I’m sick of Christians who work for the public suing because they don’t want to do their jobs.
If you cannot serve the whole public, quit your job in public service.
Sometimes, a "reasonable accommodation" is to let them quit.
It cracks me up though. they accomodated him. Put him at a station that didn't have a flag. then he went and removed the 3 other flags that were simply in view....
Dude totally hates rainbows.
dude probably hates himself more.
He thinks being LGBTQ is a choice because he's choosing not to act on it. Constantly.
Plaintiff is a closet case.
Hasn't been to church in a bit I guess...
13 I set My rainbow in the cloud, and it shall be for the sign of the covenant between Me and the earth. 14 It shall be, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the rainbow shall be seen in the cloud; 15 and I will remember My covenant which is between Me and you and every living creature of all flesh; the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh. 16 The rainbow shall be in the cloud, and I will look on it to remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth.” 17 And God said to Noah, “This is the sign of the covenant which I have established between Me and all flesh that is on the earth.”
Genesis 9:13-17
What I hate the most is that his whole excuse is bullshit. The Bible dosen't even know what being gay is, it's only against bronze age booty thief power displays, it knows absolutely nothing about being trans, these people really need to start specifying that they are against 'loving thy neighbor' because they interpret out of context verses written in old English they don't understand to mean they can hate people they don't like or are currently pretending not to be one of.
There have always been gay people, and in every culture, though. While trans is a relatively modern concept, there have definitely been gender-variant people across cultures too.
The fact that it’s been vaguely mentioned at all in the Bible suggests it was a non-issue. Romans, for example, social advancement revolved around patronage… which involved gay sex.
The only modern part of things are the hormone medicines and surgeries we have now. And the language and terms we use. But people being trans, intersex, both sexes, neither, etc, etc is as old as humanity as far as we can tell. There are ancient examples of things like I think it was a grave of a person born female, but was buried with armor and honors of an exclusively male role, like a warrior something. Like a "Mulan" type thing. Which means either nobody knew they were born female or it didn't matter.
I didn't mean these groups didn't exist, but no legitimate scholar has found any evidence of ancient Hebrews having any concept of sexual orientation or trans identity as we have today. They DID have 6-9 genders, and Jesus himself mentions 5 genders, so it's not clear how people we call homosexual or trans today fit into that culture. Jesus mentions Men, Women, Eunichs by birth, Eunichs by choice, and Eunichs by force, and there were other designations by his culture, the Bible very specifically forbids one sexual act, a man penitrating a man. No mention of sex with eunichs of any variety, no mention of non penatrative sex, no mention of women having sex with women, it does forbid men dressing as women and women dressing as men, but it is forbidding only the deception of the act, where did men who decided they were in fact women fit in? Is that a deception? We don't know, and we know rabbis of the day we're capable of very nuanced application of law, there's records of entire arguments going on for hours worth of legal analysis, like how to treat a man who's testicles are crushed, or if his penis is damaged to prevent typical ejaculation, what the law requires, what common sense requires, we also know the law section of the Bible was never in fact a legal system used by ancient Hebrews, it was literally propaganda, and it's largely draconian, and the legal system used in fact, wasn't. Rabbis rarely if ever sentanced anyone to death, they viewed human life as sacred to God, so the risk of falsely executing anyone was considered too high a risk in almost every case.
My whole point is, if you honestly study the text, there's clearly no stance on homosexual orientation, and no stance on trans identity, what isn't ambiguous or lacking a mention on, is what ''love thy neighbor'' means and how to apply it to your life, and how high a priority it must be. It's very clear. Treat others beyond baseline humanely, do all you can to help others, do more than is expected, and never fail to forgive even highly repeated sin, or face the judgment of God, as any negative effect you put on others, God will act as if you did that directly to him.
To throw that all out for the opportunity to act as if hate and abuse are validated by their religion is the definition of evil.
Yup it's simply hateful, spiteful people being assholes. Inconsiderate pricks using religion as an excuse to be inconsiderate pricks.
it's only against bronze age booty thief power displays
I was once in a band called Bronze Age Booty Thieves. Our first album Power Displays didn't sell too well..
I would unironically buy that if I saw it at a pawn shop.
Early Modern English.
