RodISHI
Platinum Member
- Nov 29, 2008
- 25,786
- 11,301
- 940
If someone comes to you and applies for a job saying they are gay they are not there for the job but for an agenda.
Honest Questions For Religious Conservatives About LBGT
- Thread starter wjmacguffin
- Start date
-
- Tags
- conservatism lbgtq religion
BulletProof
Silver Member
- Jul 27, 2017
- 2,659
- 218
- 90
I'm not aware of any anti-discrimination laws forcing people hire liars or adulterers, let alone forcing them to assist in their immorality.
Jesus didn't spend time with sinners. The lying Jews accused him of spending time with sinners... but they were lying Jews.
Most Christians are completely willing to hire a homo, as long as the homo doesn't bring his perversion to work. There are some jobs where a homo can't sufficiently separate his private perverse lifestyle from the job, such as married homo wanting to teach children in school. No Christian school should be forced to hire homosexuals. For that matter, every employer should for allowed to hire anyone they want, for any reason. It's their business, not yours.
Liberals deserve no respect. Liberals discriminate all the time against Christians for their beliefs, while denying it's religious discrimination. But, if a Christian school fired a homosexual for comments to students, for saying to the class that homosexuality isn't a sin, liberals would be yelling that it's discrimination against homosexuals.
Last edited:
TheProgressivePatriot
Platinum Member
Sodomites? Are you fucking serious with that clap trap? Why not give the Constitution break?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Crixus
Gold Member
1. Remarrying is not a sin. More reading should be done there. There is also a huge misunderstanding about the commandments.
2. Jesus loves gay people to.do some reading and you will understand more fuller why jesus spent time with folks who were considered bad. Gas as sin gos, sin is sin. A little white lie is as bad as murder. Any Christian who says different should be ignored completely.
3. No. The Bible is full of excamples of the Jews doing business with nonbelievers, and they are even commanded to deal with them fairly. Read about the building of the temple, and where that got the building materials. Gay is fine for gay people. Who they are attracted to is no concern of mine. Do whatever. Just don’t try and convince me. I’m sure you are an awesome dude or dudette but pleas just leave it at that.
raina_kk
Rookie
- Oct 7, 2017
- 3
- 0
- 1
This may be generally unrelated, but how does the conservative party fit in with the whole "separation of church and state" thing? I've heard so many Republican politicians say they will enforce "Christian and Family Values," but I'm genuinely confused because I would assume that political parties avoid associating themselves with any religion as too not alienate voters?
Just wondering
Just wondering
raina_kk
Rookie
- Oct 7, 2017
- 3
- 0
- 1
The scientific definition of sex refers to the biological and physiological characteristics that define men and women, while gender refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for men and women. This is directly from the World Health Organization
So therefore, since gender is inherently a spectrum it is entirely possible to feel like you fit better into different roles and attributes, or even just a little more towards the other side of the spectrum (such as tomboys or feminine guys).
jc456
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2013
- 151,369
- 35,017
- 2,180
Sodomi, many don’t approve it’s fking messed up.
whitehall
Diamond Member
Sodomites enjoy the greatest freedom of the greatest Country in the world. Freakazoids parade in the streets without fear of reprisal from the government but a kid with a Bible might be detained by government officials in some areas. .
jc456
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2013
- 151,369
- 35,017
- 2,180
What’s that
Johann
Silver Member
- Nov 6, 2015
- 620
- 143
- 90
Depends on the job.
Being gay might be a bonus in some jobs. That way they know you'll be enthusiastic about your work.
TheProgressivePatriot
Platinum Member
Thank you for confirming your pathetic, willful ignorance and bigotry
JoeB131
Diamond Member
I agree, but it shouldn't be like that. Personally, I think every company should have a union, and if they pull shit like that, there should be consequences.
Breaking some manager legs in the parking lot would also be acceptable.
The Professor
Diamond Member
- Mar 4, 2011
- 16,752
- 25,011
- 2,405
TO THE OP:
Trump did not reverse anti-discrimination employment rules for gay folks as you claim. He does not possess the authority to do that. You didn't provide a link and the only thing I could find on the internet was this:
“Without being asked, the Justice Department intervened in a private employment lawsuit on Wednesday, arguing that the ban on sex discrimination in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not protect workers on the basis of their sexual orientation. The friend-of-the-court brief, filed at the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York, was a striking shift in tone from the Obama administration, which had shied away from that question.”
