Student harassment

[ladyinred]

Pat Robertson reportedly has a net worth of 140 million:" Robertson is a very wealthy man. Some estimates put his net worth at over 140 million dollars. Pat Robertson, the evangelist, is a “jet-setter” and lives the lifestyle of a king. He crisscrosses the country in a BAC jet entertaining black-tie dinners, wearing expensive three-piece suits, and charging five hundred dollars per plate for a ten-dollar meal. Robertson rides in fancy limousines, sleeps in plush hotels, eats exquisite cuisine, and takes exotic vacations at remote resort areas around the world. He lives on the top of a Virginia mountain in a huge mansion with a private airstrip. He owns the Ice Capades, a hotel, diamond mines, and until recently, International Family Entertainment, parent company of the Family Channel. How does a televangelist, who is supposedly involved in nonprofit work, manage to create such a fortune for himself? Apparently, between dealing with murderous dictators and ripping off senior citizens, it is not that hard. Robertson seems to possess more of an interest in the wallet than in the eternal soul; the “here and now” is seemingly very important to him.



Pat Robertson’s zeal for profitable business ventures led him to start the American Benefits Plus/Kalo Vita (ABP). This was a multi-level marketing scheme along the lines of Amway and Avon. Beginning in 1991, Robertson recruited people across the country to sell coupon books, some of whom were retirees. He had more than twenty thousand “employees” for ABP. He set up seminars to train attendees and used the claim that the program was backed by Biblical principles. He insisted that they could earn between fifteen and twenty thousand dollars monthly. American Benefits Plus/Kalo Vita were unsuccessful. His attention shifted to changing the focus of the business. The company name was change to Kalo Vita, a vitamin selling venture.
James Dobson reports a salary of over 2.5 million.More info on Dobson:http://charityreports.bbb.org/Public...?CharityID=941,
http://www.exgaywatch.com/wp/?paged=190&req1=2006

Interesting statement made by Dobson in (now corrected the interview was in 2002):http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/4/24/154621/278
"No, admit it, Dobson: you want to take kids out of America's public education system because in public schools, kids learn life skills like tolerance and values like "equal justice under law." That means no discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or ideology. That's what you're afraid kids are learning - tolerance instead of gay-bashing and scapegoating. You're not afraid that public school students will be treated brutally if there's a perception that they're gay, or if they have two Dads or two Moms - you're concerned that they won't get what's coming to them: an old-fashioned bullying, like in the "good old days." Transcript from Larry King Live.(He actually makes the statement of approving of bullying students who get what they deserve,condoning the brutal treatment, This man knows what he is doing,"scapegoating gays?" These are definitely statements by Dobson that proves he has encouraged violence toward gays. Coming from the man who said he never said anything that was hateful or violent toward gay people, but this is actually him condoning violence in his own words

[Progo35]

Okay, but what does that have to do with student harassment? I think that the nondiscrimination act is very important in prohibiting discrimination against LGBT people, although I don't want to see the government getting involved with who a religious organization hires. For instance, Gordon College, where I go, hires and accepts people who sign a declaration of faith. If someone is unwilling to sign that declaration, he or she is not hired/accepted and would presumably not desire to work at Gordon anyway. Gordon does that so that the environment can nurture education based on an integration of Christian faith. Although I feel that the school should lift its ban on Catholic instructors (a bogus, ridiculous policy that a significant portion of the Gordon population disagrees with, I don't want it to be forced to hire instructors who refuse to sign the declaration of faith unless it wants to. Now, in regard to whether Christian organizations should be permitted to make employment decisions based on their beliefs about personal relationships would be an injustice that the government could get involved in if it impacted something like life and death healthcare. But, I don't want the government doing to Christian organizations at large what it did to Catholic Charities: shutting them down because of their adherence to a literal interpretation of the NT's statements on homosexuality.

This, I feel, is one problem that keeps coming up with these legislations. Its as if some people want the government to regulate everything, with no room for compromise. This leads to more leaders voiding/vetoing legislation that could help vulnerable people.

But, what I really need to do before shouting my big mouth off about this is read the bill....so I will comment more when I have done so.

[ladyinred]

I guess I just threw it in to save space, and not having to post another post,lol,I'll edit it and repost it

[ladyinred]

But let's take a look at discrimination on another side of the fence, There are those who are "religious" who don't believe women should go to college, should get married and that a woman's place is in the home in submission to her husbands authority, they also don't believe women should be lawyers , doctors, scientists or hold positions of authority in the political sphere, and what if they discriminate on hiring a woman based on their beliefs?And what if laws were passed against women on that basis, where would that leave many women both single and married? What if college became the exclusive domain of male students based on such beliefs?

[Alecto]

Jumping in uninvited with something that I personally view as the thing that makes a difference: is the organization in question public or private? Does it recieve government funding, or other special governmental privilige? It's like what happened with the Boy Scouts: they didn't used to really rely on their position as a private organization until the ruling about them keeping out gay leaders and scouts. After that decision, they've lost funding (mostly from other private groups that want to support more welcoming children's groups like the Boys and Girls club etc), but worse, they continue to lose access to space that they used to enjoy: campouts on military land, meeting space in government facilities, and other such things that were often free of cost as well. What I'm getting at is that you can't have it both ways: you're either private and can be as narrow-minded as you want supposing you can fully fund yourself, or you can be public and subject to the rules that ensure that you are fairly benefiting / serving ALL of the public. (It's a bit of an oversimplification: there are government grants for, for example, healthcare services specifically for under-served affinity groups, but you get what I'm saying and hopefully get the difference).