we already know where you stand, so there's no need repeating the same rhetoric...and you already know my response about the government forcing them into that decision...got anything else?
"The government" forced them into it? A government elected by the people? Now that you mention it, yeah - I do have something else. Aside from the fact that the government is a major source of their income, they not only threatened to let innocent people die for political reasons, they did so in direct defiance of democracy.
But honestly, I agree - we've both made ourselves clear. If you're okay with letting innocent people die to prove a political point and I'm not, we can just agree to disagree.
Personally, I'd rather give money to a charity that cares more about helping people than it does whether gay people can form civil unions.
They like to follow that verse from the New Testament, that says "For I was hungry, and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty, and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in. Except when you were worried that NYC would enforce legislature that would give homosexual couples equal medical rights as straight couples - then you threatened to toss me out into the cold and let me starve on Christmas Eve, and that's totally okay. Welcome to heaven, dude."
Would you feel the same way if it was NYC mandating the Salvation Army cover abortions for it's employees in their health plans?
What they mandated they used Grade A Puppy meat in their stews instead of tofu?
Well, wouldn't the government shut you down if you don't follow whatever regulations they can come up with?
NO. They take a bunch of government money (more than 10% of their revenue). And yes, I'd rather puppies die than human beings. I'd also rather cows die than starving children, and rather bears die than campers get mauled to death. Maybe the charity you're looking for is the Animal Liberation Front?
Do you think the ordinance that was to require the Salvation Army to provide benefits to gay employees partners wouldn't have affected them if they were a tax paying company?
They were affected by that ordinance because they accepted a NYC contract to provide a service. If they hadn't accepted that contract there would have been no controversy. So now they get the money and special privileges on top.
So you object to a charity having values? You do realize that values are why many charities exist.
They told NYC that they would leave if they were forced to support something they considered immoral. You should hold government overreach in contempt, not the charity that was backed into a corner.
What? Helping the needy out of love and kindness are not good enough values? You need to make sure you get your points and views accepted first before you can justify helping the less fortunate? Doesn't sound very charitable to me.
Slickdeals is able to share the best deals because of the contributions of users like you! If you found a great deal,
please share it with others by posting in our forums.
Welcome to Slickdeals!
Save money here by finding the lowest and cheapest price, best deals and bargains, and hot coupons. We're all about
community driven bargain hunting with thousands of free discounts, promo codes, reviews and price comparisons.
Don't worry, we'll help you find your way. If you haven't already, check out this
that explains the features of our site.