[dalke]

That document says that all homosexual conduct is misconduct, and therefore not appropriate to "Salvation Army soldiership."

That is the definition of discrimination based on sexual orientation.

The Salvation Army even refuses money from the City of San Francisco, because the city requires "any business that holds city contracts and provides spousal health insurance to married couples must do the same for the gay or unmarried partners of its employees." http://www.skeptictank.org/hs/s-army.htm

The way I read it, it's more important for them to discriminate against gay people then it is to provide "warmth, compassion, food and clothing."

[pbhjpbhj]

>That is the definition of discrimination based on sexual orientation. //

What you define is discrimination based on sexual activity, homosexual conduct, and not "orientation".

>The way I read it, it's more important for them to discriminate against gay people then it is to provide "warmth, compassion, food and clothing." //

I guess you'd need to ask a homosexual who has used their services in some way. If you go to their soup-kitchen and tell them you're homosexual do they still give you soup and compassion as much as they give the next person?

[dalke]

Oh give me a break. 21 states have laws against discrimination based on sexual orientation, and that's what I'm talking about. You can't, under the law in those places, discriminate against someone just because he or she is holding hands, kissing, or even having sex with someone else of the same sex. Your distinction is not relevant, and outside the meaning of the legal definition.

The case you bring up - services rendered - is only a part of what it means to discriminate. The Salvation Army says a man who is married to another man cannot be a member of the SA and therefore cannot be employed by the organization. That is discrimination in the workplace, and only legal because religious are except from those laws.

Pointing out that the SA will provide soup and compassion to all people, homosexual or otherwise, is irrelevant.

[pbhjpbhj]

>Your distinction is not relevant, and outside the meaning of the legal definition. //

I say it is relevant. It probably wouldn't be to a legal case. However, you say that you can't discriminate against someone because of an abstract label and then go on to describe behaviour that can't be discriminated against. That was essentially my point that behaviour defines a person (before the law that would be the actus as well as the mens [rea]).

>only legal because religious are except from those laws //

It's legal because you live in a democracy where a marked percentage of the population don't hold the same morals as you. I'm pretty sure the SA won't tolerate all sorts of sexual behaviour from their members (I don't know if they really have staff) not limited to homosexuals. If you can't tolerate this then that would be bigotry, FWIW.

>Pointing out that the SA will provide soup and compassion to all people, homosexual or otherwise, is irrelevant. //

You said they were discriminating negatively against people. Showing that they provide "services" without discrimination appears to be relevant.