Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

We support equality except at work!Follow

#27 Nov 06 2013 at 3:20 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,737 posts
Constitution: Negotiable Except When I Don't Agree.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#29 Nov 06 2013 at 10:25 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,355 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Constitution: Negotiable Except When I Don't Agree.


You intrigue me with this religion you propose...do you have any pamphlets?
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#30 Nov 06 2013 at 10:42 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,369 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Which is why "Bona fide religious organizations are exempt within their actual religious duties" is the best possible compromise and "Anyone who doesn't like a law on the basis of their faith shouldn't have to follow it because... religious liberty!" is a shitty, short-minded excuse.
Especially when so many members of a particular religion don't feel that way to begin with. Smiley: rolleyes
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#31gbaji, Posted: Nov 06 2013 at 6:40 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I'm not making a moral judgement here, just pointing out that these are matters of degree and not absolutes. At one point in time, homosexuality was considered aberrant sexual behavior and was illegal, just as pedophilia is considered aberrant sexual behavior and is illegal today. We cannot therefore assume that at some point in the future, there wont be a group of forward thinking progressive people on an internet forum bashing backwards thinking conservative people because even though we've finally realized that *** with children isn't aberrant (and got the AMA to officially declare it so), and finally stopped jailing people for it, there are still some people who think what they're doing is morally wrong and will discriminate against them. And those people are bad people who must be vilified for their blatant oppression of the rights of others.
#32 Nov 06 2013 at 6:43 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,925 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Right. Everyone should be allowed to ignore laws based on just saying it's for religion.
No. But an advocacy group is certainly within its right to oppose a law on the basis of their religion. Which is what they are doing. Currently, the law does not grant special protective status based on sexual orientation.

Nor should it since an advocacy group is not a church.


I think you completely misunderstood what I'm trying to say. It's not about ignoring the law. It's about opposing the passage of the law in the first place. Those are two completely different things.

Quote:
Which is why "Bona fide religious organizations are exempt within their actual religious duties" is the best possible compromise and "Anyone who doesn't like a law on the basis of their faith shouldn't have to follow it because... religious liberty!" is a shitty, short-minded excuse.


Again. The argument isn't for expanding the exemption to the law Joph. It's about not passing the law in the first place. Hence whey they are opposed to the law, not advocating for additional exemptions within it.

I thought I was clear about this in my earlier post, but apparently not.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#33 Nov 06 2013 at 6:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I think you completely misunderstood what I'm trying to say. It's not about ignoring the law. It's about opposing the passage of the law in the first place. Those are two completely different things.

Fair enough. So they're opposed to the law because they think retail store managers and restaurant owners should be allowed to discriminate against homosexuals in the workplace using their faith as a pretext. I wouldn't be really proud of that position but I guess that's why I don't donate to the Heritage Foundation.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#34gbaji, Posted: Nov 06 2013 at 7:23 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) It's a social question though, isn't it? Let's say (for the sake of an example, I have no clue if this is true or not), that the owner of Chick-fil-a decides that in keeping with his businesses principles regarding the morality of its workers, and his own personal belief that homosexuality is sinful, that he cannot allow openly *** workers to be employed at his business since this would be a contradiction (how can he claim to be promoting morality when he's employing people who engage in immoral behavior?). To him, this is no more discriminatory than saying that he will not hire drug addicts, or felons, or anyone else who engages in behavior that he believes is not representative of the standards he believes in.
#35 Nov 06 2013 at 7:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I get your argument. Honestly, I do. I just think it's a fairly reprehensible one and serves as a sterling illustration of why I'm not a conservative.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#36gbaji, Posted: Nov 06 2013 at 8:29 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) It's reprehensible to say that there should be a point at which we allow normal social interactions to punish/reward behavior we agree or disagree with rather than attempting to force compliance via legislation? I think you're allowing your opinion with regard to the specific case at hand to cloud your judgement with regard to the broader concept of legislating social norms that I'm talking about. I'm saying that we should not reject a given position with regard to that line I spoke of by simplistically comparing it to racial or gender discrimination and concluding that since they are "wrong", that this must be "wrong" as well.
#37 Nov 06 2013 at 8:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Again... I "get" it. Honest. You don't need to try to keep explaining the same thing over and over. I understand it.

That said, excusing *** discrimination by saying it should just be a "conversation" and comparing it to drug abuse once again reminds me why I'm not a conservative. Wherever the supposed line is drawn, I don't believe that it should be drawn in a way to legitimize discrimination against homosexuals based on some "But it's a conversation about social norms!" excuse. You apparently think that's fine. I won't try to convince you otherwise but I will file it away under "Why I'm glad I'm not one of them".
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#38 Nov 06 2013 at 8:47 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,737 posts
Discrimination is okay as long as you can rationalize it. Saying they're only 3/5 people worked pretty well for a while.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#39 Nov 07 2013 at 4:53 AM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
gbaji wrote:
To him, this is no more discriminatory than saying that he will not hire drug addicts, or felons, or anyone else who engages in behavior that he believes is not representative of the standards he believes in.

Should he have the freedom to do this?
No more than he should have the freedom to not hire black people because he thinks they're lesser humans.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#40 Nov 07 2013 at 8:36 AM Rating: Excellent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
gbaji wrote:
[quote=Jophiel][quote=gbaji]

Should he have the freedom to do this?

