Religious Freedom or Discrimination

[Taomon]

Your response has nothing to do with my post.

However, a church or private industry should be able to hire or not hire whoever they want. The government has no right to interfere in either.

And I especially like the ones like you always preaching how Christians are trying to force their views on others, but look at what YOU want to do ... force YOUR views on Christians.

There already are homosexuals in the military and it's just fine as it is. Regardless sexual orientation, they are there to serve first. People who define themselves or their service by their sexual orientation are NOT there to serve first. Obviously they are first slave to their sexual orientation.

Forcing my views on Christian? Making sure that a candidate for a job is not descriminated against based on race, religion, sexual orientation, sex, political beliefs and so on is not me forcing my views...it is the law protec ting individual rights.

 

[Taomon]

In other words, I don't give a rat's ass what your sexual orientation is. It's none of my, nor anyone else's business.

Yet another double standard of yours ... It's none of my business what goes on behind closed doors between two consenting adults, but you're just fine and dandy with them announcing it to the world; which, makes it my business because it's no longer behind closed doors.

So long as they keep it hidden.

 

[mattskramer]

Wrong, that is the definition of discrimination. Choosing not to hire a good candidate for a job because of race, sexual orientation, religion and political beliefs is not only illegal, it is unethical. And a church should be held to a higher ethical standard.

I don’t know to what degree tie EEOC applies to private organizations bout I think that people should be free to discriminate however they see fit today. Let the relatively free market place decide what organization made the right choice.

 

[Taomon]

I don’t know to what degree tie EEOC applies to private organizations bout I think that people should be free to discriminate however they see fit today. Let the relatively free market place decide what organization made the right choice.

I hope that is sarcasm

 

[mattskramer]

So long as they keep it hidden.

Let people know how they made the choices they made. If I don’t like an organization to keep its selection process private, I’ll go elsewhere. If I think that an organization is poorly racist, I’ll go elsewhere. If I’m racist and like racist organizations, I’ll go to them. Let people and organizations do what they want in this topic.

 

[Gunny]

So long as they keep it hidden.

Perhaps you think it's fine and dandy to announce the goings on in your bedroom to the world, but I do not. It's tasteless and shows a lack of repect for your spouse.

You can try and politicize and twist all you want but I hold ALL people -- not just your precious sexual deviants -- to the same standard. Start flapping your gums around me about what-all you did with MaryJane Rottencrotch and I'm going to tell you to take your conversation elsewhere just as fast as I would if you were talking about what-all you did with Jody.

Get it?

 

[Taomon]

Let people know how they made the choices they made. If I don’t like an organization to keep its selection process private, I’ll go elsewhere. If I think that an organization is poorly racist, I’ll go elsewhere. If I’m racist and like racist organizations, I’ll go to them. Let people and organizations do what they want in this topic.

There is a reason why the civil rights movement happened. The Constitution was stale-mated bigotted organizations and individuals for decades. The reason why the civil rights movement was as successful as it was is because the philosophy behind it is correct. Your posts are not.

You as an individual can be a racist all you want. That is your free will. But in order for a business to operate under US regulations, and churches are businesses as well, they are not allowed to discriminate.

That is the law.

 

[Taomon]

Perhaps you think it's fine and dandy to announce the goings on in your bedroom to the world, but I do not. It's tasteless and shows a lack of repect for your spouse.

You can try and politicize and twist all you want but I hold ALL people -- not just your precious sexual deviants -- to the same standard. Start flapping your gums around me about what-all you did with MaryJane Rottencrotch and I'm going to tell you to take your conversation elsewhere just as fast as I would if you were talking about what-all you did with Jody.

Get it?

To be openly gay does not mean that intimate details of homosexual acts are graphically described to passersby on the street.

Where do you come up with that shit?

Knowing or sensing that someone is a homosexual, while interviewing an applicant, and then basing a decision solely on that is wrong...and that is the point gunny.

 

[mattskramer]

There is a reason why the civil rights movement happened. The Constitution was stale-mated bigotted organizations and individuals for decades. The reason why the civil rights movement was as successful as it was is because the philosophy behind it is correct. Your posts are not.

You as an individual can be a racist all you want. That is your free will. But in order for a business to operate under US regulations, and churches are businesses as well, they are not allowed to discriminate.

That is the law.

Years, decades, ago affirmative action and reverse discrimination may have been warranted to help break the cycle of racial poverty. We needed the “civil rights movement” This is 2008. The days of such strong and wide-spread unnecessarily racist practices are over for the most part. Let organizations discriminate however they want. If a racist employer rejects a highly qualified Black person and hires a less qualified White person, his non-racist competitor will pick up the Black person and together they will outperform the racist employer. It is as simple as that.

If church “A” won’t have a homosexual and I want to attend a church that admits homosexuals, then I’ll go to church “B”. If I can’t find any church that admits homosexuals, I will look for people who think that there should be such a church and we will create one.