Here's John 3:16 in Old English: "God lufede middan-eard swa þæt he sealde hys akennedan sune þæt nan ne for-wurðe þe on hine ge-lefð. Ac habbe þt eche lyf."
Fair enough, but it's still not modern English and it's easy to read a verse in the KJV Bible and think it means exactly the opposite of what it says due to language changes
That someone who believes in the Bible and is professionally contracted to prevent people from drowning is being upset they are doing that job near the Biblical symbol of a covenant not to drown humanity again is making me drown in the irony.
Please send help.
Wow I hadn't even thought of it that way. For real.
What is the biblical symbol you're referencing? Explain it like I'm not a Christian (I'm not lol).
It's a reference to Noah's Ark, where God supposedly flooded the whole world except two of each animal and Noah's family, then put a rainbow in the sky as a symbol that He'd never do it again. Young Earth Creationists and their like take the story as fact, despite the fact that such an event would have put humanity well below the number of people needed for a stable gene pool, and that two of an animal likely wouldn't repopulate an entire species. I digress.
Thanks for the explanation!
Brilliant :D
Snowflake.
“The colors, they’re too scary!”
Right wing conservative "Christians:"
Libs are snowflakes!
Also
I'm triggered by a sequence of colors!
Right wing Christians (don't put it in quotes, don't do a No True Scotsman, they're Christians) hate rainbows now and I can't love it more because it ruins their precious Noah story for them.
The guy has a dope, but do people really think they hate rainbows and not what this flag is supposed to represent?
They sure as fuck complain every time they see a rainbow anywhere.
Really? Sure as fuck? Well, this should be easy for you to prove then. Or were you lying?
For example, this guy complaining that the rainbow has been ruined for religion ever since it was "secularized" but the song Somewhere Over the Rainbow.
I'm sure you'll say this won't count because this is your typical M.O.
I look forward to you berating me because actually Somewhere Over the Rainbow is about sucking cock or something.
I don't see where in this article where it shows that "They sure as fuck complain every time they see a rainbow anywhere."
It don't even see where it shows this individual complaint when he sees a rainbow outside of on the flag.
Could you be more specific?
Called it.
I love that I even told you what he said and you claim you don't see it. Try a control-F for the word 'somewhere." That should help.
"Although secularized over the years to signify dreamy pot-o-gold optimism or new beginnings Somewhere over the Rainbow, it wasn’t until the San Francisco Gay Freedom Day Parade celebration in 1978 that the rainbow symbol was co-opted by the non-heterosexual lobby group."
Nowhere in that does it say he complains everytime he sees a rainbow, let alone that all of them complain every time they see one, as you claimed.
Called it.
It's not hard to predict that people will challenge your evidence when it doesn't support your claims. But this is a good tactic when posting BS that doesn't support your point.
No amount of evidence I ever provide is good enough for you any time you talk to me and your hard-on for attacking every post I make is becoming tiresome. Frankly, I'm about to start reporting you for harassment since it happens so often.
I searched for what you told me to, copy and pasted it here, and it doesn't even support your claim for that individual let alone for all right wing Christians as you said.
Certainly we can both agree that 0 evidence is not going to convince me. So it seems quite presumptuous to assume no amount of evidence could convince me.
your hard-on for attacking every post I make
Believe me, I bite my tongue plenty when I see your posts, so we both know it's an outright lie that I attack every post you make.
You post here too much, and I post here too much. It's not harassment that every few days we butt heads over something. It's just what happens when people disagree.
We'll see if the mods agree next time you decide to attack me like this. Because I'm sick and tired of it and I'm not interested in arguing with you about it either.
What if the homophobic lifeguard sees someone drowning that "looks gay"? I don't know if this guy can do his job.
Bigoted fuck
Little typically works at Will Rogers Beach, long considered a safe space among LGBTQ+ beach goers. The beach is so popular with queer residents and visitors that it earned the nickname "Ginger Rogers Beach.
Why doesn't he just ask to be stationed at a different beach? He's offended by a flag, but not a bunch of men and women making everyday PDAs right in front of him?
Because it's all bullshit and he's just a greedy asshole who wants to make a quick buck at taxpayers expense. Fuck him.
