Do gay rights threaten relgious beliefs? [Archive]

YDtoad

01-10-2007, 09:33 AM

I'm sort of halfway on this one. The bleeding heart liberal in me says that people shouldn't be denied jobs and services from businesses purely on grounds of sexual orientation (or skin colour, or any other factor that cannot controlled by the person), but the pro-business capitalist in me says that businesses should hold the right to reject people on whatever grounds they want and that they'll lose out if they start to do so for ridiculous reasons like some being a homosexual.

I think it depends the business. A private, Christian school has every right to not hire a homosexual, as does a church operated adoption agency. I don't think the government should bother caring one way or the other, when it comes to hiring IRS agents, etc.

And the reason Christians worry about these types of laws is because gay groups use them as a gateway to left wing authoritarianism, to squelch opposing speech and thought. Gay groups are the biggest threat to democracy in America today.

PerpetualBurn

01-10-2007, 09:41 AM

A private, Christian school has every right to not hire a homosexual, as does a church operated adoption agency.

No.

Gay groups are the biggest threat to democracy in America today.

No. Tosser.

ringworm

01-10-2007, 09:46 AM

How do you mean?

if you meant me, I was just curious about more opinions regarding whether a Cab Driver can turn your business away simply because his religion dictates he can't carry someone with Alcohol or a Dog?

To me, this is just like the thread topic and shouldnt be allowed.

Religion shouldn't be in the workplace OR government IMO

ringworm

01-10-2007, 09:48 AM

Gay groups are the biggest threat to democracy in America today.

yep, just take a look in San Fransisco & Maryland - biggest hypocritical City's I know of

They preach tolerance, but ONLY as long as its on THEIR agenda

They banned ROTC for example in SF despite a HUGE number of people who wished to keep it?

The_Passenger

01-10-2007, 09:48 AM

Zero your post was going well and then you went did this

. Gay groups are the biggest threat to democracy in America today.

lunchforthesky

01-10-2007, 09:50 AM

if you meant me, I was just curious about more opinions regarding whether a Cab Driver can turn your business away simply because his religion dictates he can't carry someone with Alcohol or a Dog?

To me, this is just like the thread topic and shouldnt be allowed.

Religion shouldn't be in the workplace OR government IMO

That seems perfectly acceptable if he chooses to do so. You might think that contradicts my views on hiring homosecxuals but there seems a clear distinction.

YDtoad

01-10-2007, 09:51 AM

Zero your post was going well and then you went did this

Hehe don't you know that's my style? I like to something that most of you will go along with, then punctuated by something a little more, erm, strong :p

But take out that and you agree?

They preach tolerance, but ONLY as long as its on THEIR agenda

They banned ROTC for example in SF despite a HUGE number of people who wished to keep it?

Exactly. San Francisco is a very, very intolerant city.

No.

You don't get to say :p

ringworm

01-10-2007, 09:51 AM

That seems perfectly acceptable if he chooses to do so. You might think that contradicts my views on hiring homosecxuals but there seems a clear distinction.

Maybe to you, but to me, its just MORE religious discrimination that needs to be treated like all the others

lunchforthesky

01-10-2007, 09:52 AM

I think it depends the business. A private, Christian school has every right to not hire a homosexual, as does a church operated adoption agency. I don't think the government should bother caring one way or the other, when it comes to hiring IRS agents, etc.

And the reason Christians worry about these types of laws is because gay groups use them as a gateway to left wing authoritarianism, to squelch opposing speech and thought. Gay groups are the biggest threat to democracy in America today.

Top part was acceptable, second was easily as ridiculous and biased as the End is against Israel if not more so.

PerpetualBurn

01-10-2007, 09:54 AM

Hehe don't you know that's my style? I like to something that most of you will go along with, then punctuated by something a little more, erm, strong :p

Are you sure you're not just really really stupid? That's my theory.

Especially when you imply that social movements aiming for equal job opportunities are a direct threat to democracy.

Because that makes me think you must have never progressed past velcro onto laced shoes.

YDtoad

01-10-2007, 09:56 AM

Top part was acceptable, second was easily as ridiculous and biased as the End is against Israel if not more so.

:lol: Well at least you agree with the first part. But come on I'm not near as bad as the End.

Anyway, about the second part, you do realize that gay groups are THE force behind hate speech laws, which is strictly aimed at Christians.

shaqadelic

01-10-2007, 09:56 AM

Maybe to you, but to me, its just MORE religious discrimination that needs to be treated like all the others

Not really. When you refuse homosexuals, you refuse people for who they are, when you refuse alcohol and dogs, it is the same as hotels having no pet sign or schools having no alcohol signs.

If lets say a Muslim refuse a man for being Jewish, then we are talking bout same things.

Mr. Ron

01-10-2007, 09:57 AM

Why the hell would it matter if whom you hire likes to smoke dick or like tacos? The only difference between you and a gay person is who they prefer to have in bed! It will never effect their ability to accomplish a task. This is stupid.

The_Passenger

01-10-2007, 09:57 AM

Hehe don't you know that's my style? I like to something that most of you will go along with, then punctuated by something a little more, erm, strong :p

But take out that and you agree?

I was going to edit that post anyway but my internet connection briefly died on me.

I essentially agreed with the first, seeing as I believe no one should care about sexual preference at all, but also don't think people should be forced to hire homosexuals if they don't want to, but I was going to say that you could say that gays want these rights because right-wing groups discriminate against them in response to the second part of your post. I wouldn't say that it was a bad point though.

YDtoad

01-10-2007, 09:58 AM

Not really. When you refuse homosexuals, you refuse people for who they are, when you refuse alcohol and dogs, it is the same as hotels having no pet sign or schools having no alcohol signs.

A hotel has a no pets sign because they don't want to risk the damage done by pets. Does the Muslim cab driver ban ALL drinks, or just alcoholic? ALL food, or just the ones that violate his religion?

Mr. Ron

01-10-2007, 09:58 AM

I think it depends the business. A private, Christian school has every right to not hire a homosexual, as does a church operated adoption agency. I don't think the government should bother caring one way or the other, when it comes to hiring IRS agents, etc.

And the reason Christians worry about these types of laws is because gay groups use them as a gateway to left wing authoritarianism, to squelch opposing speech and thought. Gay groups are the biggest threat to democracy in America today.

:lol: X's pi.

Yeah, forget about international terrorism. :amaze:

PerpetualBurn

01-10-2007, 09:58 AM

Anyway, about the second part, you do realize that gay groups are THE force behind hate speech laws, which is strictly aimed at Christians.

No. I do not realise that. Probably because you have absolutely no basis with which to say that.

After all, a group that you wish to deny basic rights to work kind of has a point in accusing people like you of discrimination.

ringworm

01-10-2007, 09:59 AM

And the reason Christians worry about these types of laws is because gay groups use them as a gateway to left wing authoritarianism, to squelch opposing speech and thought.
this also goes for non-religious people as well

or at least people who can see through the true intentions of radical liberals

Religion has nothing to do with my views but I will always be aligned with them

lunchforthesky

01-10-2007, 09:59 AM

:lol: Well at least you agree with the first part. But come on I'm not near as bad as the End.

Anyway, about the second part, you do realize that gay groups are THE force behind hate speech laws, which is strictly aimed at Christians.

Maybe not quite as bad as he is but not far from it at all. I dont think Christians should be able to go round saying death to homosexuals and attempting to "turn" them straight.

YDtoad

01-10-2007, 09:59 AM

Mr. Ron

01-10-2007, 10:00 AM

this also goes for non-religious people as well

or at least people who can see through the true intentions of radical liberals

Religion has nothing to do with my views but I will always be aligned with them

Why?

ringworm

01-10-2007, 10:00 AM

A hotel has a no pets sign because they don't want to risk the damage done by pets. Does the Muslim cab driver ban ALL drinks, or just alcoholic? ALL food, or just the ones that violate his religion?

BANG, u nailed it :)

Why?
because my morals object to the hypocrasy of most poeple on the opposite side of the spectrum

just take a look at the more, so-called "tolerant" city's law's and the infringements on more conservative people, they are no better than the people they preach against but they hide behind acceptance

PerpetualBurn

01-10-2007, 10:00 AM

I like that you fear entering any discussion with me, Zero. You always have a tendency to wash over the facts that don't suit you.

shaqadelic

01-10-2007, 10:00 AM

A hotel has a no pets sign because they don't want to risk the damage done by pets. Does the Muslim cab driver ban ALL drinks, or just alcoholic? ALL food, or just the ones that violate his religion?

And car seats are immune to dog poo?

And yeah, it is quite interesting if they ban somebody carrying a case of beer or someone who is obviously intoxicated. It does affect the situation.

YDtoad

01-10-2007, 10:02 AM

And car seats are immune to dog poo?

What about cat poo? Guinea Pig? Mice? Do they ban all pets?

shaqadelic

01-10-2007, 10:04 AM

Yeah, I think if they wanna ban dogs, they should do an all pet ban. No discriminations then. :)

Mr. Ron

01-10-2007, 10:05 AM

I have no problem with a gay group hiring only gays, too.

Really? Because I would have a problem with it. Then THEY would be discriminating other's imployment because of certain ridiculous criteria of having to be gay to get the job.

Why do you want to discriminate so much?

Mr. Ron

01-10-2007, 10:05 AM

BANG, u nailed it :)

because my morals object to the hypocrasy of most poeple on the opposite side of the spectrum

just take a look at the more, so-called "tolerant" city's law's and the infringements on more conservative people, they are no better than the people they preach against but they hide behind acceptance

Tell me the laws that infringe upon a conservative person's rights.

ringworm

01-10-2007, 10:09 AM

Just take the ROTC for example in SF?

Take Maryland, I forget the exact number of citizens that signed a petition & wished to VOTE on the Gay Marriage referendum

these are just a few of the bigger ones, its hard to tell what will come in the future

But my main point is the amount of acceptance they hide behind when in fact they arent

YDtoad

01-10-2007, 10:09 AM

Really? Because I would have a problem with it. Then THEY would be discriminating other's imployment because of certain ridiculous criteria of having to be gay to get the job.

Why do you want to discriminate so much?

If I owned a business (being that I wouldn't own a school, day care etc.) I wouldn't refuse to hire a gay person. But depending on the mission of the organization, I find it perfectly acceptable for them to set additional standards for employment.

Yeah, I think if they wanna ban dogs, they should do an all pet ban. No discriminations then.

In that case I have no problem with it.

Though I would object to any taxi trying to refuse a blind person with a seeing eye dog.

Auberge le Mouton Noir

01-10-2007, 10:10 AM

:lol: Well at least you agree with the first part. But come on I'm not near as bad as the End.

