Marshall’s letter, addressed to Richmond Fed President Jeffrey M. Lacker, goes on to say that the bank should not be celebrating homosexual behavior. This, in his view, “undermines the American economy.” The Richmond Times-Dispatch has more:
“The Richmond Fed’s endorsement of costly, anti-social, immoral behavior is rejected by 6,000 years of Western Religious and moral teaching,” writes Marshall, who is among the General Assembly’s most conservative members and has long been outspoken on gay-rights issues. “You want the American people to trust your [judgment] in economic matters when your spokesperson celebrates an attack on public morals?”More
17 comments:
he's abosolutely right. The bank used very poor judgement in flying the fruit flag. Although I don't agree that it "undermines the American economy", the institution is no different than a school and should no they can't support such a polarizing issue.
How disgusting! When these militant gays do things like this they lose credibility and empathy.
That is just plain awful, ignorant, and in your face. I have no problem with gays, but I do have a problem with the gays constantly trying to put it "in your face"!
Forced acceptance is never going to happen, Were dealing with a mental illness and they will never be satisfied.
"Sally Green, the bank’s vice-president and chief operating officer, has a different view. Earlier in the week, she said that the flag provides an example of the bank’s commitment to “acceptance and inclusion.”"
So would they be willing to fly the Confederate Battle Flag!!
The Government has demonstrated since Obama took Office that the "fight is on" against the American People.
No, they shouldn't Confederate battle flag because that battle was lost. It's over. However the gays are starting to win right and left.
Earlier in the week, she said that the flag provides an example of the bank’s commitment to “acceptance and inclusion.”"
And the mexican flag as well?
How about the Christian flag?
@11 am
"militant gays"? Really?... will you explain exactly what that is or means? How are they "militant"?... and I am curious why it is that you use that qualifying descriptor?
"will you explain exactly what that is or means? How are they "militant""
I don't think anyone cares what it "means". A bank, and certainly a "world bank" has no business getting into back room sexual preferences. If you get off with doo doo penetrations, keep it amongst yourselves and let the rest of us lead normal lives.
9:45 "fruit flag" LOL. Al in fenwick "Doo Doo Penetrations" LMAO. Funny stuff guys.
Christians have a flag?
11:50- there you go with your "mental illness" thing again. How old are you, 80? Stare into this spinning pinwheel and be cured! As for Ali, "doo doo penetration?" Really?! Are you in middle school or something?
Anon 1614 -
You're kidding, right? I am assuming that the commenter means the guys who march in gay pride parades in assless chaps, swapping spit with their boyfriend in public (or some other equally offensive public behavior designed to draw attention to themselves).
I was having a discussion about this just the other day with a friend who happens to be gay. It's been my experience that the vast majority of gay folks simply want to be allowed to live their lives in relative peace and safety. The militant gay activists are as much a hindrance to that as the idiots who want to stone gay people.
Anon 1935 -
No, neither Anon 0945 nor Al are particularly funny.
Anon 0912 -
Yes, we have a flag. We just don't pledge allegiance to it. We pledge allegiance to the Lamb.
its funny, the same people supporting a business showing its opinion are the same people outraged that a private citizen flies a confederate flag on private property...
@ G.A. Harrison
Really? Militant Gay Activists... what is that? What do "militant" gays want... and what are they... what makes them "militant"? Other than the fact that they want the same respect and rights that all couples have? (visitation in hospitals, tax breaks... etc)
Gays simply want the same liberties that we all enjoy. You may find their "swapping spit" offensive to you... just as folks in the civil rights movement for blacks found interracial couples to be similarly offensive... however, there is no argument you can put forth that substantiates the "offensiveness" of this act that cannot be also attributed, and refuted, to interracial couples.
This topic is neither easy or simple. I understand that. There is the nature vs nurture argument to consider... as well as the religious perspective to consider.
What I do know is that gays are only asking for the same rights and privileges that straight couples have when it comes to what they can legally do for/on behalf of the partner. They are simply asking for equality, and for respect/recognition of their monogamous relationship... of their love for one another.
Post a Comment