Rule in his favor, then I have precedent to sue every church, business, and government entity that displays a cross. ❤️
Jeffery Little, who has worked for the city for 22 years, filed a lawsuit on Friday claiming he is being discriminated against for his evangelical faith by being made to stand in the same vicinity as the Progress Pride flag. Little alleges he was suspended from his role with the department’s background investigation unit last year after he took down three LGBTQ+ flags during Pride month.
The Los Angeles county board of supervisors voted last year to require the rainbow banner be flown during the month of June at government buildings, which includes lifeguard stands. Little, who claimed the flags present a “direct conflict” with his religious beliefs, fought to be placed at stations that would not fly the flag, as they did not have the right flag poles to fly any banner.
I gotta go to work so I’ll leave that to comment for myself.
The lifeguard seemed particularly triggered by the turquoise and pink stripes on the original Pride flag designed by Gilbert Baker, which represent magic and sex, respectively.
Gonna go out on a limb and say that this man is no fun at parties.
Wait shit that's an option? Can we get a version of the progress flag with magic and sex pls?
Stop kink shaming guys, it’s clear this dork has a persecution fetish!
This lifeguard only THINKS they're a Christian. A real Christian wouldn't care because not only does GOD love all, but we're all made in his image. Gay L, straight, Bi, Trans, Asexual. All of us.
He's a Christian like any other and Christians will have to recognize that their beliefs are responsible for a lot of homophobia, instead of saying that anyone who makes them look bad is not a "true" Christian.
Not true. I'm a Christian who's studying to be a minister and I am an allay. I support LGBTQ individuals right to marry, adopt, basically live their lives as equal members of the human race, because that's what they are.
GLBTA? I honestly thought you were spelling something out with that
GAY L
Uhm.. do you even Sodom and Gomorrah? LMAO
You've never picked up a Torah, Bible, or Quran, huh?
Technically speaking the wickedness of the cities that were under divine review were because they were narcissistic, enjoyed excess and "prosperous ease" without considering properly the poor and did "abominable acts" before God. Those abominable acts could have been anything. We get the homosexuality related misconception because the test involved hosting two angelic dignitaries disguised as humans whom a mob decended on an demanded they let them "know"..
Funny trick here. The original Hebrew text used for the angels was anashim and the OG word Lot uses for them when he greets the dignitaries is non-gendered as analogous to "master". Anashim is a non-gendered term, it encompasses specifically both the terms woman and man and means "of mankind". However, the English translations of the Bible use male gendered terms like "Lords" "Gentlemen" and "Men" for the angels... Meaning the lust for the angels in the original story was probably not gendered. The angels in the original are not named nor gender coded in any way but there were specifically two of them. We might interpret this to mean there were either angels that appeared to be of both genders or that the genders were deliberately not important because the pluralism means they are never gendered by any other mention in the story. Just as in English when a plural is used it disguises the individual nature of the particular makeup of the group. The crowd calls to know "them".
The test was ultimately a litmus test failure of the town to show it lived up to the laws of hospitality and morality but there's nothing specifically outlining gay sexuallity in the original text of that story moreso than any other sexuallity. The abominations could have been anything and the horny onslaught against the angels was potentially supposed to be coded as lust to defile or possess the divine or even just a lack of consent. The crowd isn't asking if the angels want to come out and play, they are demanding it.
In the end it was a bunch of English translators who had very specific cultural ideas about who was worthy of the term "Master" that occluded any potential of the feminine potential reading and were the ones who through the cultural game of telephone made it a story about gay sex. It kind of benefited the Church to make it less a story about hoarding wealth and comfort because a lot of individual Churches were very VERY wealthy.
As it never rains in southern california, this guy has never seen a rainbow in his life, pretty sure.
Seems I've often heard that kind of talk before.
So if there is some light Rian with sunshine and a rainbow pops up, will he sue god? I'm just wondering.
I’m sick of Christians who work for the public suing because they don’t want to do their jobs.
If you cannot serve the whole public, quit your job in public service.
Sometimes, a "reasonable accommodation" is to let them quit.
It cracks me up though. they accomodated him. Put him at a station that didn't have a flag. then he went and removed the 3 other flags that were simply in view....
Dude totally hates rainbows.
dude probably hates himself more.
