4 ms·

> extremely, violently anti-gay Nice edit. They help 23 million people a year, without any type of discrimination. They have at least one dorm exclusively for

> extremely, violently anti-gay Nice edit. They help 23 million people a year, without any type of discrimination. They have at least one dorm exclusively for transgender individuals. Their charity services literally benefit millions of LGBTQ individuals every year. But if you want to call that "extremely", "violently", or "intensely" anti-gay then I certainly can't stop you.

cryptoz 7y ago
Editing to remove accurate but aggressive words is a common piece of advice you hear on HN. I stand by original comment and my edit. > They help 23 million people a year, without any type of discrimination. This is false. > They have at least one dorm exclusively for transgender individuals. Their charity services literally benefit millions of LGBTQ individuals every year. Good acts do not undo bad acts. > But if you want to call that "extremely", "violently", or "intensely" anti-gay then I certainly can't stop you. Of course! I am right about this regardless. Salvation Army's discrimination and intentional pain caused to LGBT is real, even if you've never felt it yourself or wish to pretend it doesn't happen. The fact that this is even a conversation at all should be sufficient evidence that their discrimination has in fact hurt LGBT people in particular.
- rukittenme 7y ago
  You gave yourself three chances to defend your position and each time you failed to attempt it. I understand two things about the Salvation Army. They serve the most vulnerable in their community(-ies) and they hold religious beliefs which run against the politics of the day. That second point may give you some sense of justification. But consider this, on the Salvation Army's website, one of their top line issues is serving LGBTQ community. That strikes me as odd for an organization described by you as "extremely, violently anti-gay". It seems to me that the Salvation Army is not against an LGBTQ person. They may disagree with their choices but are perfectly happy to alleviate their homelessness, addiction, hunger, poverty, etc. Are you not able to discern the difference between political disagreement and violence? Are the Salvation Army not the pinnacle of what it means to be tolerant? They're willing to serve those whom they disagree with. In my mind, they're exactly what is required to have a pluralistic society.
  - cryptoz 7y ago
    Salvation Army has spent almost centuries causing active harm to LGBT community. That notice on their website is brand-new and their actions recently indicate that they are likely to continue going out of their way to cause harm to LGBT people. The corporate doublethink on their website is propaganda and does not reflect the reality of who they are. I do not believe that a 150+ year old organization with a strong history of the people involved being extremely hateful to LGBT people is in a total turnaround - they have refused to admit their wrongdoing in any reasonable way and have also made public statements recently that the will continue to donate to anti-LGBT people. Providing good services to some while rejecting others for simply being who they are does not come across as a good, kind, or deserving of praise in any way. Their good deeds have been selective in who receives them and their language for groups they don't like borders on genocidal. The Salvation Army is not a force for good in the world. It is a hateful religious group who has a public and strong recent history of causing direct harm to people who need help the most.
    - privateSFacct 7y ago
      Cypto - it might be helpful if you could spell out some of the specifics of their current violent attacks on LGBTQ folks. This would make your "corporate doublethink propaganda" claims stronger.
    - turk73 7y ago
      Personally am completely fed up with the gay agenda. It is like Stalinism but more colorful. It's just not for me, sorry.
    - mattmanser 7y ago
      You can't really use the century thing, most western organisations had views which most progressives would view as abhorrent today. Section 28 in the UK was only 40 years ago, when the UK government was descriminating, and only repealed less than 20 years ago. When you put the beside your 150 years, you're coming across as lacking in even a basic understanding of history. Attitudes change. And those attitudes changed only very recently for almost the whole of the western world.
astronautjones 7y ago
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-salvation-armys-histo_b_4422938 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-salvation-armys-histo_b_4...
Pfhreak 7y ago
> without any type of discrimination The Salvation Army is a church, and is regulated as a church. They can inquire about your religious or personal beliefs when hiring or before providing services. They threatened to close in NYC if they had to support gay partner's benefits in the city. There's a laundry list of discriminatory behavior from the Salvation Army, it's patently absurd to say they operate "without any form of discrimination".
- javagram 7y ago
  > They threatened to close in NYC if they had to support gay partner's benefits in the city. FYI, while true as a historical matter (this was done in 2010 according to a google search), I believe this is outdated. https://www.wsj.com/articles/progressives-ambush-the-salvation-army-11574294011 https://www.wsj.com/articles/progressives-ambush-the-salvati... notes in 2019: ‘Yet the organization says it doesn’t consider sexual orientation in hiring and now provides “the same benefits to opposite-sex and same-sex couples.”’ They are a church as you note and I’m not sure what their doctrine for their followers is. On the other hand, isn’t it anti-religious bias to attack someone for donating to a church? In US law, religion is protected on the same level as any other protected characteristic (sex, race, etc.) due to the long history of discrimination against minority religions for their political or moral views. In general attacking CFA for donating to a mainstream christian church seems only a step away from demanding that followers of Christianity who attend or donate to their churches must be fired from their jobs or otherwise discriminated against...
  - anakaine 7y ago
    You mean we shouldn't discriminate whilst complaining about an organisation who discriminates? Sheesh.