Anyway, about the second part, you do realize that gay groups are THE force behind hate speech laws, which is strictly aimed at Christians.

IT's strictly aimed at conservative hate-criminals, regardless at the source of their attempts at a justification for their views.

Mr. Ron

01-10-2007, 10:10 AM

lunchforthesky

01-10-2007, 10:11 AM

Why shouldn't a gay person work in a school?

Mr. Ron

01-10-2007, 10:12 AM

If I owned a business (being that I wouldn't own a school, day care etc.) I wouldn't refuse to hire a gay person. But depending on the mission of the organization, I find it perfectly acceptable for them to set additional standards for employment.

In that case I have no problem with it.

Though I would object to any taxi trying to refuse a blind person with a seeing eye dog.

Hey, if you're a private employer you can do whatever you wish with your business. But you're also going to lose a lot of qualified people in this mindset.

YDtoad

01-10-2007, 10:14 AM

IT's strictly aimed at conservative hate-criminals,

Everywhere it's been passed, it's been used to restrict Christians freedom of speech. And it happens to be the mainstream Christian position that homosexuality is a sin. Gays aim to suppress this viewpoint.

Hey, if you're a private employer you can do whatever you wish with your business. But you're also going to lose a lot of qualified people in this mindset.

That's the risk they take.

Why shouldn't a gay person work in a school?

Their lifestyle violates the code of most private, Christian schools. And let's not get into public schools :p

PerpetualBurn

01-10-2007, 10:14 AM

Hey, if you're a private employer you can do whatever you wish with your business. But you're also going to lose a lot of qualified people in this mindset.

Employers shouldn't have to right to discriminate against people for anything other than the candidates suitability for the job.

lunchforthesky

01-10-2007, 10:16 AM

Employers shouldn't have to right to discriminate against people for anything other than the candidates suitability for the job.

THis, they should no more be allowed to discriminatre than they should be allowed to pay worker 10p an hour or make them work 80 hour weeks.

YDtoad

01-10-2007, 10:17 AM

Employers shouldn't have to right to discriminate against people for anything other than the candidates suitability for the job.

And based on the mission of the organization, sexual orientation can play a role in this.

PerpetualBurn

01-10-2007, 10:19 AM

Everywhere it's been passed, it's been used to restrict Christians freedom of speech. And it happens to be the mainstream Christian position that homosexuality is a sin. Gays aim to suppress this viewpoint.

There's a lot of sins that the Christian right don't openly oppose like this.

Their lifestyle violates the code of most private, Christian schools. And let's not get into public schools :p

Do you think a teacher should be fired for taking the Lord's name in vain?

shaqadelic

01-10-2007, 10:20 AM

Well if the person does not project, tell, impose, whatever his sexual orientation to students (assuming we are talking about a private Christian school here), then it wouldn't really matter who you hire.

Mr. Ron

01-10-2007, 10:20 AM

Employers shouldn't have to right to discriminate against people for anything other than the candidates suitability for the job.

I'm kind of hung up on the fact that employers have the right to do what they want with their business...since many of my family members own their own businesses. I don't think it's right, but at the same time I'm all for private business's rights too. It's a complicated issue for me.

The big problem I have is with larger, non private businesses that refuse some people based off of something like their being gay. Then I'm totally against the business.

Mr. Ron

01-10-2007, 10:21 AM

Everywhere it's been passed, it's been used to restrict Christians freedom of speech. And it happens to be the mainstream Christian position that homosexuality is a sin. Gays aim to suppress this viewpoint.

That's the risk they take.

Their lifestyle violates the code of most private, Christian schools. And let's not get into public schools :p

How will a gay teacher be unfit for a public school position?

PerpetualBurn

01-10-2007, 10:21 AM

I'm kind of hung up on the fact that employers have the right to do what they want with their business...since many of my family members own their own businesses. I don't think it's right, but at the same time I'm all for private business's rights too. It's a complicated issue for me.

The big problem I have is with larger, non private businesses that refuse some people based off of something like their being gay. Then I'm totally against the business.

I don't see why a business should be able to not hire someone for the reason that they are black, Asian, or whatever.

Steerpike

01-10-2007, 10:22 AM

Gay groups are the biggest threat to democracy in America today.

As opposed to...?

if you meant me, I was just curious about more opinions regarding whether a Cab Driver can turn your business away simply because his religion dictates he can't carry someone with Alcohol or a Dog?

How does being gay affect your ability to drive a cab?

Anyway, about the second part, you do realize that gay groups are THE force behind hate speech laws, which is strictly aimed at Christians.

I thought that was black people? I'm having a hard time keeping track of which groups are in vogue for Christians to want nothing to do with.

Just take the ROTC for example in SF?

Only conservatives sign up for ROTC?

Everywhere it's been passed, it's been used to restrict Christians freedom of speech. And it happens to be the mainstream Christian position that homosexuality is a sin. Gays aim to suppress this viewpoint.

Personally, I don't like hate crime laws as I feel they imply people who are born different need to be treated as such.

That said, I do think that labelling homosexuality a sin is a grand display of stupidity and superstition on par with Aryan supremacist racism.

And based on the mission of the organization, sexual orientation can play a role in this.

If you're planning to open a brothel, I can see that, but...

How will a gay teacher be unfit for a public school position?

Zero lives in perpetual fear that gays want to molest him and the children of the world.

ringworm

01-10-2007, 10:24 AM

Gays banned the ROTC?

yep, it was a BLATANT slap in the Military after the "Dont Ask Dont Tell"

even though tons of people showed up at the meeting supporting ROTC, the School Board banned it
How does being gay affect your ability to drive a cab?

Only conservatives sign up for ROTC?

i guess you mis read something?

Mr. Ron

01-10-2007, 10:24 AM

I don't see why a business should be able to not hire someone for the reason that they are black, Asian, or whatever.

True. I'm talking about other thing, like alcoholism, drug abuse ect ect.

lunchforthesky

01-10-2007, 10:27 AM

alcoholism and drug abuse are down to the person.

you dont choose to be gay, black, jewish etc..

PerpetualBurn

01-10-2007, 10:28 AM

True. I'm talking about other thing, like alcoholism, drug abuse ect ect.

Well that makes them unsuitable for the job.

YDtoad

01-10-2007, 10:37 AM

There's a lot of sins that the Christian right don't openly oppose like this.

Because they're not being worshipped in popular culture and being shoved down their throats.

Do you think a teacher should be fired for taking the Lord's name in vain?

In a private school, it's absolutely the school's right to do so.

How will a gay teacher be unfit for a public school position?

No one who brings their sexuality to the job has a place teaching in a public school.

As opposed to...?

Whoever you think is (Christians)

I thought that was black people? I'm having a hard time keeping track of which groups are in vogue for Christians to want nothing to do with.

Christians are responsible for abolition and civil rights.

spitfirejunky

01-10-2007, 10:43 AM

Not all homosexuals introduce homosexuality into their jobs.

Mr. Ron

01-10-2007, 10:58 AM

Because they're not being worshipped in popular culture and being shoved down their throats.

In a private school, it's absolutely the school's right to do so.

No one who brings their sexuality to the job has a place teaching in a public school.

Whoever you think is (Christians)

Christians are responsible for abolition and civil rights.

Um, I personally had 2 gay teachers and one gay vice principal in my lifetime and they never brought their sexuality up. Not once. It was a catholic school.

ringworm

01-10-2007, 11:04 AM

It was a catholic school.

:) no wonder you hate Christianity so much :)

Steerpike

01-10-2007, 11:06 AM

i guess you mis read something?

Just saying it's kind of an obtuse analogy.

Because they're not being worshipped in popular culture and being shoved down their throats.

Gluttony. Greed. Sloth. Lust.

Sins that are apparently higher up on the chain than sucking dick are deeply ingrained into pop culture, but I have yet to see Christians trying to do anything about that.

No one who brings their sexuality to the job has a place teaching in a public school.

The gay men I know don't take every opportunity to remind you of their sexuality. They think of it in the same way you think of being straight, which is to say they mostly keep it in their inner monologues.

With that in mind, you don't even have a molehill to make into a mountain, but you're trying anyway.

Whoever you think is (Christians)

Religious radicals of all types, corporate greedheads paying off corrupt politicians, corrupt politicians, etc.

Christians are responsible for abolition and civil rights.

It's adorable when you try to take credit for things you can't prove.

lunchforthesky

01-10-2007, 11:13 AM

My Maths teacher was gay, he was an excellent teacher and i wasn't aware he was gay until after i left school.

In a private school, it's absolutely the school's right to do so.

No it isnt we in the civilised world have labour laws. You need a decent reason to fire people. Although all school should be state run or follow a national curriculam anyway

Mr. Ron

01-10-2007, 11:14 AM

:) no wonder you hate Christianity so much :)

One of the reasons. I was exposed to ridiculous things for 6 years.

My gay vice principal got fired for being gay. EVERYONE knew he was gay for years, but they chose to use him for about 4 years then get rid of him for some reason.

Lupus

01-10-2007, 11:25 AM

How do you mean?

Lupus: According to a modern liberal equality endorsing society.

And why is that a valid argument? Endorsing equality doesn't mean forcing "tolerance"

lunchforthesky

01-10-2007, 11:27 AM

Yes it does. Thats exactly what it is.

Forcing people to believe a certain way of life that is best for the benefit of society as a whole.

Mr. Ron

01-10-2007, 11:28 AM

And why is that a valid argument? Endorsing equality doesn't mean forcing "tolerance"

It's not about tolerance. it's about people being treated fairly when applying for a job to support themselves. Everyone has that right, gay, straight, bi, tranny whatever.

Mr. Ron

01-10-2007, 11:29 AM

Yes it does. Thats exactly what it is.

Forcing people to believe a certain way of life is best for the benefit of society as a whole.

I wouldn't go that far. No one should be forcing ideas on anyone.

Steerpike

01-10-2007, 11:34 AM

And why is that a valid argument? Endorsing equality doesn't mean forcing "tolerance"

Do you even know the difference between tolerance and acceptance?

Acceptance is when you genuinely like it and welcome it.

Tolerance is when you don't have to like it, but you put up with it for the sake of peace and equality.

lunchforthesky

01-10-2007, 11:36 AM

I wouldn't go that far. No one should be forcing ideas on anyone.

But you dont think that is what happens because i do.

We are forced to belive that blacks and jews are equal to white people (which they are).

Mr. Ron

01-10-2007, 11:38 AM

But you dont think that is what happens because i do.

We are forced to belive that blacks and jews are equal to white people (which they are).

Thats not forced, it's common sense. No one is forcing you to believe anything since you can disbelieve it. No one is forcing you to believe anything until you accept it as truth.