He thinks being LGBTQ is a choice because he's choosing not to act on it. Constantly.
Plaintiff is a closet case.
Hasn't been to church in a bit I guess...
Genesis 9:13-17
What I hate the most is that his whole excuse is bullshit. The Bible dosen't even know what being gay is, it's only against bronze age booty thief power displays, it knows absolutely nothing about being trans, these people really need to start specifying that they are against 'loving thy neighbor' because they interpret out of context verses written in old English they don't understand to mean they can hate people they don't like or are currently pretending not to be one of.
There have always been gay people, and in every culture, though. While trans is a relatively modern concept, there have definitely been gender-variant people across cultures too.
The fact that it’s been vaguely mentioned at all in the Bible suggests it was a non-issue. Romans, for example, social advancement revolved around patronage… which involved gay sex.
The only modern part of things are the hormone medicines and surgeries we have now. And the language and terms we use. But people being trans, intersex, both sexes, neither, etc, etc is as old as humanity as far as we can tell. There are ancient examples of things like I think it was a grave of a person born female, but was buried with armor and honors of an exclusively male role, like a warrior something. Like a "Mulan" type thing. Which means either nobody knew they were born female or it didn't matter.
I didn't mean these groups didn't exist, but no legitimate scholar has found any evidence of ancient Hebrews having any concept of sexual orientation or trans identity as we have today. They DID have 6-9 genders, and Jesus himself mentions 5 genders, so it's not clear how people we call homosexual or trans today fit into that culture. Jesus mentions Men, Women, Eunichs by birth, Eunichs by choice, and Eunichs by force, and there were other designations by his culture, the Bible very specifically forbids one sexual act, a man penitrating a man. No mention of sex with eunichs of any variety, no mention of non penatrative sex, no mention of women having sex with women, it does forbid men dressing as women and women dressing as men, but it is forbidding only the deception of the act, where did men who decided they were in fact women fit in? Is that a deception? We don't know, and we know rabbis of the day we're capable of very nuanced application of law, there's records of entire arguments going on for hours worth of legal analysis, like how to treat a man who's testicles are crushed, or if his penis is damaged to prevent typical ejaculation, what the law requires, what common sense requires, we also know the law section of the Bible was never in fact a legal system used by ancient Hebrews, it was literally propaganda, and it's largely draconian, and the legal system used in fact, wasn't. Rabbis rarely if ever sentanced anyone to death, they viewed human life as sacred to God, so the risk of falsely executing anyone was considered too high a risk in almost every case.
My whole point is, if you honestly study the text, there's clearly no stance on homosexual orientation, and no stance on trans identity, what isn't ambiguous or lacking a mention on, is what ''love thy neighbor'' means and how to apply it to your life, and how high a priority it must be. It's very clear. Treat others beyond baseline humanely, do all you can to help others, do more than is expected, and never fail to forgive even highly repeated sin, or face the judgment of God, as any negative effect you put on others, God will act as if you did that directly to him.
To throw that all out for the opportunity to act as if hate and abuse are validated by their religion is the definition of evil.
Yup it's simply hateful, spiteful people being assholes. Inconsiderate pricks using religion as an excuse to be inconsiderate pricks.
I was once in a band called Bronze Age Booty Thieves. Our first album Power Displays didn't sell too well..
I would unironically buy that if I saw it at a pawn shop.
Early Modern English.
Here's John 3:16 in Old English: "God lufede middan-eard swa þæt he sealde hys akennedan sune þæt nan ne for-wurðe þe on hine ge-lefð. Ac habbe þt eche lyf."
Fair enough, but it's still not modern English and it's easy to read a verse in the KJV Bible and think it means exactly the opposite of what it says due to language changes
That someone who believes in the Bible and is professionally contracted to prevent people from drowning is being upset they are doing that job near the Biblical symbol of a covenant not to drown humanity again is making me drown in the irony.
Please send help.
Wow I hadn't even thought of it that way. For real.
What is the biblical symbol you're referencing? Explain it like I'm not a Christian (I'm not lol).
It's a reference to Noah's Ark, where God supposedly flooded the whole world except two of each animal and Noah's family, then put a rainbow in the sky as a symbol that He'd never do it again. Young Earth Creationists and their like take the story as fact, despite the fact that such an event would have put humanity well below the number of people needed for a stable gene pool, and that two of an animal likely wouldn't repopulate an entire species. I digress.
