Mari, he's just following the tradition started by his predecessor, Paul Sarbanes, who would check in every six years just to make sure we're still alive and to remind us to vote for him (not that being alive is a requirement in Maryland).

The Salvation Army is a discriminatory organization which refuses to lend aid to gays and atheists.

My money will go to organizations that help all HUMANS in need, regardless of their theology or sexual orientation.

Don't know where to begin that so beyond stupid. You think the salvation army asks anyone at the soup kitchens if they're gay...or turns away blacks or hispanics? The fact that it's an organization with a religious base in no way changes those who are helped. Sounds to me you're the one with issues...towards the church. By the way, the Salvation Army has among the highest rates of percentage of dollar donated that actually goes to the folks in need. You want to choose leftist political activism over actually feeding and clothing the poor be my guest.

The Salvation Army is a private religious organization and as such can help who they desire. That is their right and privileged.
You are a discriminatory donator by not giving them your money.
Not giving them money is the exact same as them not giving help to people they choose not to. You are no different than what you say they are.
That is your right and privileged as well to discriminate against them.

Hey, look, I agree with Joe again. Wow.

Some other things that should be noted:
1) Both the Red Cross and the Salvation Army get 'A' ratings by Charitywatch.com's latest assessments.

2) Per Forbes.com --> http://www.forbes.com/top-charities/list/

The Red Cross has an efficiency rate of 87%, The Salvation Army has an efficiency rate of 88%
However, the Red Cross has a Charitable commitment rate of 92%, whereas the Salvation Army's is a bit lower - 82%.

What this means is, despite Amy's concerns/disgust about the well paid CEO at RC, a considerably higher % of that 13 cents per dollar went directly into expenses then with the Salvation Army.

Both organizations are well run, and I donate to both ( a bit more to Red Cross, as in each case I tend to donate mostly to disaster relief situations - seems like there's something almost every year.

"Not giving them money is the exact same as them not giving help to people they choose not to."

No it isn't. Salvation Army is a massive institution that can survive some donors defecting funds, and if Calique gives money to another institution that does the same things without Salvation Army's discrimination then there's really no difference. An individual on the street not getting a meal from Salvation Army because they are Muslim/Gay/whatever because of some perceived moral slight to the Christian Religion is going to feel actual pain, unless another more charitable institution steps in (and thanks to Calique that might be the case).

Discrimination isn't in and of itself evil, and to assert that is silly.

Discrimination is discrimination. All are free to practice it and all do daily.
What is silly is your red herring of "Discrimination isn't in and of itself evil, and to assert that is silly."

why the need to make up something? No where did I make the claim of your red herring. THAT is just a silly made up claim.

Simply saying discrimination is discrimination and all are free to practice it isn't acknowledging the morality of the acts. You said to Calique "You are no different than what you say they are." She claimed they were acting immorally (a.k.a. evil). Surprise, if you say there's no difference between two things, you're saying they are the same.

And actually, there are anti discrimination laws when it comes to some federal dollars so it isn't at all accurate. A private institution receiving federal funds has to abide by federal laws, individual private donors are under no such obligation.

It is a false equivalency and weak argument to suggest both are the same. An organization that discriminates on the basis of race or sex is not the same as the person who will not support such an organization because of such discrimination. The term discrimination frequently has an adjective in front of it.

The school of red herrings has arrived.

"An organization that discriminates on the basis of race or sex is not the same as the person who will not support such an organization because of such discrimination. "

It is exactly the same. Each has a choice and each has made their own choice.
Everyone of us discriminates in various ways every day.

"She claimed they were acting immorally (a.k.a. evil)"

That is her discrimination. To not give to a gorup because of the groups beliefs.

Definition of DISCRIMINATION
1 a : the act of discriminating
b : the process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently
2: the quality or power of finely distinguishing
3 a : the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually
b : prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment <racial discrimination>
— dis·crim·i·na·tion·al adjective

From Wikipedia:

False equivalence is a logical fallacy which describes a situation where there is a logical and apparent equivalence, but when in fact there is none.

Definition of OPINION
1A : a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter

We disagree, I'll let others judge your opinion.

If this isn't a classic example of the internets, I don't know what is :)

I love you also Tim.

That is exactly what i said. You can discriminate against them for their beliefs.

The Salvation Army is not a charitable organization per se. It IS a church. Thus their long held beliefs.