I just have a huge problem with people saying "I'm right and you're wrong so do what I say!" it leads to a lot of bad stuff.

lunchforthesky

01-10-2007, 12:46 PM

A gun might not be pointed to your head with the words "Be tolerant of others or else" but we are conditioned into living a certain way of life.

For example almost no one questions whether a liberal democracy is the right way we should be living, it is just assumed because of massive state indoctrination on an a sub concious level, however like any othe rsystem of government it has benifits and drawbacks.

Mr. Ron

01-10-2007, 12:48 PM

lunchforthesky

01-10-2007, 12:50 PM

Maybe on here, but very few people in the grand scheme of things.

ringworm

01-10-2007, 01:01 PM

Just saying it's kind of an obtuse analogy.

i cant seem to grasp how we are discussing religion infringing on gay rights but it seems OK for religion to infringe upon, lets say, someone needing a cab ride home from the airport?

lunchforthesky

01-10-2007, 01:06 PM

Because there is no downside to a homosexual being employed.

but its not very nice for food and dogs to be in a taxi.

No cab driver here lets you eat inside a Taxi

Mr. Ron

01-10-2007, 01:09 PM

Maybe on here, but very few people in the grand scheme of things.

I agree.

Steerpike

01-10-2007, 01:28 PM

i cant seem to grasp how we are discussing religion infringing on gay rights but it seems OK for religion to infringe upon, lets say, someone needing a cab ride home from the airport?

Not really the issue I was addressing. If the cab company decides this guy can't perform his job, he's fired. If the cabbie won't give you a ride because you're going to meet some friends at a bar, then in the moment you're kind of stuck, though you can complain to his bosses. If some Christian at a Wal-Greens drug counter won't give you morning after pills, you can complain to his bosses as well.

But how does being gay have effects like this? It's not as if a gay cabbie is likely to refuse to drive you to the Toby Keith concert or something just as comically stereotypical.

Iskandar

01-10-2007, 01:30 PM

If the cabbie won't give you a ride because you're going to meet some friends at a bar
Why would anyone do that, even a Muslim?

Steerpike

01-10-2007, 01:34 PM

Why would anyone do that, even a Muslim?

Certain Muslim sects are more anti-alcohol than Baptists and Lutherans combined.

Iskandar

01-10-2007, 01:37 PM

Certain Muslim sects are more anti-alcohol than Baptists and Lutherans combined.
Yeah, and that makes no sense to me. They're forbidden from drinking it, not encouraged to prevent others from doing so.

ringworm

01-10-2007, 01:39 PM

but its not very nice for food and dogs to be in a taxi.

No cab driver here lets you eat inside a Taxi

good grief, I guessed you missed this thread awhile back so I cant blame you for being off.

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH EATING OR DRINKING IN THE CAB?

Minneapolis-St. Paul is concerned that its taxi service is deteriorating. Citing their religious beliefs, some Muslim taxi drivers from Somalia are refusing to transport customers carrying or suspected of carrying alcohol. It started with one driver a few years ago, but the average number of fare refusals has grown to about three a day, says airport spokesman Patrick Hogan. "Travelers often feel surprised and insulted," he says. "Sometimes, several drivers in a row refuse carriage.

Flight Attendant Eva Buzek said that she had asked a taxi driver to be careful with her luggage, as it contained wine. Buzek said that the cab driver then “dumped her luggage” and told the other drivers not to transport her.

Bernie Reddington, 37, was furious when London taxi driver Basir Miah refused to take her and her guide dog Orla in his private hire vehicle. Mrs Reddington, from Norwich, along with her son Christopher, 13, who is also blind, attended a hospital appointment at Great Ormond Street children’s hospital in London last November."

I call that discrimination plain & simple.

So long as nothing illegal is on you or your actions arent illegal, they should have to do the job they advertise to do. End of story

But how does being gay have effects like this?

nothing, there was a derailment earlier & I'm still on it because someone stated how religious whackjobs are infringing on gay rights so I just showed an example of how THIS infringment seems OK to most of you in here even though its the same kind of discrimination, thats all

Iskandar

01-10-2007, 01:43 PM

A blind person's guide dog is usually exempt from prohibitions against animals in public places.

Steerpike

01-10-2007, 02:04 PM

nothing, there was a derailment earlier & I'm still on it because someone stated how religious whackjobs are infringing on gay rights so I just showed an example of how THIS infringment seems OK to most of you in here even though its the same kind of discrimination, thats all

To be fully honest I dislike religious people trying to make their issues my issues, regardless of what storybook they claim to follow.

Smokey D

01-10-2007, 07:58 PM

Yeah, and that makes no sense to me. They're forbidden from drinking it, not encouraged to prevent others from doing so.

It's related to the impulse of certain Christian groups (and others) to regulate the morality of others, even those who aren't part of that group.

Light__Fantastic

01-10-2007, 08:06 PM

They banned ROTC for example in SF despite a HUGE number of people who wished to keep it?ROTC isn't a gay agenda..

I'm not gay and ROTC is dumb.

shaqadelic

01-10-2007, 08:19 PM

A blind person's guide dog is usually exempt from prohibitions against animals in public places.

Yep that's true. The Shariah council in Britain released that too.

-1up!-

01-10-2007, 08:39 PM

Gay groups are the biggest threat to democracy in America today.

Oh my gooooooooood that made my day!

WhoDidTheElf

01-10-2007, 08:41 PM

ROTC isn't a gay agenda..

I'm not gay and ROTC is dumb.

But the point was made, it was most likely a retaliatory attack for the "Don't ask don't tell" policy.

Light__Fantastic

01-10-2007, 08:52 PM

But the point was made, it was most likely a retaliatory attack for the "Don't ask don't tell" policy.

Yes, I'm sure gay people as a whole are so mad at that they just had to get you back.

Lupus

01-10-2007, 08:57 PM

Yes it does. Thats exactly what it is.

Forcing people to believe a certain way of life that is best for the benefit of society as a whole.

Okay, so you believe in forcing people to believe in equality. That's more consistent, then.It's not about tolerance. it's about people being treated fairly when applying for a job to support themselves. Everyone has that right, gay, straight, bi, tranny whatever.Why?
Do you even know the difference between tolerance and acceptance?

Acceptance is when you genuinely like it and welcome it.

Tolerance is when you don't have to like it, but you put up with it for the sake of peace and equality.Yes, I do know the difference, and yeah I probably shouldn't have put inverted commas around tolerance.

Amit

01-10-2007, 08:58 PM

I think people should have the right to reject someone based on their sexual preference.

but not race, creed, or gender?

ohhhhh ok

WhoDidTheElf

01-10-2007, 08:59 PM

Yes, I'm sure gay people as a whole are so mad at that they just had to get you back.

It's human nature, you of all people should know that.

Lupus

01-10-2007, 09:00 PM

but not race, creed, or gender?

ohhhhh ok

No, those as well.

Light__Fantastic

01-10-2007, 09:02 PM

It's human nature, you of all people should know that.

Yeah maybe if gay people acted as one big unit you bigot.

Amit

01-10-2007, 09:02 PM

No, those as well.

and why is this

WhoDidTheElf

01-10-2007, 09:03 PM

Yeah maybe if gay people acted as one big unit you bigot.

Your so quick to assume I ment all the homosexuals.

And no need to get your undies in a twist.

Not like your gay right?

Amit

01-10-2007, 09:04 PM

Your so quick to assume I ment all the homosexuals.

well it is what you said

Yes, I'm sure gay people as a whole are so mad at that they just had to get you back.
It's human nature, you of all people should know that.

lol @ massive loss

Light__Fantastic

01-10-2007, 09:06 PM

Not like your gay right?So I shouldn't care about something if the issue doesn't affect me directly?

WhoDidTheElf

01-10-2007, 09:06 PM

well it is what you said

lol @ massive loss

I was under the assumtion he ment my first post towards the ROTC. If he ment the other one then sure I'll admit that.

Lupus

01-10-2007, 09:43 PM

and why is this

Basically I believe that people should have the right to disassociate themselves from whomever they want, no matter how stupid their reasons may be. My basis for that is that people don't have the right of employment, if they seek it they must do so on the agreed terms. I'm actually far more sympathetic to the idea of forcing people to believe in equality than only forcing it in business. Really, if you believe in freedom of speech, it should extend to freedom of association.

But, really, isn't the burden of proof on you guys? If you believe something should be interfered with you should be the ones justifying your positions.

BassVirtuoso

01-10-2007, 09:49 PM

Maybe if you're getting interviewed for a job you shouldn't act flamboyantly gay. I don't think it's that hard.

Mr. Ron

01-10-2007, 09:50 PM

Okay, so you believe in forcing people to believe in equality. That's more consistent, then.Why?
Yes, I do know the difference, and yeah I probably shouldn't have put inverted commas around tolerance.

Why? Because something as minor as your sexual preference doesn't effect the way you conduct your job.

Mr. Ron

01-10-2007, 09:52 PM

Amit

01-10-2007, 09:59 PM

Basically I believe that people should have the right to disassociate themselves from whomever they want, no matter how stupid their reasons may be. My basis for that is that people don't have the right of employment, if they seek it they must do so on the agreed terms. I'm actually far more sympathetic to the idea of forcing people to believe in equality than only forcing it in business. Really, if you believe in freedom of speech, it should extend to freedom of association.

But, really, isn't the burden of proof on you guys? If you believe something should be interfered with you should be the ones justifying your positions.

that is completely fine and dandy now that i think about it

but i know a good way to improve and streamline your ideas into implementation

let's designate certain regions an ethnic classification through completely random arbitration

you guys over there...we'll call them the tutsis

and the ones over there...we'll call them the hutus

let's make things even easier for identification and dissociation...easily identifiable badges and ID cards!

what could possibly go wrong, right?

identity politics are fine and dandy when they bring people from all over together to appreciate, say, the artistic or philosophical contributions of a certain group, but they are downright dangerous when they exclude people

Aaron

01-10-2007, 10:14 PM

Only if your an indoctrinated bigot.

Light__Fantastic

01-10-2007, 10:16 PM

I was under the assumtion he ment my first post towards the ROTC. If he ment the other one then sure I'll admit that.

So you aren't a bigot if I was addressing the first post, only if I was addressing the second. You still made both of them though?

Maybe if you're getting interviewed for a job you shouldn't act flamboyantly gay. I don't think it's that hard.

How do you act gay?

Mr. Ron

01-10-2007, 10:18 PM

So you aren't a bigot if I was addressing the first post, only if I was addressing the second. You still made both of them though?

How do you act gay?

I think he might have meant acting overly "feminine".

Lupus

01-10-2007, 10:19 PM

Why? Because something as minor as your sexual preference doesn't effect the way you conduct your job.