No. Being *** is not comparable with being a drug addict or a felon.

We've been through this, being *** is not a lifestyle choice.

Should the store owner be able to refuse employment to black people?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#41 Nov 07 2013 at 8:45 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Not that unusual a position. Representative Ron Paul famously said he wouldn't have voted for the Civil Rights Act (and voted against it during a symbolic vote on its anniversary) because the "liberty" of the discriminators was worth more than protecting the discriminated.

There's people out there who legitimately feel this way.

Edit: Apparently Senator Rand Paul made similar comments but then walked them back under protest and because he wanted to win his election.

Edited, Nov 7th 2013 8:48am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#42 Nov 07 2013 at 8:53 AM Rating: Excellent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,646 posts
Elinda wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Should he have the freedom to do this?

No. Being *** is not comparable with being a drug addict or a felon.

We've been through this, being *** is not a lifestyle choice.

Should the store owner be able to refuse employment to black people?


I'm not disagreeing with you, but it doesn't really matter if being *** is a choice. Being a Christian is a choice, and you can't decide not to hire Christians.

The only reason that drug addicts and felons are ok to discriminate against is because they pose a high risk to the business.
#43 Nov 07 2013 at 8:57 AM Rating: Excellent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
Jophiel wrote:
the "liberty" of the discriminators was worth more than protecting the discriminated.

I suppose you could rank liberty greater than discrimination.

You could argue though that when you discriminate you could be said to be infringing on someones liberty as you're disallowing them equal freedoms.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#44 Nov 07 2013 at 8:59 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
Belkira wrote:
Elinda wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Should he have the freedom to do this?

No. Being *** is not comparable with being a drug addict or a felon.

We've been through this, being *** is not a lifestyle choice.

Should the store owner be able to refuse employment to black people?


I'm not disagreeing with you, but it doesn't really matter if being *** is a choice. Being a Christian is a choice, and you can't decide not to hire Christians.

The only reason that drug addicts and felons are ok to discriminate against is because they pose a high risk to the business.

Yes. I was faulty. Smiley: tongue
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#45 Nov 07 2013 at 9:03 AM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
*****
15,952 posts
Elinda wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
the "liberty" of the discriminators was worth more than protecting the discriminated.

I suppose you could rank liberty greater than discrimination.

You could argue though that when you discriminate you could be said to be infringing on someones liberty as you're disallowing them equal freedoms.

Desu. So this.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#46 Nov 07 2013 at 9:04 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
True. I suppose you could move the quotes around say that people like Ron & Rand Paul and Gbaji believe that the "liberty of the discriminators" is worth more than the protection of the discriminated.

Again, it's an argument that I understand and it's not that complicated. It just also happens to be one that I emphatically disagree with and illustrates why I vote on the blue side of the ticket.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#47 Nov 07 2013 at 9:17 AM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
"You guys", who? Citizens?

House Reps elected every 2 years
Senators every 6 years
President/Governors every 4 years

So you're going to have federal elections at least every other year. New Jersey & Virginia, for reasons I have no interest in knowing, have their gubernatorial elections of "off years" so they're being talked about since nothing else is happening. But they still only elect a governor every four years.



Ya citizens, you always voting on people. You never stop. Vote vote vote. You guys love to vote. Not just for Washington. Its really weird. We hate voting in Canada, we accept one way or the other we are getting the shaft so really its just do you want it to the right or the left. We give people majorities so we don't have to vote for a while.


Actually, Americans hate voting. Our turnout is terrible. Probably less than 30% of registered voters in my district voted this Tuesday, and a minority of people are registered voters.

And yeah, the problem with looking at liberty exclusively at the small scale is that we have a society based on "liberty of all" not "liberty to the majority."

You aren't free to oppress someone else, because under the foundational rules of our government system, that individual has the right to be free, e.g., un-oppressed.

It's literally the same reason you aren't at liberty to murder someone, kidnap them, etc. Your right to freedom doesn't supersede someone else's right to live free.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#48 Nov 07 2013 at 9:37 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:

Actually, Americans hate voting. Our turnout is terrible. Probably less than 30% of registered voters in my district voted this Tuesday, and a minority of people are registered voters.


I don't think it's hate as much as apathy.

I didn't vote this week. All I had to vote on were some bonds - they always pass.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#49 Nov 07 2013 at 10:05 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,369 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Actually, Americans hate voting. Our turnout is terrible. Probably less than 30% of registered voters in my district voted this Tuesday, and a minority of people are registered voters.
Which is why we mail ballots out. The only people who are going to stand in the rain for hours to vote for a city consul member are those too fanatical to make an unbiased decision anyway.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#50 Nov 07 2013 at 2:20 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
ENDA passed the Senate today with all Democrats voting for it plus ten Republicans.
Roll Call wrote:
Republicans voting for the bill included Sens. Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, Susan Collins of Maine, Jeff Flake of Arizona, Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, Dean Heller of Nevada, Mark Kirk of Illinois, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Patrick J. Toomey of Pennsylvania, Rob Portman of Ohio and John McCain of Arizona.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#51 Nov 07 2013 at 2:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Belkira wrote:
I'm not disagreeing with you, but it doesn't really matter if being *** is a choice. Being a Christian is a choice, and you can't decide not to hire Christians.

I was shooting a Tweet to my senator and someone was asking him where the law protecting Christians from discrimination was Smiley: facepalm
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 79 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (79)