Hacker News Reader

Comment by cryptoz | Hacker News Reader

Editing to remove accurate but aggressive words is a common piece of advice you hear on HN. I stand by original comment and my edit.

> They help 23 million people a year, without any type of discrimination.

This is false.

> They have at least one dorm exclusively for transgender individuals. Their charity services literally benefit millions of LGBTQ individuals every year.

Good acts do not undo bad acts.

> But if you want to call that "extremely", "violently", or "intensely" anti-gay then I certainly can't stop you.

Of course! I am right about this regardless. Salvation Army's discrimination and intentional pain caused to LGBT is real, even if you've never felt it yourself or wish to pretend it doesn't happen.

The fact that this is even a conversation at all should be sufficient evidence that their discrimination has in fact hurt LGBT people in particular.

View on HN

You gave yourself three chances to defend your position and each time you failed to attempt it.

I understand two things about the Salvation Army. They serve the most vulnerable in their community(-ies) and they hold religious beliefs which run against the politics of the day.

That second point may give you some sense of justification. But consider this, on the Salvation Army's website, one of their top line issues is serving LGBTQ community.

That strikes me as odd for an organization described by you as "extremely, violently anti-gay". It seems to me that the Salvation Army is not against an LGBTQ person. They may disagree with their choices but are perfectly happy to alleviate their homelessness, addiction, hunger, poverty, etc.

Are you not able to discern the difference between political disagreement and violence? Are the Salvation Army not the pinnacle of what it means to be tolerant? They're willing to serve those whom they disagree with. In my mind, they're exactly what is required to have a pluralistic society.

> They serve the most vulnerable in their community

This is kinda part of the problem. Because Salvation Army is in this business, it's an excuse for others to not be - and especially so for governments, since "just leave it to the charity" is a very common take on welfare on the conservative right. So then when they discriminate, the people they discriminate against often have nowhere else to go. They have to either accept the religious mores forced on them in exchange for food and roof over their head, or they starve. And SA knows that full well when they turn such people away from their kitchens and shelters.

And no, they aren't a pinnacle of tolerance. There are numerous recorded instances of them refusing to alleviate the homelessness and hunger on the basis that acceptance of LGBTQ is counter to their religion.

Could not agree more.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com