Thanks for the explanation!
Brilliant :D
Snowflake.
“The colors, they’re too scary!”
Right wing conservative "Christians:"
Libs are snowflakes!
Also
I'm triggered by a sequence of colors!
Right wing Christians (don't put it in quotes, don't do a No True Scotsman, they're Christians) hate rainbows now and I can't love it more because it ruins their precious Noah story for them.
The guy has a dope, but do people really think they hate rainbows and not what this flag is supposed to represent?
They sure as fuck complain every time they see a rainbow anywhere.
Really? Sure as fuck? Well, this should be easy for you to prove then. Or were you lying?
For example, this guy complaining that the rainbow has been ruined for religion ever since it was "secularized" but the song Somewhere Over the Rainbow.
https://www.ezrainstitute.com/resource-library/articles/reclaiming-the-rainbow-responding-to-lgbt-challenges-with-grace-truth/
I'm sure you'll say this won't count because this is your typical M.O.
I look forward to you berating me because actually Somewhere Over the Rainbow is about sucking cock or something.
I don't see where in this article where it shows that "They sure as fuck complain every time they see a rainbow anywhere."
It don't even see where it shows this individual complaint when he sees a rainbow outside of on the flag.
Could you be more specific?
Called it.
I love that I even told you what he said and you claim you don't see it. Try a control-F for the word 'somewhere." That should help.
"Although secularized over the years to signify dreamy pot-o-gold optimism or new beginnings Somewhere over the Rainbow, it wasn’t until the San Francisco Gay Freedom Day Parade celebration in 1978 that the rainbow symbol was co-opted by the non-heterosexual lobby group."
Nowhere in that does it say he complains everytime he sees a rainbow, let alone that all of them complain every time they see one, as you claimed.
It's not hard to predict that people will challenge your evidence when it doesn't support your claims. But this is a good tactic when posting BS that doesn't support your point.
No amount of evidence I ever provide is good enough for you any time you talk to me and your hard-on for attacking every post I make is becoming tiresome. Frankly, I'm about to start reporting you for harassment since it happens so often.
I searched for what you told me to, copy and pasted it here, and it doesn't even support your claim for that individual let alone for all right wing Christians as you said.
Certainly we can both agree that 0 evidence is not going to convince me. So it seems quite presumptuous to assume no amount of evidence could convince me.
Believe me, I bite my tongue plenty when I see your posts, so we both know it's an outright lie that I attack every post you make.
You post here too much, and I post here too much. It's not harassment that every few days we butt heads over something. It's just what happens when people disagree.
We'll see if the mods agree next time you decide to attack me like this. Because I'm sick and tired of it and I'm not interested in arguing with you about it either.
It's even dumber because a rainbow doesn't necessarily mean LGBTQ. Sometimes rainbow is just rainbow.
Kids love rainbows. I'm an adult and I love rainbows. They are literally fun colors and beautiful.
If your religion is making you hate rainbows, it might be time to take a look at your religion and the batshit stuff it teaches you.
Rainbows? In the sky? Where kids can see? Fucking wokeys mate, making the fucking sky GAY.
The rainbow was God's sign of the covenant with all people. Does he reject God?
What does he do if a man needs mouth to mouth?
I think you can just say "No Homo" and do whatever. Sources needed.
The lack of socks cancels that out.
I think you just have to waft it in, Mr Bean style.
https://youtu.be/7bpUIuCWvlY?t=90
How many bets this asshole goes on and on about how people are too easily offended and cancel culture is out of control?
I'll sue every building with a cross inside since Christianity offends me.
The fact that he was able to sue.. especially in the state of California of all places. This could actually be a trend for the entire nation.
White light is a tightly squished rainbow, so I guess these people's only option is to all go blind.
I mean, more blind than they're now.
its a funny post, but I'm almost completely certain you cant contract "they are" here, but I could be wrong
You definitely can contract it.
I contracted they are once after a one night stand. Spent three weeks in the hospital.
I've never seen a snowflake on a SoCal beach before.
They're all over Huntington Beach
Those are ooids.