Calique, I am with you on this one. You have the moral high ground. I choose not to donate to the KKK, I am glad I discriminate.

They do not support gay marriage - it's a religious organization so that shouldn't surprise you. Not being in support of gay marriage hardly means they ask hungry people in line if they're gay and if the answer is yes, then yank food out of their hands. That's nonsense.

Karl, there are anecdotes of similar stories, see the NYT article below. Additionally, they have advocated for policy that would grant them the right:

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/24/us/beliefs-salvation-army-hears-dissent-over-gay-views.html?_r=0

"In 2001, The Washington Post obtained a Salvation Army document that said the administration of President George W. Bush had promised to honor a Salvation Army request: that religious charities receiving federal money be exempt from local gay antidiscrimination laws. The day the request became public, the Bush administration said it was being denied."

I imagine that how Salvation Army behaves in different parts of the country is going to be different and not at all standardized, but in the above example that was a national exemption.

Anti-discrimination laws means nothing less than support for gay marriage. Again, they might not support gay marriage as an institution, a religious institution but that hardly equates to snatching food from the mouths of homeless gay men. They also expect a prayer before meals in their food kitchens - that's they're right; they believe in salvation through prayer and service. It's almost the only organization that feeds people on a large scale in inner cities across the nation and for well over a century - I hardly think that makes them evil.

Easy, imagine an organization that almost all it does is provide healthcare services for women, but because a very small portion of what it does is provide abortion services Republicans wish to cut off all funding. Where do you stand on Planned Parenthhod?

It's hard to make that comparison...one organization sucks fetuses out of women's bodies and the other feeds the hungry...just not sure; it's so close.

"Republicans wish to cut off all funding"

No they don't, just the funding from the taxpayers. PP will survive just as Sesame Street would without the taxpayer subsidies.

Interesting perspective Karl. When one agrees with the organization's purpose versus doesn't agree with the purpose. Maybe a hypocritical point of view?

You appear to be the one who sees a moral equivalency between aborting fetuses and feeding the hungry. Those with an ability to decipher scales of good and evil understand that we make choices, moral choices between one activity or another or vice versa, avoiding one activity or another based upon moral scoring. I don't score sucking fetuses from women's bodies and feeding the hungry as being equivalent.

To many Karl, aborting a fetus means absolutely nothing to them. Nothing at all.

Karl, you are clearly anti-abortion, not being a woman I have no idea what a woman contemplates when choosing to abort a fetus. Nor do I wish to interfere. In the case of the Salvation Army, they choose to not support a portion of the poor, but feed many many more hungry. In the case of Planned Parenthood, they prevent many many more pregnancies than they abort, let alone catch many diseases at a treatable stage. Your moral outrage is a woman's right to choose. But relitigating abortion will get us nowhere. It was approved in Maryland by a large majority of voters. Nothing has changed there.

And FIFA - that rant has zip, zero to do with anything in this thread or anything I said. Never said I was against abortion; only that I don't see feeding the poor and aborting fetuses as being equal in terms doing the right thing. If I had ten bucks left in the world and confronted with a starving teen vs. a pregnant teen I'd decide to give the funds to the kid that needs food. You clearly would be torn...and that says something very odd about you.

Karl, perhaps you believe in being a wordsmith. Karl said, "I don't score sucking fetuses from women's bodies and feeding the hungry as being equivalent." IMO it is reasonable to believe you are anti-abortion. Your protestations are noted and ignored.

Gee Karl, I never said "You clearly would be torn...and that says something very odd about you." Those are your words, not mine.

"even to the point of producing anti immigrant studies."

Why lie to make your racist point Steve? the study was about ILLEGAL immigration not legal immigration. Why is it so hard for you to distinguish between LEGAL and ILLEGAL immigration? I will answer, because if you did distinguish between the two your racist self could no longer use the club you JUST used on a great organization full of those who suffered and fought for our country so you could be free to be the rabid racist you are.

From your link to that racist bigoted site.

"The legion’s 34-page booklet, A Strategy to Address Illegal Immigration in the United States, asserts that “poverty, political instability, disease and war” are “on our back doorstep” because of porous borders and the failure of the government to stringently enforce immigration laws. But in making its case, the legion repeatedly cites dubious sources, ignores well-known facts and makes baseless claims — such as the false assertion that the undocumented infected more than 7,000 people in America with leprosy during a recent three-year period."

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION not legal.