Around the 'Shoe

Then I will correct myself to state....based on his actions he is pro discrimination when he believes it is appropriate, but against discrimination when it comes to himself.

Can't answer that, you will have to ask him. See how easy it is to disagree with someone when you don't like what they have to say?

It's his business if it's an ordinance in the city in which he resides, weather you agree with him or not. The platform he chose to use is available to every citizen of that city, if they so choose to use it regarding city business.

I agree with you that when he used a council meeting to propose his views, he was subject to public criticism. Baier, BOE lady, called it hate speech and called for his job. Which in my view, his words were far from hate speech and definitely didn't warrant being fired from his job (which Nebraska officials didn't fire him).

He is passing judgement on sins or perceived sins, which I agree with you is a form or persecution. It is ultimitely up to God himself to judge sins.

Beg to differ with you, but he simply stated what God has already said: that homosexuality is an abomination to Him (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13). He is not "passing judgement," he is saying that God already has.

And stating that you disagree with someone's actions is not a form of persecution. If that was the case, you all would be guilty of persecuting Pres. Bush.

And you, Obama.

God used the word "homosexuality?" He was really ahead of his time, wasn't he?

Wow! is all I can say as I read this board. So many seem to know so much and maybe they know very little. Maybe you know much more than me too. For example, Mr. Brown stands up for what he believes in and then a bunch of people miles away and who do not know him personally begin to “discriminate” against him. They say he is this and that type of person, they even can know what is in his heart and mind. It is all so amazing to me that you all can make such comments.

So just what does it mean to discriminate? The dictionary says it is to constitute a difference between, or to see the difference between things. So with this definition we all discriminate daily as it how we perceive our world. I can discriminate whether the water is hot or cold. If I fail to do this I may get burned. A negative form of this is when we “make differences in how we treat people.” This is where we try to draw the line. But we still do this even if you are a boss trying to pick the right person for the job based on skills or abilities, but not based on non-factors to the job (religion, maybe even appearance).

Now, if you are going to attack someone because they believe in the Bible, and what it says on this topic, it would seem best that you at least understand the Bible. The problem is few read it and understand it. They allow the media or others to give you some quick version. For example, how do you interpret this Bible verse from Romans chapter 1? “Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even the women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion” (Romans 1:26-27). So what is natural and unnatural? Let’s look to nature itself. Do we have any examples of male with male and female with female in the animal kingdom? (Ok, I live in Africa so I get to see lots of wild animals). The answer is no. In health class did you learn about the anatomy of men and women? Are they different? Why are they different? What is natural to the way the anatomy is structured? Do you have to be discriminatory to know the difference?

Maybe some see the problem here as not that you want to protect everyone based on their sexual orientation, but rather based on a certain sexual orientation. And to do this you have to be discriminatory.

Sorry, I do not understand what you are saying. He seems to be under attack as this is the whole purpose of this blog. When I discriminate the posts and read between the lines I even see some here who think this guy should be run off from coaching. If you think I am wrong then you have not been in the real U.S. world of late. If you fail to see that then maybe this is all drivel as you say. Thank you for allowing me to share just one perspective. Did not mean to offend.

Disagreement does not equal discrimination. Your post is a tautology because you disagreed, then said disagreement equals discrimination, therefore we are discriminating against him by disagreeing. It's a logically fallacious circular argument. And, quite frankly, it's nonsense. You're trying to play semantics with the dictionary definition of the word discrimination. As we use it in everyday language, we are talking about providing equal rights. That's the definition. Semantical arguments are nothing but ways to detract from the actual issue.

The facts are simple. The city wants to put a law in writing to allow equal protection for homosexuals. Ron Brown does not want homosexuals to have equal protection under Nebraska law. He wants homosexuals to be able to, under the law, be treated as inferior citizens. That is hate speech and has nothing to do with his religion. Religion is a smoke screen in this argument. No one is discriminating against Ron Brown, because he is being offered the same first amendment rights as anyone else. All the first amendment does is allow for free speech. It does not, however, protect you from adverse consequences of that free speech. This is not discrimination as it is used in everyday language because he is reaping the consequences the same as anyone else who would use hate speech against any group of people. If any person paid by public funds commented that he did not want equal protection for any group of people (whether female, black, elderly, bisexual, etc) they would be similarly shunned and attempted to be forced out of a job that tax payers are paying him for. Again, he has those same rights as anyone else, and anyone else would be in hot water as well. So no, it's not discrimination against him. He's been allowed to use his first amendment rights and he is getting his first amendment backlash the same as any person who exhibitis hate speech and would like to deny rights to others.

It's actually the exact opposite. Myself and others believe in equal protection against discrimination in all walks of life. He, however, does not. That is, by definition, hate speech.

Do you know what the word semantics means? Because it's not semantics. It's, in fact, nothing close to the definition of semantics. He can disagree with any lifestyle he wants. So can I. No one cares. It's not hypersennsitivty. He wants certain people to be afforded less rights than others. He believes homosexuality inherently makes someone less of a person. Again, HE BELIEVES HOMOSEXUAL PEOPLE ARE WORTH LESS THAN EVERYONE ELSE AND HE SHOULD BE ALLOWED, UNDER LAW, TO TREAT THEM THAT WAY. It's not semantics, it is clear cut hate. It's literally the exact opposite of a semantical argument and it's no different then the same hate speech put on people of color and women in the last few centuries.

Fascinating reading.
Not many years ago this type of lifestyle was considered a crime in many states. While it may not have been enforced very often many people were brought up to believe it to be such in addition to what the Bible says on the matter. That is something that is very difficult for some people to let go. It would be like to some saying that it is no longer a crime to steal. If that were the case would you want to hire someone who is a known thief? Of course not.
While I certainly do not know what exactly he was objecting to when it came to this particular topic (some have said it was all rights) it could be that it was a blanket law (that would cover every thing). I'm sure he wasn't wanting to make separate bathrooms or make them ride the back of the bus. Perhaps there were scenarios that he did not personally feel comfortable with that might come up. That is his right and belief. Just as it is your right and belief that gays should be able to marry or whatever.
I don't see any hate here either.Just a man voicing his opinion. I'm sure the rainbows will come out in full force trying to force him to accept them. And that is their right.

The real fact remains that homosexual oppression is a myth in today’s America. At one time homosexuals were looked at as cretins, but this just isn’t the case anymore. This is about special rights......nothing more!