Because it's not "imposing homosexuals", it's imposing the concept of homosexuality as being ok.

If they went to every business and presented them with a homosexual person, saying "you must hire them", then that would be imposing homosexuals.

If one believes that by "imposing homosexuality as an ok concept" you are "silencing Christianity" (by not letting Christians complain that working with homosexuals is against their religion) then the statement they are making makes sense.

Discrimination is discrimination, no matter the religious guise, and it looks like we're getting down to brass tacks.

I want to know where in the Bible it says working with a homosexual is wrong.

THEN I want to know how many of them are already working with a homosexual and have no issue with them (most likely because said homosexual is keeping it in the closet, at least at work).

Perhaps a middle ground requiring/allowing workers to be homosexual in front of the building during breaks.

^^ Oh, that gives a whole new meaning to "taking a fag break." Badum-bum.

First, if you really believe the homosexual lifestyle is a huge sin, having any interaction with a known homosexual would be anathema.

The keyword is "known" and one of the workarounds is don't ask don't tell. If you didn't know you were palling around with a sinner, you won't have to explain yourself to Jesus.

So yeah, they're fine with closeted homosexuals. They're fine with a person who can't possibly talk about their home life in any meaningful way. When asked what they did this weekend, just saying they had a picnic with their partner is enough to send any good Christian running from the room, fingers in ears, yelling "LALALALACAN'THEARYOU!!"...or worse, running to attempt to get the offender fired for speaking of indecent subjects.

Ugh, I shudder just thinking about it, and I'm not even gay.

I'd love to see that conversation.

"But Jesus, I didn't even know he was gay and as soon as I found out I told him he was going to hell unless he changed his sinful ways"

"First off, do you watch lesbian porn?"

"Yes"

"do you think it's hot?"

"yes"

"Do you think they are going to hell?"

"Well I never thought about it like that"

"Second, who are you to tell someone they are going to hell? Isn't that my job... to judge? Or my dad's job? Oh and by the way, do you eat shell fish? Did you sell your daughter to be a bride? Have you ever worked on a Sunday? What's that? You enjoy crab and you've worked on Sunday's? Off to hell with you!"

Unless, of course, they're right about Jesus's views on homosexuals (I've no strong opinion on the matter) in which case the ending might be:

"Now, the question is does being right about that one thing overwhelm your other lapses? I say [yes | no]."

There's also the issue that failure to live up to one's ideals does not, in itself, invalidate the ideal.

Or are they?... Here is, word for word, exactly what Jesus Christ said about Homosexuality in the New Testament:

Now I understand why people get so upset about the gays.

Yes, so that means you also have no idea what his views on homosexuals were. If he was indeed a real historic person I suspect he would not have approved of them (though it would be another layer of speculation as to what he thought should be done about it) but like I said I have no strong feeling either way (a freedom gained by not caring a whit about what he said on much of anything).


And while Jesus may be up in the air, God (as presented in the bible) certainly went through periods of homophobia, and if you're a Trinitarian they're the same entity. Ergo proctor ipso loqua erat demonstratum.

Suuuuure... he hust hung around all the time with 12 like-minded guys, none of whom had wives. ;)