Yeah, but some people just don't like being around gay people. If it's their property and their money they have every right to refuse to employ gay people.

Not to mention that in some cases I'm sure there are advantages to hiring a straight person over a gay person. Probably some cases of the opposite as well.
Forcing anything on people is bad. This is called "brainwashing".But you want to force people to be employ homosexuals.that is completely fine and dandy now that i think about it

but i know a good way to improve and streamline your ideas into implementation

let's designate certain regions an ethnic classification through completely random arbitration

you guys over there...we'll call them the tutsis

and the ones over there...we'll call them the hutus

let's make things even easier for identification and dissociation...easily identifiable badges and ID cards!

what could possibly go wrong, right?

identity politics are fine and dandy when they bring people from all over together to appreciate, say, the artistic or philosophical contributions of a certain group, but they are downright dangerous when they exclude peopleWow, you're comparing letting people freely choose who they want to employ to Nazism?

And government involvement in private matters can be the greatest hindrance to cultural progress.

Light__Fantastic

01-10-2007, 10:23 PM

I think he might have meant acting overly "feminine".

You only see gay people act like that in countries where they aren't completely accepted, if you go to some European countries where they have the exact same rights and are as socially accepted as heterosexual couples it's pretty different.

Mr. Ron

01-10-2007, 10:23 PM

Yeah, but some people just don't like being around gay people. If it's their property and their money they have every right to refuse to employ gay people.

Not to mention that in some cases I'm sure there are advantages to hiring a straight person over a gay person. Probably some cases of the opposite as well.
But you want to force people to be employ homosexuals.Wow, you're comparing letting people freely choose who they want to employ to Nazism?

And government involvement in private matters can be the greatest hindrance to cultural progress.

BOO HOO!

State these "advantages", since you are s sure of them.

I'm not forcing anything. I just think it's pretty stupid to not hire someone because you think they're "icky". Grow up.

Light__Fantastic

01-10-2007, 10:29 PM

Black men can work in fields better this is what I heard.

Steerpike

01-10-2007, 10:31 PM

My basis for that is that people don't have the right of employment, if they seek it they must do so on the agreed terms.

Last time I checked, I can't change my race. My wanting a job with some company or another isn't going to turn me into a black man anymore than watching tons of badly dubbed anime is going to turn those pasty white kids wearing cat ears into Japanese people.

But that's neither here nor there, because my abilities as a Slav to get a nice tan, grow lots of chest hair, and hate Irish people generally doesn't affect my abilities to do simple job skills like use a word processor, drive a car, and slack off by the water cooler.

Also, your religious beliefs affecting your job performance is rarer than you think. Some people believe in a bearded old man who lives in the clouds and gave you genitals so you could be afraid of them. But this usually does not affect this person's ability to ask me if I want fries with my order.

Other people worship the dirt and the moon and sacrifice black hens while wearing goat heads. This does not in the least bit affect their ability to offer me extended warrantees on my new TV.

And I believe it's bad luck to wear live koatimundis as pants on a Friday, but you'd be surprised how seldom that comes up at the local Halloween shop.

Sexual orientation also has little impact on your overall employability. Of all the gay men I've worked with, none of them made a pass on me. Which, if you've seen my picture, means they must be very professional and know better than to flirt with co-workers.

Similarly, though I have a recurring dream of having sex with Lucy Liu while she's wearing a harem girl costume, I don't believe this has affected my job performance lately, if at all.

Mr. Ron

01-10-2007, 10:35 PM

Last time I checked, I can't change my race. My wanting a job with some company or another isn't going to turn me into a black man anymore than watching tons of badly dubbed anime is going to turn those pasty white kids wearing cat ears into Japanese people.

But that's neither here nor there, because my abilities as a Slav to get a nice tan, grow lots of chest hair, and hate Irish people generally doesn't affect my abilities to do simple job skills like use a word processor, drive a car, and slack off by the water cooler.

Also, your religious beliefs affecting your job performance is rarer than you think. Some people believe in a bearded old man who lives in the clouds and gave you genitals so you could be afraid of them. But this usually does not affect this person's ability to ask me if I want fries with my order.

Other people worship the dirt and the moon and sacrifice black hens while wearing goat heads. This does not in the least bit affect their ability to offer me extended warrantees on my new TV.

And I believe it's bad luck to wear live koatimundis as pants on a Friday, but you'd be surprised how seldom that comes up at the local Halloween shop.

Sexual orientation also has little impact on your overall employability. Of all the gay men I've worked with, none of them made a pass on me. Which, if you've seen my picture, means they must be very professional and know better than to flirt with co-workers.

Similarly, though I have a recurring dream of having sex with Lucy Liu while she's wearing a harem girl costume, I don't believe this has affected my job performance lately, if at all.
DAMN.:naughty:

Amit

01-10-2007, 10:39 PM

But you want to force people to be employ homosexuals.Wow, you're comparing letting people freely choose who they want to employ to Nazism?

where was i talking about nazism

wtf

merely pointing out the fact that there is nothing inherently wrong with exclusionary identity politics

until people get involved

in other words, badges and ID cards don't hurt anyone until the depravity so commonly found in humanity kicks in

And government involvement in private matters can be the greatest hindrance to cultural progress.

so you'd object to a government allowing someone to discriminate based on race/gender/creed/sex/sexual preference (not that this would hopefully ever happen) because it would hinder cultural progress?

oh man i'd agree to that!

RNR

01-10-2007, 11:00 PM

Anybody who discriminates against anybody else because of sexual orientation needs to die a slow, painful death. That includes gays who discriminate against straight people. But mostly religious people.

uhhyeah

01-10-2007, 11:27 PM

where was i talking about nazism

wtf

That's what I was wondering.

But I guess that kind of tells us something about Lupus.

Lupus

01-11-2007, 02:24 AM

BOO HOO!

Boo hoo that homophobe won't hire me!

State these "advantages", since you are so sure of them.
I'm sure Catholic schools could lose a hell of a lot of money if parents decided to pull their kids out of the school.
I'm not forcing anything. I just think it's pretty stupid to not hire someone because you think they're "icky". Grow up.
You don't force it, but you're advocating forcing it. That's what's relevant to this argument.

You also seem to be under the impression that I'm a homophobe. I do not have anything against homosexuals, homosexuality etc. I do not find it disgusting or immoral, and I think choosing not to employ someone because of their sexuality is ridiculously stupid. That doesn't mean it should be illegal.where was i talking about nazism

wtfLet's make things even easier for identification and dissociation...easily identifiable badges and ID cards!That's what gave me the impression you were alluding to Nazism. But having read your post again, I realise I was wrong. Now I'm wondering how what you said was relevant.so you'd object to a government allowing someone to discriminate based on race/gender/creed/sex/sexual preference (not that this would hopefully ever happen) because it would hinder cultural progress?

oh man i'd agree to that!Would you agree to forcing people to believe in acceptance of homosexuals? Or at least pretend they do?

Amit

01-11-2007, 02:30 AM

That's what gave me the impression you were alluding to Nazism. But having read your post again, I realise I was wrong. Now I'm wondering how what you said was relevant.

ID cards were a system of discrimination

Would you agree to forcing people to believe in acceptance of homosexuals? Or at least pretend they do?

i wouldn't agree to forcing people to believe in the acceptance of homosexuality

that's like forcing white supremacists to believe in equality of other races

besides the bigoted individual himself/herself, internal discrimination is beyond the powers of anyone to truly address and resolve

however, discrimination should not be tolerated when other people's rights are involved

in the eyes of the law, it doesn't matter so much what you believe but how you act matters so much more

just wondering, what is wrong with the acceptance of homosexuals?

Lupus

01-11-2007, 02:54 AM

i wouldn't agree to forcing people to believe in the acceptance of homosexuality

that's like forcing white supremacists to believe in equality of other races

besides the bigoted individual himself/herself, internal discrimination is beyond the powers of anyone to truly address and resolveWould you agree to forcing people to keep their homophobia to themselves? Should it be illegal for me to turn someone away from my house on the basis of their sexuality?

however, discrimination should not be tolerated when other people's rights are involved
Nobody has the right ro be employed by a certain company. That implies that the world owes you something. No one has answered this point yet.
in the eyes of the law, it doesn't matter so much what you believe but how you act matters so much moreIf it's illegal to discriminate against gays in business, should people be forced to act like they aren't homophobic in all situations, for example turning someone away from their house? That's the only consistent argument for forcing people not to discriminate in the workplace.

just wondering, what is wrong with the acceptance of homosexuals?You also seem to be under the impression that I'm a homophobe. I do not have anything against homosexuals, homosexuality etc. I do not find it disgusting or immoral, and I think choosing not to employ someone because of their sexuality is ridiculously stupid. That doesn't mean it should be illegal.

PerpetualBurn

01-11-2007, 05:36 AM

If it's illegal to discriminate against gays in business, should people be forced to act like they aren't homophobic in all situations, for example turning someone away from their house? That's the only consistent argument for forcing people not to discriminate in the workplace.

No one's going to legislate who your friends are, so that's a hurrendous analogy.

But the government should legislate to ensure that people aren't prevented from gaining good jobs based on their race, gender, or sexuality.

Petros

01-11-2007, 05:42 AM

lunchforthesky

01-11-2007, 07:14 AM

Would you agree to forcing people to keep their homophobia to themselves? Should it be illegal for me to turn someone away from my house on the basis of their sexuality?

Not illegal but you should be considered a moron by all.

Nobody has the right ro be employed by a certain company. That implies that the world owes you something. No one has answered this point yet.
If it's illegal to discriminate against gays in business, should people be forced to act like they aren't homophobic in all situations, for example turning someone away from their house? That's the only consistent argument for forcing people not to discriminate in the workplace.

No people shouldn't be some predujiced pathetic morans and they should care about whether that homosexual can do the job better than anyone else they could hire for the job and not take into account what he does in his own spare time away form the workplace. Being gay does not bring any negative attributes into the workplace and shouldn't be discriminated against. It is widely accepted that something you can't change is not a valid reason for not hiring someone and we have labour laws to protect this. Being black, old, fat, tall etc.. is not a valid reason. Just as businesses aren't and shouldn't be able to pay employeess whatever they want, they equally shouldn't be able to discriminate against whoever they want. Its about the government protecting the people against businesses who in some cases would gladly hire only white, straight males and pay them $3 an hour for their troubles.

ringworm

01-11-2007, 08:41 AM

Yes, I'm sure gay people as a whole are so mad at that they just had to get you back.
go back & re-read what you mis-read, k?

or try to troll a little bit better :)

Lupus

01-11-2007, 08:56 AM

No one's going to legislate who your friends are, so that's a hurrendous analogy.

