

 

[hazabaza1]

I'm in the "So long as they don't discriminate with their aid it's fine by me" crew.

 

[Hussmann54]

LGBT calls anyone who doesn't bend their knee and cowtow to their beliefs, bigots.

This just in, grass is green. And 10 cents is a dime.

More at 11.

*11*

Now for our breaking story: Nothing has changed, those who will give still will give, those who wont, wont give. The Salvation Army still doing the same thing it always has, and most of us still not giving two SH*TS.

And now to Ollie Williams with our five day internet forecast....

OT: Yea, Im still gonna give to them, so what, everyone has a political agenda in the same way everyone has a blood type. Its just how it is. Ive seen them do a ton of good in my community.

Captcha: the owsnipa

the owsnipa cometh.......

 

[CounterReproductive]

Actually, it doesn't. The Salvation Army essentially runs 2 parallel organisations and money from the charity side is never shifted to the church side.

A few issues.

1) According to Charitynavigator.org, they don't actually publicly release their numbers, so there's no way of knowing exactly how their money is used. They, as many religious charities do, hide under Internal Revenue Code from filing Form 990 as a "church or convention or association of churches." Thus avoiding publicizing what they do with their funds.

2) Everything they do has the name of their church all over it. Google "salvation army soup kitchen" and you'll see mass marketing of their church at each and every event. Using donations to make a Salvation Army themed soup kitchen is still making use of donations to get the name of their church out there. They are not parallel organizations when even your semis have the name of your church all over them. Its marketing.

Yeah because we all know that homeless people have lots of funds so homeless shelters and soup kitchens are an ideal place to 'mass market'.

Hating on the Sally Army ? pfft thats just gay , or lesbian apparently.

 

[Belaam]

Yeah because we all know that homeless people have lots of funds so homeless shelters and soup kitchens are an ideal place to 'mass market'.

Right... because there certainly isn't a red bucket with "Salvation Army" on it in front of almost every major store in the US for the next month or so. No one has ever heard of this group. It's not at all that they market as a charity, but are actually a church. I am all for donating to charities... donating to churches who put up a public face as a charity, but then claim church exemptions to avoid publicizing what they do with the funds? That's what I have a problem with. By all means, if you have extra money this holiday, please donate to a worthy cause - just find a cause that will tell you what they are doing with the money.

Hating on the Sally Army ? pfft thats just gay , or lesbian apparently.

Hating on anyone who wants our money, but doesn't tell us what they are doing with it. I think both the Tea Party and OWS would agree that's a good group to hate on.

oh, and using gay/lesbian as an insult? That's just bigoted.

 

[CounterReproductive]

Wow you truly have absolutely no idea what irony and sarcasm are do you ? Merry Christmas