By Chuck Strouse
By Scott Fishman
By Terrence McCoy
By Ryan Yousefi
By Ciara LaVelle, Kat Bein, Carolina Del Busto, and Liz Tracy
By Pepe Billete
By Ryan Yousefi
By Kyle Swenson
Think, have a heart, and save some money. Do the right thing and send a message to the Midwest puppy mills. Head for the pound.
The reverend should know better than to rationalize discrimination:After reading Kirk Nielsen's article "Between a Frock and a Hard Place" (August 15), about black clergy members opposed to the county's gay-rights ordinance, I was outraged at Rev. Richard Bennett's bigoted, dimwitted view that homosexuals, lesbians, and bisexual people should be equated with alcoholics or drug dealers. Whatever happened to the old saying Live and let live?
Does it really matter if someone "chooses" a gay lifestyle or is born that way? Should we discriminate against people who choose to be different? What a crock! We've all heard these arguments before -- leading up to World War II -- about the Jews, the Gypsies, and gays. And of course we heard it again about blacks during the civil-rights movement.
Special rights my ass! How about the right not to be fired for what I do in my private life? Oh, we love homosexuals, Reverend Bennett says, we just don't want them to live, work, or raise children here. Seems like the same things people were saying about blacks 50 years ago. Some people should know better. Remember, those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.
Keep up the good work, New Times. From a proud American who happens to be black and gay.
The reverend should know it's right there in the Good Book:So Reverend Bennett bases his bigotry on passages from the Bible. I wonder how he feels about Bible passages condoning slavery, polygamy, and rejection of children born out of wedlock. Does he eat shrimp? How about rabbit? They're forbidden in the Bible too.
This is not what the county's existing ordinance is about. It's about preventing discrimination, all sorts of discrimination. Bennett claims to love gays, but what kind of love can that be if it denies another person's rights?
The reverend should know he's being inconsistent: The current county ordinance also prohibits discrimination based on marital or familial status. An unwed mother is protected; unmarried couples living together are protected. Yet these lifestyle choices are condemned in Reverend Bennett's scriptures. (See, for example, 1 Corinthians 6:9.) Should those engaging in such abominations be given "special protection" under the ordinance?