But the government should legislate to ensure that people aren't prevented from gaining good jobs based on their race, gender, or sexuality.

It makes sense for the government to consider actually educating people about it before making such legislature.*horrendousNo one cares.No people shouldn't be some predujiced pathetic morans and they should care about whether that homosexual can do the job better than anyone else they could hire for the job and not take into account what he does in his own spare time away form the workplace. Being gay does not bring any negative attributes into the workplace and shouldn't be discriminated against.I've answered this point already.It is widely accepted that something you can't change is not a valid reason for not hiring someone and we have labour laws to protect this. Being black, old, fat, tall etc.. is not a valid reason.That's absolutely ridiculous.

Iskandar

01-11-2007, 09:31 AM

That's absolutely ridiculous.
Discrimination on the grounds of a person's age or weight does happen, and it's based on the same grounds as race or sexuality: an immutable characteristic.

I'd like to make a general statement, to nobody in particular, that the freedom for a select few people to discriminate is a pretty crappy freedom.

PerpetualBurn

01-11-2007, 10:14 AM

It makes sense for the government to consider actually educating people about it before making such legislature.

No it doesn't.

It makes sense to do that also, but discrimination should be legislated against immediately.

Mr. Ron

01-11-2007, 11:00 AM

Boo hoo that homophobe won't hire me!

I'm sure Catholic schools could lose a hell of a lot of money if parents decided to pull their kids out of the school.

You don't force it, but you're advocating forcing it. That's what's relevant to this argument.

You also seem to be under the impression that I'm a homophobe. I do not have anything against homosexuals, homosexuality etc. I do not find it disgusting or immoral, and I think choosing not to employ someone because of their sexuality is ridiculously stupid. That doesn't mean it should be illegal.That's what gave me the impression you were alluding to Nazism. But having read your post again, I realise I was wrong. Now I'm wondering how what you said was relevant.Would you agree to forcing people to believe in acceptance of homosexuals? Or at least pretend they do?

Hey, you hit the nail right on the head! They're homophobes and totally ignorant individuals! Now we're getting somewhere. :)

Thats not an advantage. Thats people's religious fundamentalism getting in the way of a perfectly good worker's career.

GreyHam

01-11-2007, 11:01 AM

by passing these laws it doesnt mean that you have to employ every gay person that comes a knockin. all it means is that you cant turn around and say 'i dont want you, your gay'. at the end of the day, someone can still think that and just say 'well sorry but this guy can do it better than you' and hire someone else.

Amit

01-11-2007, 11:04 AM

Amit

01-11-2007, 11:19 AM

Would you agree to forcing people to keep their homophobia to themselves? Should it be illegal for me to turn someone away from my house on the basis of their sexuality?

trespassing and employment discrimination are two very different things

Nobody has the right ro be employed by a certain company. That implies that the world owes you something. No one has answered this point yet.

in my opinion, everyone has the right to be judged by their merit

i don't know about you but i like the idea of a meritocracy

If it's illegal to discriminate against gays in business, should people be forced to act like they aren't homophobic in all situations, for example turning someone away from their house? That's the only consistent argument for forcing people not to discriminate in the workplace.

no it isn't

what are you babbling about

Steerpike

01-11-2007, 11:35 AM

Nobody has the right ro be employed by a certain company. That implies that the world owes you something. No one has answered this point yet.

Actually, I kind of did and I feel cheated that you totally ignored it. The only respose I got was Mr. Ron agreeing with me that Lucy Liu is extremely ****able (and holy hell yes, she is).

You say people don't have the right to be employed and must do so by the agreed terms. Now, to further illustrate the point that I made in my previous post, I'm going to use an outlandishly cartoonish example that even a short-bus-riding retard could understand.

You have two guys applying for a job. One is a man who meets all the intellectual requirements, is highly skilled in his field, and has a perfect track record and strong work ethic. He also is gay.

The second applicant has all the relevant skills, but has been fired from his previous jobs for negligence and expressed a bad attitude in the interview. On top of that, he's apparently an alcoholic and on probation for beating his now ex-wife. He's straight.

Let's also say that the job in question involves interacting with clients, but one's sexual orientation never really becomes a factor, practically speaking.

Which one do you hire?

Now, this after-school special display over, how do you expect people to play by the rules of employment when the rules involve something that they never had any say in: their genetics.

While you might be able to argue through some miracle that no one has a right to be employed, you cannot dispute the fact that everyone has the right to not starve to death. Everything in this world involves money, and outside of gainful employment, there are only a small handful of ways to get that money.

Of course, if you want to be gainfully employed, you have to demonstrate a certain degree of competence as per the job. However, for some time now, non-morons have known that there is no causal link betweenb your intelligence, and your skin color, your superstitions, your type of genitals, or which orifice you prefer to have sex with.

If you want to tell me that it makes sense to allow a company to say "NO HOMOS!!" then you must also be able to explain to me why a company should be allowed to say "NO WOPS!!" If you can do one, you can do the other.

Hababi

01-11-2007, 11:36 AM

winner

No, if the law was in place, then there would be a lawsuit, and a trend would be documented. Most people who face lawsuits now due to discriminatory hiring practices don't have a hood in their office, or the Confederate flag, or tell someone, "well your resume is impressive, you've answered the questions in a satisfactory manner, but you're a nigg|er. Sorry, goodbye"

Lydisk

01-11-2007, 11:41 AM

my girl told me she thinks homosexuality is a sin and that it is something you choose to become. i then replied "wtf! lol n00b" and walked away. havent talked to her since.

GreyHam

01-11-2007, 11:45 AM

No, if the law was in place, then there would be a lawsuit, and a trend would be documented. Most people who face lawsuits now due to discriminatory hiring practices don't have a hood in their office, or the Confederate flag, or tell someone, "well your resume is impressive, you've answered the questions in a satisfactory manner, but you're a nigg|er. Sorry, goodbye"

of course you can accuse someone of discriminating against you, but if its say a high end management job, highly contested with many suitable applicants, t would be very difficult to proove, especially when you wouldnt personally know who else was at the interview
im sure the law wont stop people being discriminated against, no law could ever do that, but by making it clear cut that mr employer cant turn around and say 'errr. you suck dick? ew... maybe not'

Mr. Ron

01-11-2007, 12:03 PM

my girl told me she thinks homosexuality is a sin and that it is something you choose to become. i then replied "wtf! lol n00b" and walked away. havent talked to her since.

I think we can all agree that you handled that situation splendidly.

sweboy

01-11-2007, 12:05 PM

In my opinion, you should have said that you're gay and then slapped her.

Mr. Ron

01-11-2007, 12:10 PM

^^^

Steerpike

01-11-2007, 12:12 PM

Better yet, tell her she had driven you gay.

Lydisk

01-11-2007, 12:14 PM

yeah i probably should. i mean i have a homsexual uncle and two friends who are gay...im really offended by this."it sais in the bible that...blah blah" whats that?

this is not good..

Auberge le Mouton Noir

01-11-2007, 12:44 PM

yeah i probably should. i mean i have a homsexual uncle and two friends who are gay...im really offended by this."it sais in the bible that...blah blah" whats that?

this is not good..

you know the rules

+no fat chicks

+no god chicks

+...

Lydisk

01-11-2007, 12:49 PM

yeah im gonna find me a fit atheist

yeah

lunchforthesky

01-11-2007, 02:22 PM

you know the rules

+no fat chicks

+no god chicks

+...

That advice right their is more useful than any religion.

Chrysostom

01-11-2007, 04:55 PM

The idea that gay rights infringe on religious rights is completely asinine.

Leviticus begs to differ.

Petros

01-11-2007, 05:56 PM

The Bill of Rights

Amendment I - Freedom of Religion

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

Amendment XIV -- Citizens Rights

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

According to the Bill of Rights Congress can't pass a law respecting an religious establishment. No state shall enforce laws that abridge the privileges of it's citizens. So as I understand it, there is no justification to create a law that would allow people to discriminate based on someone being gay because of a religious belief in the US.

Swill_Merchant

01-11-2007, 07:54 PM

I think people should have the right to reject someone based on their sexual preference.

Also, on that note, I should be able to reject you because of your race, religion, and nationality (sarcasm intended).The best system is called the merit system, we should hire based on the best performance and nothing else. This whole argument is sickening.
As stupid as I think that comment is, you have the right to type it, even though you're being hypocritical to freedom and rights. We are humans, not white, black, gay, muslim or christian. Just humans and we need to be tolerant of everyones' rights or beliefs and orientation.

CrossTheBreeze

01-11-2007, 08:09 PM

Better yet, tell her she had driven you gay.
Genious!

CrossTheBreeze

01-11-2007, 08:09 PM

Leviticus begs to differ.
care to elaborate?

Swill_Merchant

01-11-2007, 08:14 PM

care to elaborate?

Leviticus just limits what you can do sexually. Other than incest, I bet the monks wrote it. Sexually repressed monks. Lets get an ***-Man to re-write it and maybe I'll trust it a little more. But, until then, I choose to ignore it.

spitfirejunky

01-11-2007, 08:16 PM

Leviticus begs to differ.

That doesn't necessitate that these morals must be legislated. It might be a sin to be gay, but it shouldn't be illegal.

Swill_Merchant

01-11-2007, 08:18 PM

God doesn't hate gay people, he is just angery that they found a loop-hole in the system.

Lupus

01-11-2007, 08:24 PM

Discrimination on the grounds of a person's age or weight does happen, and it's based on the same grounds as race or sexuality: an immutable characteristic.It's ridiculous that people aren't allowed factor in people's weight and age when thinking about employing them. Physical fitness is very important to some jobs.

I'd like to make a general statement, to nobody in particular, that the freedom for a select few people to discriminate is a pretty crappy freedom.
Oh, you're talking about how workers have the right to discriminate against potential employers, but not the other way around.
No it doesn't.

It makes sense to do that also, but discrimination should be legislated against immediately.And consistently.Hey, you hit the nail right on the head! They're homophobes and totally ignorant individuals! Now we're getting somewhere. Not really. I believe we established that a couple of pages ago.Thats not an advantage. Thats people's religious fundamentalism getting in the way of a perfectly good worker's career.Yeah, except the school loses out because of it. Do you sue the parents now?trespassing and employment discrimination are two very different things
Yes they are but that doesn't answer my point.no it isn't

what are you babbling aboutWhy is discrimiantion only illegal when there's money involved? It seems kind of arbitrary.Actually, I kind of did and I feel cheated that you totally ignored it.No, you really didn't. You said a bunch of stuff about factors that don't affect job performance, but you still didn't answer the point.You have two guys applying for a job. One is a man who meets all the intellectual requirements, is highly skilled in his field, and has a perfect track record and strong work ethic. He also is gay.