It's very rare, but we even get some from time to time east of the mountains. They don't really ever stick, but it has happened.
Here's something they can do
These christyboys must have such a hard time with such prejudice
Pride and prejudice
The sequel, pride and prejudice and projection.
Lol
Yes, boys... hard... Oh god, I've got to go sue someone now!
I read the headline and thought this was the onion
Oh. You’re … not from the USA are you? Just a guess
you don't have to guess, you can tell by the instance i'm on xd
Ja det är sant, men - man kan spoofera allt, eller hur? 🤷♂️
technically yes, but if you go by chance there's a high probability that feddit.de users aren't from the USA
Well I can’t argue with you there
SPRICH
🙄 Müssen wir echt jeden Müll von Reddit mit hier rüber holen?
What if the homophobic lifeguard sees someone drowning that "looks gay"? I don't know if this guy can do his job.
Bigoted fuck
Why doesn't he just ask to be stationed at a different beach? He's offended by a flag, but not a bunch of men and women making everyday PDAs right in front of him?
Because it's all bullshit and he's just a greedy asshole who wants to make a quick buck at taxpayers expense. Fuck him.
Rule in his favor, then I have precedent to sue every church, business, and government entity that displays a cross. ❤️
I gotta go to work so I’ll leave that to comment for myself.
Gonna go out on a limb and say that this man is no fun at parties.
Wait shit that's an option? Can we get a version of the progress flag with magic and sex pls?
Stop kink shaming guys, it’s clear this dork has a persecution fetish!
This lifeguard only THINKS they're a Christian. A real Christian wouldn't care because not only does GOD love all, but we're all made in his image. Gay L, straight, Bi, Trans, Asexual. All of us.
No true scottsman
He's a Christian like any other and Christians will have to recognize that their beliefs are responsible for a lot of homophobia, instead of saying that anyone who makes them look bad is not a "true" Christian.
Not true. I'm a Christian who's studying to be a minister and I am an allay. I support LGBTQ individuals right to marry, adopt, basically live their lives as equal members of the human race, because that's what they are.
GLBTA? I honestly thought you were spelling something out with that
Uhm.. do you even Sodom and Gomorrah? LMAO
You've never picked up a Torah, Bible, or Quran, huh?
Technically speaking the wickedness of the cities that were under divine review were because they were narcissistic, enjoyed excess and "prosperous ease" without considering properly the poor and did "abominable acts" before God. Those abominable acts could have been anything. We get the homosexuality related misconception because the test involved hosting two angelic dignitaries disguised as humans whom a mob decended on an demanded they let them "know"..
Funny trick here. The original Hebrew text used for the angels was anashim and the OG word Lot uses for them when he greets the dignitaries is non-gendered as analogous to "master". Anashim is a non-gendered term, it encompasses specifically both the terms woman and man and means "of mankind". However, the English translations of the Bible use male gendered terms like "Lords" "Gentlemen" and "Men" for the angels... Meaning the lust for the angels in the original story was probably not gendered. The angels in the original are not named nor gender coded in any way but there were specifically two of them. We might interpret this to mean there were either angels that appeared to be of both genders or that the genders were deliberately not important because the pluralism means they are never gendered by any other mention in the story. Just as in English when a plural is used it disguises the individual nature of the particular makeup of the group. The crowd calls to know "them".
The test was ultimately a litmus test failure of the town to show it lived up to the laws of hospitality and morality but there's nothing specifically outlining gay sexuallity in the original text of that story moreso than any other sexuallity. The abominations could have been anything and the horny onslaught against the angels was potentially supposed to be coded as lust to defile or possess the divine or even just a lack of consent. The crowd isn't asking if the angels want to come out and play, they are demanding it.
In the end it was a bunch of English translators who had very specific cultural ideas about who was worthy of the term "Master" that occluded any potential of the feminine potential reading and were the ones who through the cultural game of telephone made it a story about gay sex. It kind of benefited the Church to make it less a story about hoarding wealth and comfort because a lot of individual Churches were very VERY wealthy.
As it never rains in southern california, this guy has never seen a rainbow in his life, pretty sure.
Seems I've often heard that kind of talk before.
So if there is some light Rian with sunshine and a rainbow pops up, will he sue god? I'm just wondering.
Why not just ban christianity?