sweet-tea-13
sweet-tea-13 t1_iwj7t97 wrote
Reply to comment by GoddessOfTheRose in LDS Church comes out for federal bill that recognizes same-sex marriage by creamboy2623
Ah that sounds awful, sorry you had to go to a school like that. I was never mormon but I'm an exjw (the mormons cult-cousin) and can confirm they will also never accept lgbt people, it's a hill they most certainly will die on. I hope it keeps driving people out as those views become less and less acceptable. It was actually one of the first things that made me really start questioning things before I woke up.
sweet-tea-13 t1_iwj6gbz wrote
Reply to comment by your_moms_apron in LDS Church comes out for federal bill that recognizes same-sex marriage by creamboy2623
Yes, if the end result is positive for non-members then that's a good thing. My point was just that the LDS church isn't doing this because they suddenly care about gay rights and shouldn't be praised as if they do.
sweet-tea-13 t1_iwj5wc1 wrote
Reply to comment by GoddessOfTheRose in LDS Church comes out for federal bill that recognizes same-sex marriage by creamboy2623
They still don't within the church. This isn't a change on their doctrine, they support this because it includes an ammendment that says religious organizations are exempt from this bill.
sweet-tea-13 t1_iwj4zq1 wrote
Reply to comment by your_moms_apron in LDS Church comes out for federal bill that recognizes same-sex marriage by creamboy2623
It was only approved after it was changed to include that religious organizations cannot lose tax exempt status for not accommodating LGBT people. Their own views on gay marriage remains unchanged and it is still not accepted between their members.
They don't care if gay marriage is legal as long as they can continue to legally discriminate against LGBT people without losing their tax exempt status.
sweet-tea-13 t1_j60s7vw wrote
Reply to comment by terabaap420 in NYC bike path terror suspect found guilty on all counts in killing of 8 people by electromagneticpost
>A terrorist is someone who uses violence and intimidation against civilians.
You forgot to add "in order to push some sort of cause". Someone who uses violence or intimidation for no other reason than they are just mentally deranged and want to harm others isn't technically a terrorist. To fall under that label the person must have some sort of agenda or motive besides just wanting to hurt people, and most often the motives are either religious or political in nature. If the definition of terrorist was nothing more than "someone who causes terror" then I'd agree with you, but that isn't an accurate description which is why not every shooter is labeled as such. The persons religious affiliation only matters if their religion was the motive behind the crime, and that applies to all religions, and also all political ideologies.