The second applicant has all the relevant skills, but has been fired from his previous jobs for negligence and expressed a bad attitude in the interview. On top of that, he's apparently an alcoholic and on probation for beating his now ex-wife. He's straight.

Let's also say that the job in question involves interacting with clients, but one's sexual orientation never really becomes a factor, practically speaking.

Which one do you hire?The gay guy if you're smart. What does this have to do with anything?While you might be able to argue through some miracle that no one has a right to be employed, you cannot dispute the fact that everyone has the right to not starve to death. Everything in this world involves money, and outside of gainful employment, there are only a small handful of ways to get that money.I suppose you're right. Here in Australia, hundreds of gay people die every day because there's a small minority of people that won't hire them.If you want to tell me that it makes sense to allow a company to say "NO HOMOS!!" then you must also be able to explain to me why a company should be allowed to say "NO WOPS!!" If you can do one, you can do the other.Well, it's the same principle isn't it?

Steerpike

01-11-2007, 08:47 PM

It's ridiculous that people aren't allowed factor in people's weight and age when thinking about employing them. Physical fitness is very important to some jobs.

That you can argue, but unless you work in a stylish department store, I can't see how being gay would affect your job performance one way or another.

The gay guy if you're smart. What does this have to do with anything?

You said employers should be allowed to discriminate by sexual orientation. I used the most outlandishly cartoonish example that I could come up without the aid of alcohol or more than 5 seconds of thought to illustrate that if you think someone's sexual orientation qualifies as a job skill, you should probably stop putting lead paint chips on your salad every day.

That in mind, why should we enable a handful of people to make their stupidity our problem?

I suppose you're right. Here in Australia, hundreds of gay people die every day because there's a small minority of people that won't hire them.

The whooshing noise you hear is my point and the joke going over your head.

Well, it's the same principle isn't it?

Yes it is. You can't change your sexual orientation any more than you can change your race. And if you think preferring mangina over vagina counts as grounds for refusing to employ a person, then it's no different from saying you don't want a bunch of jigaboos fixing your computers or whatever.

So is that what you're saying? That it's okay to refuse employment based on who a person has sex with, and by extension who their parents had sex with? Yes or no.

Rabbi

01-11-2007, 08:59 PM

Heres how I see it. Banning gay marriage is acting upon your personal beliefs and opinions in a negative way. We are disabling a large minority of our population of some of the greatest freedoms this country has to offer.

And not all gays are Catholic or Christian, so basing an amendmant on a specific religious belief that's aimed at a group of people who might not even practice that religion in the first place is obsurd.

In my opinion religion and sexuality are two conflicts one should work out oneself or with ones family. Their shouldn't be a third party that influences those personal decisions.

Swill_Merchant

01-12-2007, 10:20 PM

It's ridiculous that people aren't allowed factor in people's weight and age when thinking about employing them. Physical fitness is very important to some jobs.

Oh, you're talking about how workers have the right to discriminate against potential employers, but not the other way around.
And consistently.Not really. I believe we established that a couple of pages ago.Yeah, except the school loses out because of it. Do you sue the parents now?
Yes they are but that doesn't answer my point.Why is discrimiantion only illegal when there's money involved? It seems kind of arbitrary.No, you really didn't. You said a bunch of stuff about factors that don't affect job performance, but you still didn't answer the point.The gay guy if you're smart. What does this have to do with anything?I suppose you're right. Here in Australia, hundreds of gay people die every day because there's a small minority of people that won't hire them.Well, it's the same principle isn't it?

I think you have some homosexual issues you need to work out. Being a bigot is a good sign of sexual insecurity. If you don't like gay people, keep it to yourself. You are going to deal with one sooner or later. Also, maybe you should get this stereo-typical view of gay people out of your head. They don't hit on every-man in sight or want to have sex with them. Homophobia is SO egotistical, knock yourself down a notch, because you most likely aren't the object of lust from any man and to think otherwise is completley asinine.

Rabbi

01-12-2007, 10:36 PM

I think you have some homosexual issues you need to work out. Being a bigot is a good sign of sexual insecurity. If you don't like gay people, keep it to yourself. You are going to deal with one sooner or later. Also, maybe you should get this stereo-typical view of gay people out of your head. They don't hit on every-man in sight or want to have sex with them. Homophobia is SO egotistical, knock yourself down a notch, because you most likely aren't the object of lust from any man and to think otherwise is completley asinine.

What he said, exactly.

Plus just adding that being gay dosn't mean that you act feminine, the majority of gays do not fit the stereotype and you wouldn't be able to tell untill they told you.

lunchforthesky

01-13-2007, 05:38 AM

and here's me thinking they wear pink shirts, sandals and listen to Celine Dion :p

GreyHam

01-13-2007, 11:06 AM

i love gay people.

well, lies: i love the 2 gay people i know. who are both less flamboyant than most straight guys i know. its true that there are some homosexuals who are incredibly camp, but theres straight people that are as well. the two arent interlinked whatsoever. theres nothing feminine about homosexuality, and its weird how its ended up being linked so closely with campness

either way, its not grounds for not giving someone a job, end of

RockAndRoll

01-13-2007, 11:29 AM

GreyHam

01-13-2007, 11:36 AM

normally employers will employ people out of the best interests of the company - the most suited applicant. unfortunately, you cant give them that absolute privaledge to have complete control of the decision. if for example a homophobe was the personel manager at (for example) a microsoft branch, gay people wont be able to work there. thats just not cricket. its the same for any discrimination - grounds of race, religion etc. physical appearance is an acceptable form of discrimination depending on what it is. a 28 stone man isnt going to do very well working in a small warehouse, or at least there will be more sutable applicants on the grounds of their physical fitness. but being gay doesnt reduce a persons effectiveness to do their job, and as a result it should never be a factor when someone applies for a job.

personally im not sure why its valid to say what sexuality you are when you apply, or even at all.

PerpetualBurn

01-13-2007, 11:38 AM

RockAndRoll

01-13-2007, 11:40 AM

But if we stop the strawman attacks then people might have to give up on underhand tactics all together!

Still, even if that is his argument it's a poor one.

Institutional discrimination should be legislated against. We should take steps to prevent those with power from excluding homosexuals from good jobs.
:lol:
Regardless of the quality of his actual argument I'm just saying it would suit people to stop attacking him for being a homophobe, or pretending he wouldn't hire gay people because they're somehow unfit to work.

PerpetualBurn

01-13-2007, 11:44 AM

That'll happen when I can enter a religious/spiritual/alternative medicine debate without being labelled "closed-minded" in every other post.

Discrimination laws are a good thing because, sadly, we can't trust people not to be stupidly bigoted.

RockAndRoll

01-13-2007, 11:49 AM

That'll happen when I can enter a religious/spiritual/alternative medicine debate without being labelled "closed-minded" in every other post.
:lol: Yes, yes I know. We might as well try to halt as much stupidity as we can though.

Discrimination laws are a good thing because, sadly, we can't trust people not to be stupidly bigoted.

Okay, I'm not actually interested in the debate itself. Just in pointing out the stupidity of some of the accusations.

PerpetualBurn

01-13-2007, 11:54 AM

Fallacies are usually much more entertaining than real arguments.

RockAndRoll

01-13-2007, 11:59 AM

Fallacies are usually much more entertaining than real arguments.
No, they're not. Trust me, Socrates said so.

Volumnius Flush

01-13-2007, 12:47 PM

Gays threaten religious beliefs. Gay 'rights', rights they don't have, are just apart of the secular progressive attack on moralism in the West.

Akira

01-13-2007, 01:04 PM

Gays threaten religious beliefs. Gay 'rights', rights they don't have, are just apart of the secular progressive attack on moralism in the West.

Random guess says you didn't read the thread.

Amit

01-13-2007, 01:05 PM

how exactly do gays threaten religious beliefs

american christians must be a very spiritually weak people to have their way of life threatened by two guys kissing

Rabbi

01-13-2007, 01:07 PM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Lmao x 10^3

shaqadelic

01-13-2007, 01:09 PM

But we are talking about gay rights and freedom of religion concerning one's right to act upon his/her beliefs here, and where do you draw the line, not gays and their activities.

Rabbi

01-13-2007, 01:38 PM

If a gay person is more qualified than a straight person to be my accountant than guess who I'm hiring?

The gay person.

Steerpike

01-13-2007, 01:39 PM

american christians must be a very spiritually weak people to have their way of life threatened by two guys kissing

Quoted for the mother****ing truth.

Mr. Ron

01-13-2007, 01:46 PM

Gays threaten religious beliefs. Gay 'rights', rights they don't have, are just apart of the secular progressive attack on moralism in the West.
Religious beliefs threaten mankind and it's progression. Your point?

shaqadelic

01-13-2007, 01:46 PM

If a gay person is more qualified than a straight person to be my accountant than guess who I'm hiring?

The gay person.

Logical answer here but most of the time you will be presented in a situation where both gays and straights have similar level of skills, that or any difference is negligible.

dei

01-13-2007, 01:53 PM

I'd choose the dude that does dudes.

Rabbi

01-13-2007, 02:31 PM

Logical answer here but most of the time you will be presented in a situation where both gays and straights have similar level of skills, that or any difference is negligible.

If they were both of the same qualifications, I would still not be biased towards picking a straight person, it would just come down to who is really more efficient.

GreyHam

01-13-2007, 03:20 PM

id prefer not to know theyre sexuality truth be told, it has no bearing on theyre ability to do a job and i thin its ridiculous that application forms insist on asking that. its supposed to ensure that there is no discrimination, but surely you cant be discriminated against if noone knows theyre meant to be discriminating against you

kinda thing

Rabbi

01-13-2007, 03:44 PM

That's a good viewpoint, I rather not know/don't care about personal the personal life of an employee, but that was an example given for the sole porpose to prove a point. So it's not like we need to get stuck on making it more realistic.

On with the thread.

LittlePound

01-13-2007, 03:49 PM

Gay rights really don't thread religious beliefs until they start imposing on them. Like in Canada, if a gay couple walks into a church and demands to get married and the pastor/preacher/whatever says no, then he can be thrown in jail for discrimination. But i don't think that's right because the pastor believes it to be a wrongful union.
Should they be allowed to get married? I dunno, maybe
Is it wrong for them to get married? Yes, which is why the people have the problem with allowing them to do it in the first place
I'm not going to say whether or not we should give them rights, but their rights don't threaten religious beliefs until they force the religions to go against their beliefs to cater to them.

RockAndRoll

01-13-2007, 03:53 PM

Like in Canada, if a gay couple walks into a church and demands to get married and the pastor/preacher/whatever says no, then he can be thrown in jail for discrimination.

It would behoove you not to make stuff up.