In One Day, Trump Administration Lands 3 Punches Against Gay Rights
Trump's Justice Department filed a friend of the court brief, but it is the court which will decide the law. The question is whether discrimination based on sexual orientation is a violation of Title VII of the Civil rights Act of 1964. Lower courts have issued conflicting opinions on this issue and the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has not made a decision on the issue. However in the case of Price Waterhouse v Hopkins the SCOTUS concluded that discrimination based upon sexual stereotypes is a violation of Title VII. The case involved a woman who was denied a promotion because he employer thought she was not feminine enough in the way she walked, talked, dressed and acted. Here are the details:
“Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989). The Supreme Court recognized that employment discrimination based on sex stereotypes (e.g., assumptions and/or expectations about how persons of a certain sex should dress, behave, etc.) is unlawful sex discrimination under Title VII. Price Waterhouse had denied Ann Hopkins a promotion in part because other partners at the firm felt that she did not act as woman should act. She was told, among other things, that she needed to "walk more femininely, talk more femininely, [and] dress more femininely" in order to secure a partnership. Id. at 230-31, 235. The Court found that this constituted evidence of sex discrimination as "n the . . . context of sex stereotyping, an employer who acts on the basis of a belief that a woman cannot be aggressive, or that she must not be, has acted on the basis of gender." Id. at 250. The Court further explained that Title VII's "because of sex" provision strikes at the "entire spectrum of disparate treatment of men and women resulting from sex stereotypes." Id. (quoting City of Los Angeles Dep't of Water & Power v. Manhart, 435 U.S. 702, 707 n.13 (1978) (internal citation omitted)).”
Examples of Court Decisions Holding LGBT-Related Discrimination Actionable Under Title VII
(Note: The above link also gives examples of lower court rulings showing that sexual orientation is protected against discrimination.)
It seems to me me that if discrimination based upon sexual stereotyping is a violation of Title VII so would discrimination based upon sexual orientation. After all, the disparate treatment of gays and lesbians is based upon their non-conformity to the stereotype of what others expect their sexual behavior to be. I expect the SCOTUS to find that sexual orientation is afforded the full protections of Title VII. Further the SCOTUS has shown that they generally give deference to rulings made by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and The EEOC has already taken a position that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act affords protection from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
“In 2012, David Baldwin, a federal employee, filed an administrative charge of discrimination with the EEOC, alleging he was discriminated against because of his sex and sexual orientation. Specifically, Baldwin alleged he was denied a promotion because he is gay. In its decision, the EEOC relied upon the existing prohibition on discrimination based on sex-based stereotypes or assumptions, concluding it “applies equally in claims brought by lesbian, gay and bisexual individuals under Title VII.” According to the EEOC, “sexual orientation is inseparable from and inescapably linked to sex.” Without resolving the merits of the claim, the EEOC ultimately found that “sexual orientation is inherently a ‘sex-based consideration,’ and an allegation of discrimination based on sexual orientation is necessarily an allegation of sex discrimination under Title VII.” See Baldwin v. Foxx, FAA-2012-24738 (EEOC June 15, 2015).”
EEOC says sexual orientation protected under Title VII | JD Supra
Conclusion: The lower courts are in disagreement regarding whether discrimination based upon sexual orientation is a violation of Title VII. The SCOTUS has not addressed the issue head on; however, the Court has found discrimination based upon sex stereotyping to be a violation of Title VII and in my opinion it is impossible to separate sexual orientation from sexual stereotyping. The EEOC has already ruled that discrimination based upon sexual orientation is a violation of Title VII and the SCOTUS usually goes along with the EEOC in matters of policy.
When the SCOTUS gave gays the right to marry, most legal scholars believed the Court's decision did not make homosexuals a protected class (and thus subject to the provisions of Title VII). However, the Court's advisory opinion in Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Serv. seems to say that gays are in fact afforded such protection. Unfortunately, the SCOTUS did not rule on the case, electing instead to remand it to the lower court for further consideration; however, the EEOC leaves no doubt that gays are afforded the same protections under Title VII as any other protected class. Where will it end? I predict that if SCOTUS issues a final ruling on the issue, Title VII will be expanded to include protections for sexual orientation.
Of course, that is only my humble opinion. OK, I lied about the humble part.
Trump did not reverse anti-discrimination employment rules for gay folks as you claim. He does not possess the authority to do that. You didn't provide a link and the only thing I could find on the internet was this:
“Without being asked, the Justice Department intervened in a private employment lawsuit on Wednesday, arguing that the ban on sex discrimination in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not protect workers on the basis of their sexual orientation. The friend-of-the-court brief, filed at the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York, was a striking shift in tone from the Obama administration, which had shied away from that question.”