cryptoz 7y ago

Editing to remove accurate but aggressive words is a common piece of advice you hear on HN. I stand by original comment and my edit. > They help 23 million people a year, without any type of discrimination. This is false. > They have at least one dorm exclusively for transgender individuals. Their charity services literally benefit millions of LGBTQ individuals every year. Good acts do not undo bad acts. > But if you want to call that "extremely", "violently", or "intensely" anti-gay then I certainly can't stop you. Of course! I am right about this regardless. Salvation Army's discrimination and intentional pain caused to LGBT is real, even if you've never felt it yourself or wish to pretend it doesn't happen. The fact that this is even a conversation at all should be sufficient evidence that their discrimination has in fact hurt LGBT people in particular.

rukittenme 7y ago
You gave yourself three chances to defend your position and each time you failed to attempt it. I understand two things about the Salvation Army. They serve the most vulnerable in their community(-ies) and they hold religious beliefs which run against the politics of the day. That second point may give you some sense of justification. But consider this, on the Salvation Army's website, one of their top line issues is serving LGBTQ community. That strikes me as odd for an organization described by you as "extremely, violently anti-gay". It seems to me that the Salvation Army is not against an LGBTQ person. They may disagree with their choices but are perfectly happy to alleviate their homelessness, addiction, hunger, poverty, etc. Are you not able to discern the difference between political disagreement and violence? Are the Salvation Army not the pinnacle of what it means to be tolerant? They're willing to serve those whom they disagree with. In my mind, they're exactly what is required to have a pluralistic society.
- cryptoz 7y ago
  Salvation Army has spent almost centuries causing active harm to LGBT community. That notice on their website is brand-new and their actions recently indicate that they are likely to continue going out of their way to cause harm to LGBT people. The corporate doublethink on their website is propaganda and does not reflect the reality of who they are. I do not believe that a 150+ year old organization with a strong history of the people involved being extremely hateful to LGBT people is in a total turnaround - they have refused to admit their wrongdoing in any reasonable way and have also made public statements recently that the will continue to donate to anti-LGBT people. Providing good services to some while rejecting others for simply being who they are does not come across as a good, kind, or deserving of praise in any way. Their good deeds have been selective in who receives them and their language for groups they don't like borders on genocidal. The Salvation Army is not a force for good in the world. It is a hateful religious group who has a public and strong recent history of causing direct harm to people who need help the most.
  - privateSFacct 7y ago
    Cypto - it might be helpful if you could spell out some of the specifics of their current violent attacks on LGBTQ folks. This would make your "corporate doublethink propaganda" claims stronger.
  - turk73 7y ago
    Personally am completely fed up with the gay agenda. It is like Stalinism but more colorful. It's just not for me, sorry.
  - mattmanser 7y ago
    You can't really use the century thing, most western organisations had views which most progressives would view as abhorrent today. Section 28 in the UK was only 40 years ago, when the UK government was descriminating, and only repealed less than 20 years ago. When you put the beside your 150 years, you're coming across as lacking in even a basic understanding of history. Attitudes change. And those attitudes changed only very recently for almost the whole of the western world.

astronautjones 7y ago

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-salvation-armys-histo_b_4422938 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-salvation-armys-histo_b_4...

Pfhreak 7y ago

> without any type of discrimination The Salvation Army is a church, and is regulated as a church. They can inquire about your religious or personal beliefs when hiring or before providing services. They threatened to close in NYC if they had to support gay partner's benefits in the city. There's a laundry list of discriminatory behavior from the Salvation Army, it's patently absurd to say they operate "without any form of discrimination".

javagram 7y ago
> They threatened to close in NYC if they had to support gay partner's benefits in the city. FYI, while true as a historical matter (this was done in 2010 according to a google search), I believe this is outdated. https://www.wsj.com/articles/progressives-ambush-the-salvation-army-11574294011 https://www.wsj.com/articles/progressives-ambush-the-salvati... notes in 2019: ‘Yet the organization says it doesn’t consider sexual orientation in hiring and now provides “the same benefits to opposite-sex and same-sex couples.”’ They are a church as you note and I’m not sure what their doctrine for their followers is. On the other hand, isn’t it anti-religious bias to attack someone for donating to a church? In US law, religion is protected on the same level as any other protected characteristic (sex, race, etc.) due to the long history of discrimination against minority religions for their political or moral views. In general attacking CFA for donating to a mainstream christian church seems only a step away from demanding that followers of Christianity who attend or donate to their churches must be fired from their jobs or otherwise discriminated against...
- anakaine 7y ago
  You mean we shouldn't discriminate whilst complaining about an organisation who discriminates? Sheesh.