LittlePound

01-13-2007, 03:56 PM

lunchforthesky

01-13-2007, 03:59 PM

Well religion has imposed on humanities freedom for long enough, its nice to see people giving them somehting back in return.

RockAndRoll

01-13-2007, 04:13 PM

i wasn't making stuff up, i visited Canada 2 years ago, and the residents i was staying with told us (they was a large group of us seeing as it was a mission trip) saying that we couldn't say the words "faggot" because then we could be get in serious trouble for committing a hate crime. Same with the word "gay" if it was used negatively (i.e. "that's gay"). Also, we were helping a new church get it's feet on the ground there in Vancouver and that is what the preacher told us, i would think that a Canadian native that is a pastor of the church would know what he was talking about.

Lulz I am a Canadian native. Seriously, that's dead wrong.

But lets see what the civil marriage act of Canada has to say on the issue shall we?

Well let's see..

Clause 3 recognizes that officials of religious denominations may refuse to perform marriages that are at odds with their religious beliefs. It is worth noting that the Court’s reference decision considered a differently worded provision of the draft legislation under which “[n]othing in this Act affects” religious officials’ freedom not to officiate at same-sex marriages.

Just incase you're still not sure for some crazy reason the bill later on says:

For greater certainty, no person or organization shall be deprived of any benefit, or be subject to any obligation or sanction, under any law of the Parliament of Canada solely by reason of their exercise, in respect of marriage between persons of the same sex, of the freedom of conscience and religion guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the expression of their beliefs in respect of marriage as the union of a man and woman to the exclusion of all others based on that guaranteed freedom.

So much for that Canadian pastor.

CrossTheBreeze

01-13-2007, 04:56 PM

Is it wrong for them to get married? Yes, which is why the people have the problem with allowing them to do it in the first place
hmmm... and what makes it wrong exactly?

How does two men getting married affect you anyway? Its not like millions of babies will die randomly the day gays get married.

dei

01-13-2007, 05:00 PM

hmmm... and what makes it wrong exactly?

I want to know, too.

GreyHam

01-13-2007, 05:05 PM

i dont see problems with civil partnerships or legal marriages

unfortunately it is written in the bible, christians ever knowing source of knowledge, that homosexuality is a sin (somewhat ambiguously though)

im firmly against religion taking hold in the world of business and employment, but people are entitled to their own faith, and if its a religious sin then its a sin. gay couples probably shouldnt have a religiously significant marriage ceremony

big whoop, would you want to be a member of a faith where the god rejects you because you kiss a guy?

Aklerc

01-13-2007, 05:07 PM

I can accept people not liking gays. There's nothing I can do to stop it so whatever. We stay out of each other's way.

But seriously, how the hell is letting a gay couple stay in a hotel doing ANYTHING to people's own beliefs? They're not committing a "sin" for what other people do are they? And the protests.... how on earth can they be protesting for the right to discriminate? That's appauling- it really saddened me to hear about it.

The worst part is about the adoption agencies. Innocent, homeless kids are going to suffer because the bastards say they're gonna close down the adoption agencies because it goes against their beliefs. To be honest I'd rather it not have gone through and sacrifice rights I could have had if it meant they didn't close them down. There is no reason at all to make innocent kids suffer.

I also think it's really sad that they took transgendered rights off it so that there was more chance of it going through :(

I just think these tosspots need to get over themselves and put their beliefs aside and see it for what it really is- equality. It's not forcing them to go against their beliefs. Sure they might not like it but to protest against it is so low.

Steerpike

01-13-2007, 05:55 PM

I just think these tosspots need to get over themselves and put their beliefs aside and see it for what it really is- equality. It's not forcing them to go against their beliefs. Sure they might not like it but to protest against it is so low.

The problem is that they believe they are more important than you. They are so convinced they're right, that they get pissed when they aren't allowed to run roughshod over everyone else.

To these people, their comfort is more important than your rights, rights that they don't believe you deserve. And that is probably the greatest enemy to the progress of the human race.

Everytime I hear someone call me a "secular progressive" or "secular humanist" I ignore the fact that those terms are just made up and stupid, and say "You're welcome."

moogoogaipan

01-13-2007, 06:01 PM

I think you guys are missing the point... Homosexuality is a choice.

The devil comes from hell with is satan faeries and they whisper into men's ears at night with promises of sugar coated candy and ballsweat... some people are just too weak spiritually and are persuaded by peer pressure.

That's how we get gays.:thumb:

btw, LittlePound. You are so ignorant that it's disgusting.

Chrysostom

01-13-2007, 06:02 PM

God doesn't hate gay people, he is just angery that they found a loop-hole in the system.

Well, certainly they found that.

CrossTheBreeze

01-13-2007, 06:04 PM

Please save me jesus! I have succumbed to the sugar coated candies and sweaty ballsacks.

GreyHam

01-13-2007, 06:07 PM

GreyHam

01-13-2007, 06:09 PM

I'm not going to say whether or not we should give them rights, but their rights don't threaten religious beliefs until they force the religions to go against their beliefs to cater to them.

sorry i only just saw this

you dont give people rights. people seem to misunderstand rights, or at least what rights SHOULD be. rights are absolute and uncompromisable, hence why theyre rights. anything that can be given or taken is a privaledge. technically we all have human privaledges, not rights, as they can be taken away (ie inprisonment and capital punishment)

dei

01-13-2007, 06:12 PM

We should take away the rights of people that believe in God.

moogoogaipan

01-13-2007, 06:16 PM

haha... :thumb:

It just sickens me that a group of people can actually live with themselves for hating another group of people.

I watched a Neo-Nazi Documentary of Discovery Channel today and I was horrified. They want Birmingham, Alabama to be returned to the Aryans... no Blacks and no Jews... they have public protests about it and everything.
They even have a police escort consisting of mostly black people. That's ridiculous...

I watched it and thought about how Christianity is a small less extreme than that, but it's along the same lines.

You are entitled to your belief, but if you belief is just disgustingly appalling, what's the point.

Do see what I'm getting at? People have a hard time recognizing their beliefs as being hateful and bigotted, If they would recognize that fact, maybe they would sway themselves away from that.

GreyHam

01-13-2007, 06:22 PM

i totally agree with you. the problem is, people who see things this way wont change through debate or people talking sense. what we say to them is just as appalling as what they say to us

thye might grow out of it one day

Steerpike

01-13-2007, 06:25 PM

I watched a Neo-Nazi d0cumentary of Discovery Channel today and I was horrified. They want Birmingham, Alabama to be returned to the Aryans... no Blacks and no Jews... they have public protests about it and everything.

People like that make me laugh. Partly because there is no real white race, to be honest. But mostly because Aryan was misapplied. Technically, the Aryans were the ancient Persians. Xerxes described himself as "an Aryan king of Aryan bloodlines."

So when you say Alabama should be given to the Aryans, what you're really saying is that you want it to be a province of Iran. :lol:

But seriously, none of these poster children for fetal alcohol syndrome have a snowball's chance in hell of gaining any political clout. It's the evangelical Christians that scare me because they already have clout and money to throw around.

GreyHam

01-13-2007, 06:32 PM

i dunno la penn nearly got in in france all those years ago, and in sunny brittania we ended up with three BNP seats in the commons at one point

Steerpike

01-13-2007, 06:40 PM

i dunno la penn nearly got in in france all those years ago, and in sunny brittania we ended up with three BNP seats in the commons at one point

I speak only for my own country. The day that Neo-Nazi gets elected to a seat in Congress is the day Alabama elects a greyhound for their governor.

GreyHam

01-13-2007, 06:43 PM

most people here thought the same thing too...

moogoogaipan

01-13-2007, 06:46 PM

The problem here is that Neo-Nazis are backwoods, redneck, high-school drop-outs. To have a chance at any high position would entail that they were actually educated.

GreyHam

01-13-2007, 06:55 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_National_Party

its a big read but its scary stuff. very scary. educated (at least academically) organised and supported.
but nazis the lot of them however you hide it

theyre manifesto is an attrocity

CrossTheBreeze

01-13-2007, 07:03 PM

most people here thought the same thing too...
yea, but we're America and we're better than u.

GreyHam

01-13-2007, 07:05 PM

oh burn...

Akira

01-13-2007, 07:12 PM

The problem here is that Neo-Nazis are backwoods, redneck, high-school drop-outs. To have a chance at any high position would entail that they were actually educated.

You obviously don't know much about American politics if you think someone has to be smart to be elected to high office.

lunchforthesky

01-13-2007, 07:13 PM

Greyham: They dont have any MP's in the commons.

there all local government candidates pretty much drawn entirely from around where i live :(

GreyHam

01-13-2007, 07:19 PM

Greyham: They dont have any MP's in the commons.

there all local government candidates pretty much drawn entirely from around where i live :(

shizzle dizzle, cheers for clearing that one up. less troublesome, but the fact they have any political influence anywhere is a travesty

lunchforthesky

01-13-2007, 07:24 PM

I know but they really are a fringe party, they get more publicity than theirsupport deserves. Like its basically the white coucil estates in halifax, burnley, blackburn, oldham and huddersfield who elect them.

Rabbi

01-13-2007, 07:35 PM

The problem with their political merit is not in what they're message is as much as how many supporters they have. If a neo-nazi wants to run for governer he can and may win depending on how many other neo-nazis are going out and voting for him. Needless to say this would happen in a local race somewhere down south. And it would be a race for like mayor or assemblyman. But the point is since we live in a democratic country, anyone with any belief has a chance at politics as long as they have enough support. Thats why the marajuana party is gaining power here in New Jersey.

lunchforthesky

01-13-2007, 07:38 PM

But if a far-right party recieves the most votes, regardless of what you or I may think about it, they have legimately got into power and have aright to be there.

PerpetualBurn

01-13-2007, 08:09 PM

The people can't legitimately vote away the rights of minorities.

moogoogaipan

01-13-2007, 09:08 PM

You obviously don't know much about American politics if you think someone has to be smart to be elected to high office.

I never said smart. Well educated often doesn't concur with smart, but with the school and level of schooling you have achieved.
It's a rarity that someone who dropped out of high-school gets elected to any high government position.

Mr. Ron

01-13-2007, 09:31 PM

LittlePound

01-13-2007, 10:56 PM

Lulz I am a Canadian native. Seriously, that's dead wrong.

But lets see what the civil marriage act of Canada has to say on the issue shall we?

Well let's see..

Just incase you're still not sure for some crazy reason the bill later on says:

So much for that Canadian pastor.
Ok, well things have apparently changed then (or he was wrong) but that's what i was told the entire two weeks i was there. Just curious, what about the calling somebody a faggot being a hate crime part. Is that false too?
I think you guys are missing the point... Homosexuality is a choice.

btw, LittlePound. You are so ignorant that it's disgusting.
thanks, it's nice to know

God doesn't hate gay people, he is just angery that they found a loop-hole in the system.
Way to steal material from Daniel Tosh...
haha... :thumb:
It just sickens me that a group of people can actually live with themselves for hating another group of people.