In One Day, Trump Administration Lands 3 Punches Against Gay Rights
Trump's Justice Department filed a friend of the court brief, but it is the court which will decide the law. The question is whether discrimination based on sexual orientation is a violation of Title VII of the Civil rights Act of 1964. Lower courts have issued conflicting opinions on this issue and the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has not made a decision on the issue. However in the case of Price Waterhouse v Hopkins the SCOTUS concluded that discrimination based upon sexual stereotypes is a violation of Title VII. The case involved a woman who was denied a promotion because he employer thought she was not feminine enough in the way she walked, talked, dressed and acted. Here are the details:
“Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989). The Supreme Court recognized that employment discrimination based on sex stereotypes (e.g., assumptions and/or expectations about how persons of a certain sex should dress, behave, etc.) is unlawful sex discrimination under Title VII. Price Waterhouse had denied Ann Hopkins a promotion in part because other partners at the firm felt that she did not act as woman should act. She was told, among other things, that she needed to "walk more femininely, talk more femininely, [and] dress more femininely" in order to secure a partnership. Id. at 230-31, 235. The Court found that this constituted evidence of sex discrimination as "n the . . . context of sex stereotyping, an employer who acts on the basis of a belief that a woman cannot be aggressive, or that she must not be, has acted on the basis of gender." Id. at 250. The Court further explained that Title VII's "because of sex" provision strikes at the "entire spectrum of disparate treatment of men and women resulting from sex stereotypes." Id. (quoting City of Los Angeles Dep't of Water & Power v. Manhart, 435 U.S. 702, 707 n.13 (1978) (internal citation omitted)).”
Examples of Court Decisions Holding LGBT-Related Discrimination Actionable Under Title VII
(Note: The above link also gives examples of lower court rulings showing that sexual orientation is protected against discrimination.)
It seems to me me that if discrimination based upon sexual stereotyping is a violation of Title VII so would discrimination based upon sexual orientation. After all, the disparate treatment of gays and lesbians is based upon their non-conformity to the stereotype of what others expect their sexual behavior to be. I expect the SCOTUS to find that sexual orientation is afforded the full protections of Title VII. Further the SCOTUS has shown that they generally give deference to rulings made by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and The EEOC has already taken a position that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act affords protection from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
“In 2012, David Baldwin, a federal employee, filed an administrative charge of discrimination with the EEOC, alleging he was discriminated against because of his sex and sexual orientation. Specifically, Baldwin alleged he was denied a promotion because he is gay. In its decision, the EEOC relied upon the existing prohibition on discrimination based on sex-based stereotypes or assumptions, concluding it “applies equally in claims brought by lesbian, gay and bisexual individuals under Title VII.” According to the EEOC, “sexual orientation is inseparable from and inescapably linked to sex.” Without resolving the merits of the claim, the EEOC ultimately found that “sexual orientation is inherently a ‘sex-based consideration,’ and an allegation of discrimination based on sexual orientation is necessarily an allegation of sex discrimination under Title VII.” See Baldwin v. Foxx, FAA-2012-24738 (EEOC June 15, 2015).”
EEOC says sexual orientation protected under Title VII | JD Supra
Conclusion: The lower courts are in disagreement regarding whether discrimination based upon sexual orientation is a violation of Title VII. The SCOTUS has not addressed the issue head on; however, the Court has found discrimination based upon sex stereotyping to be a violation of Title VII and in my opinion it is impossible to separate sexual orientation from sexual stereotyping. The EEOC has already ruled that discrimination based upon sexual orientation is a violation of Title VII and the SCOTUS usually goes along with the EEOC in matters of policy.
When the SCOTUS gave gays the right to marry, most legal scholars believed the Court's decision did not make homosexuals a protected class (and thus subject to the provisions of Title VII). However, the Court's advisory opinion in Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Serv. seems to say that gays are in fact afforded such protection. Unfortunately, the SCOTUS did not rule on the case, electing instead to remand it to the lower court for further consideration; however, the EEOC leaves no doubt that gays are afforded the same protections under Title VII as any other protected class. Where will it end? I predict that if SCOTUS issues a final ruling on the issue, Title VII will be expanded to include protections for sexual orientation.
Of course, that is only my humble opinion. OK, I lied about the humble part.
Last edited:
jknowgood
Diamond Member
He left out that little fact, why am I not surprised.
jknowgood
Diamond Member
I don't remember the baker telling the queers you have to worship my God. All he did was tell them he couldn't bake a cake for their wedding. He sold them everyday pastries.
jknowgood
Diamond Member
You haven't seen the hate on here? I don't agree with the gay lifestyle, but they have the right to be happy. I have never done anything against a queer, I treat them with total respect. But since I disagree with the lifestyle, I am on here considered a homophobe. Just like I disagree with liberals, but some of my best friends are liberal.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
-
-
US will impose 500% tariffs on anyone who buys putin´s oil, says Senator Richard Blumenthal.- Started by Litwin
- Replies: 7
Latest Discussions
-
All The News Anti-Palestinian Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss- Latest: P F Tinmore
-
-