I bear no hate towards homosexuals. In fact, i have many gay friends and don't have a problem being around. But, even so, i still think that their choice to give in to homosexuality is a sin. However, it would be no different in God's eyes than if i went and looked at pRon, or lied to my parents, or stole something, etc.
Thumbs up for generalizations and overstatements.:thumb:

bleep_bloop

01-13-2007, 11:06 PM

I think you guys are missing the point... Homosexuality is a choice.

lol no homosexuality is not a choice, its not like someone wakes up one day and decides to be gay, its part of them. i have a friend thats gay and he says that its not his choice, he just is gay. so when people say being gay is a choice i dont know where the **** they're coming from and its a very uneducated statement to make. i just had to get that out of my system.

Steerpike

01-13-2007, 11:15 PM

But, even so, i still think that their choice to give in to homosexuality is a sin.

You will convince me that homosexuality is a choice the day you tell me that you are engaged in a never-ending mental and emotional struggle to keep yourself from giving into your desires to **** the long-haired warrior guy from The Mummy.

On second thought, you have to convince of the above as well as convince me that I'm going through the same thing. And since the long-haired warrior guy from The Mummy never factors into my various (and sticky) fantasies about Heather Graham, good luck.

faelun

01-13-2007, 11:23 PM

Gays threatening religious beliefs. :lol:

Christians say the darndest things.

I think that when you leave your house in the morning to go to work/school/etc, when you turn around and close/lock the front door, you should lock your religious beliefs at home too

i don't think i worded that as well as i could have but im sure you get the idea.

religion should not have any baring at all in politics, its like oil and water, they will never mix

Swill_Merchant

01-14-2007, 12:20 AM

Guys Lupus isn't saying he wouldn't hire homosexuals. He's just saying people should have the right to hire whomever they want, absed on any criteria they want. That's his point, not that there's anything wrong with gays. Whether you agree or disagree with him you should stop attacking him for being a homophobe since he isn't one. He's not saying there's anything wrong with gays, he's just defending an employer's right to be a complete idiot. Stop misrepresenting him and his argument.

Employers do have the ability to hire who they want. The article is based soley on barring a person determined on their sexual orientation. I don't see how we mis-represented his argument. Also, if you think he isn't a homophobe (I am going by what he has stated and a general interpretation of the feeling of the body) you should read some of his earlier posts, they seem like cut-dry bigotry to me. I think you should re-read the article before writing.

Mr. Ron

01-14-2007, 12:25 AM

I don't see how Christians/religious people could possibly NOT want gays in business for them. They seem to do splendidly if you take into consideration the recent events of a very successful gay man: Ted Haggard.

Blackichan

01-14-2007, 12:33 AM

You know how some arguments against gay marriage are it's a union in god's eyes or some jazz like that. How come no one complains when atheists get hitched?

Electronic Wolf

01-14-2007, 12:39 AM

I didn't know atheists could get married in churches. I know the Catholic church won't allow me to marry a Catholic in one of their churches because I passed on confirmation and couldn't be bothered to do that.

Blackichan

01-14-2007, 12:46 AM

I'm not talking about in churches. If a gay couple just wanted to get married by a judge or someone else who can conduct that ceremony. I think lot's of people would still be angry.

PERFECTXDARK

01-14-2007, 01:27 AM

Love is Love.

I dont think bibical scripts that we wrriten eons ago should state what happens today,I am a firm believer in god but not that gays should have rights.

Amit

01-14-2007, 01:31 AM

Love is Love.

I dont think bibical scripts that we wrriten eons ago should state what happens today,I am a firm believer in god but not that gays should have rights.

wait what

Surgicalgod

01-14-2007, 06:06 AM

I can't believe how retarded some people are ITT. I read up to page 5 and then skipped to the last page.

Going back to the original topic, I don't see how employing homosexuals would go against anyone's religious beliefs; and even if it does, it's still discriminatory. If my religion stated that I should never work with Jews, then no state should respect my beliefs and incorporate them in a new law allowing Muslim employers to reject Jewish applicants.

To ringworm: The Muslim cab driver comparison you made is not valid, I am against that, though.

Also, homosexuality is rarely a choice.

Auberge le Mouton Noir

01-14-2007, 08:37 AM

Gays threaten religious beliefs. Gay 'rights', rights they don't have, are just apart of the secular progressive attack on moralism in the West.

Yeah i mean mandatory homosexuality in the wwest is only a stone's throw away rite

Iskandar

01-14-2007, 09:08 AM

The people can't legitimately vote away the rights of minorities.
No, but a racist party would be legitimate so long as they didn't actually act outside the limits set on their governance.

RockAndRoll

01-14-2007, 09:52 AM

Ok, well things have apparently changed then (or he was wrong) but that's what i was told the entire two weeks i was there. Just curious, what about the calling somebody a faggot being a hate crime part. Is that false too?

Things haven't changed, they've always been that way he was just wrong. We don't throw people in jail for refusing to marry gays or for denouncing their lifestyle or anything like that. I don't know where this pastor got his information from but he was obviously very mistaken. Free Speech and Religious Freedom are protected in our charter of rights, the pastor was dead wrong.

Electronic Wolf

01-14-2007, 09:56 AM

Yeah i mean mandatory homosexuality in the wwest is only a stone's throw away rite

There was a proposition on the last vote to make homosexuality mandatory.

PerpetualBurn

01-14-2007, 10:07 AM

No, but a racist party would be legitimate so long as they didn't actually act outside the limits set on their governance.

A legitimate government can't really act in a racist way though, so to talk of them in such a way is moot.

Iskandar

01-14-2007, 10:10 AM

A legitimate government can't really act in a racist way though, so to talk of them in such a way is moot.
If there are limits on its power, no.

PerpetualBurn

01-14-2007, 10:14 AM

Well if the government starts deciding who gets human rights and who doesn't, I wouldn't really classify it as legitimate.

RockAndRoll

01-14-2007, 10:30 AM

Employers do have the ability to hire who they want. The article is based soley on barring a person determined on their sexual orientation.
Yes, and his argument was that an employer should be able to hire whomever they like based on any criteria they like, no matter how ridiculous.

I don't see how we mis-represented his argument.
Okay, I'll explain it then it's pretty simple. Lupus' argument isn't based on a hatred for gays, but on principles of a free market and the employers right to hire based on whatever criteria they want, race, creed, gender, sexual preferebce, anything. He's not saying he personally would not hire gays, or that gays can't do work properly. That is not his argument, you misrepresented it as such though.

Also, if you think he isn't a homophobe (I am going by what he has stated and a general interpretation of the feeling of the body) you should read some of his earlier posts, they seem like cut-dry bigotry to me.
Oh, really? Did you actually read his posts?

I think people should have the right to reject someone based on their sexual preference.
Now, you probably read this and went OMFG! a HOMOPHOBE! and failed to actually read the rest of his posts and his justification for his stance. Maybe you should have though because his other posts are full of beautiful little tid bits such as:

Basically I believe that people should have the right to disassociate themselves from whomever they want, no matter how stupid their reasons may be. My basis for that is that people don't have the right of employment, if they seek it they must do so on the agreed terms.
Oh look, he's not a biggot, he just believes that freedom of association should extend to the work place!

Not to mention that in some cases I'm sure there are advantages to hiring a straight person over a gay person.
Oh my god, he is a biggot! Or at least so it would appear if you didn't read the next sentence.
Probably some cases of the opposite as well.

But still, he probably thinks homos are disgusting and immoral!

You also seem to be under the impression that I'm a homophobe. I do not have anything against homosexuals, homosexuality etc. I do not find it disgusting or immoral

Oh, I guess maybe not. Well he says that but i bet he wouldn't hire a gay!

and I think choosing not to employ someone because of their sexuality is ridiculously stupid. That doesn't mean it should be illegal.
Oh, there goes that theory too I guess.

Lets even take a gander at the very post you quoted and see what Lupus has to say there

Hey, you hit the nail right on the head! They're homophobes and totally ignorant individuals! Now we're getting somewhere.
Not really. I believe we established that a couple of pages ago.
...
Which one do you hire?
The gay guy if you're smart. What does this have to do with anything?

Oh, look isn't that interesting, in that very post he says that homophobes are totally ignorant individuals and that he personally would hire a more qualified gay person over a straight person.

Ya, so as it turns out you did completely misrepresent his argument. You must feel like an idiot.
I think you should re-read the article before writing.
Lulz, yes, because clearly I'm the one in need of better reading comprehension skills.

moogoogaipan

01-14-2007, 10:35 AM

lol no homosexuality is not a choice, its not like someone wakes up one day and decides to be gay, its part of them. i have a friend thats gay and he says that its not his choice, he just is gay. so when people say being gay is a choice i dont know where the **** they're coming from and its a very uneducated statement to make. i just had to get that out of my system.

are you a dumbass and did you not read my entire post. It was a ****ING joke... smartass:thumb:

Quit having selective reading...
Some people are so dumb.

Swill_Merchant

01-14-2007, 10:43 AM

Yes, and his argument was that an employer should be able to hire whomever they like based on any criteria they like, no matter how ridiculous.

Okay, I'll explain it then it's pretty simple. Lupus' argument isn't based on a hatred for gays, but on principles of a free market and the employers right to hire based on whatever criteria they want, race, creed, gender, sexual preferebce, anything. He's not saying he personally would not hire gays, or that gays can't do work properly. That is not his argument, you misrepresented it as such though.

Oh, really? Did you actually read his posts?

Now, you probably read this and went OMFG! a HOMOPHOBE! and failed to actually read the rest of his posts and his justification for his stance. Maybe you should have though because his other posts are full of beautiful little tid bits such as:

Oh look, he's not a biggot, he just believes that freedom of association should extend to the work place!

Oh my god, he is a biggot! Or at least so it would appear if you didn't read the next sentence.

But still, he probably thinks homos are disgusting and immoral!

Oh, I guess maybe not. Well he says that but i bet he wouldn't hire a gay!

Oh, there goes that theory too I guess.

Lets even take a gander at the very post you quoted and see what Lupus has to say there

Oh, look isn't that interesting, in that very post he says that homophobes are totally ignorant individuals and that he personally would hire a more qualified gay person over a straight person.

Ya, so as it turns out you did completely misrepresent his argument. You must feel like an idiot.

Lulz, yes, because clearly I'm the one in need of better reading comprehension skills.

Well, I was owned! My apologies.