 

[Taomon]

Years, decades, ago affirmative action and reverse discrimination may have been warranted to help break the cycle of racial poverty. We needed the “civil rights movement” This is 2008. The days of such strong and wide-spread unnecessarily racist practices are over for the most part. Let organizations discriminate however they want. If a racist employer rejects a highly qualified Black person and hires a less qualified White person, his non-racist competitor will pick up the Black person and together they will outperform the racist employer. It is as simple as that.

If church “A” won’t have a homosexual and I want to attend a church that admits homosexuals, then I’ll go to church “B”. If I can’t find any church that admits homosexuals, I will look for people who think that there should be such a church and we will create one.

Your logic is so 1950's. There is never a good time to freely discriminate. You are not black, gay, or female and would not know what it is to be treated different because of any one of those traits so you smugly sit there and make false ruminations based on neo-con ideology as opposed to being based on facts.

 

[Foxfyre]

Years, decades, ago affirmative action and reverse discrimination may have been warranted to help break the cycle of racial poverty. We needed the “civil rights movement” This is 2008. The days of such strong and wide-spread unnecessarily racist practices are over for the most part. Let organizations discriminate however they want. If a racist employer rejects a highly qualified Black person and hires a less qualified White person, his non-racist competitor will pick up the Black person and together they will outperform the racist employer. It is as simple as that.

If church “A” won’t have a homosexual and I want to attend a church that admits homosexuals, then I’ll go to church “B”. If I can’t find any church that admits homosexuals, I will look for people who think that there should be such a church and we will create one.

If Church A or B won't admit homosexuals I'd look for a new church. If homosexuality is a sin, then church is surely the place they belong. If homosexuality is not a sin, then there is surely no reason to exclude them. I think it is stupid to hire an openly gay person as a role model for heterosexual young people as much as it would be stupid to hire a heterosexual to be a counselor for a gay teen support group. I would't want to work for an organization that excluded black people; on the other hand I have worked for organizations that were required to hire X number of black people to suitably 'diversify' the work force. Because there didn't happen to be any qualified black people at the time, the result was disastrous for all concerned, including the black people.

In other words, there is rational discrimination and there is irrational discrimination. Rational discrimination can make a lot of practical sense and can even be necessary. Irrational discrimination is always born of ignorant prejudice and/or unjustified hate.

 

[mattskramer]

If Church A or B won't admit homosexuals I'd look for a new church. If homosexuality is a sin, then church is surely the place they belong. If homosexuality is not a sin, then there is surely no reason to exclude them. I think it is stupid to hire an openly gay person as a role model for heterosexual young people as much as it would be stupid to hire a heterosexual to be a counselor for a gay teen support group. I would't want to work for an organization that excluded black people; on the other hand I have worked for organizations that were required to hire X number of black people to suitably 'diversify' the work force. Because there didn't happen to be any qualified black people at the time, the result was disastrous for all concerned, including the black people.

In other words, there is rational discrimination and there is irrational discrimination. Rational discrimination can make a lot of practical sense and can even be necessary. Irrational discrimination is always born of ignorant prejudice and/or unjustified hate.

Yep. I agree. I think that people should be free to irrationally discriminate. “Dare to be stupid”. What goes around comes around. The one that discriminates irrationally will be defeated by the one that discriminates rationally. Let the people decide with their pocketbook.

 

[Taomon]

Yep. I agree. I think that people should be free to irrationally discriminate. “Dare to be stupid”. What goes around comes around. The one that discriminates irrationally will be defeated by the one that discriminates rationally. Let the people decide with their pocketbook.

No matter who it harms in the meantime?

 

[mattskramer]

No matter who it harms in the meantime?

Yeah. I guess so. Years ago racism and irrational discrimination might hurt the minority – the one being discriminated against. Today, on average, all things considered, ultimately, I think that it is more likely to hurt the one who discriminates.

 

[Taomon]

Yeah. I guess so. Years ago racism and irrational discrimination might hurt the minority – the one being discriminated against. Today, on average, all things considered, ultimately, I think that it is more likely to hurt the one who discriminates.

That doesn't justify allowing people to discriminate (to root them out?). Again, you have to walk a mile in their shoes first.

 

[Foxfyre]

No matter who it harms in the meantime?

Harm comes with many different faces these days.

Affirmative action was once necessary to break down artificial barriers created by irrational prejudice, fear, and hatred. Those battles have been won, but at a cost of emerging new irrational discrimination.

Black rap singers can use all kinds of inflammatory, hateful, disrespectful, demeaning lanaguage toward anybody in their lyrics and do so with impunity. A talk show guy does an innocent 'nappy headed hos' quip intended as humor, and he is thrown off the airways.

A white guy isn't allowed to say what a noose or confederate flag, neither of which has any racial connotations to him whatsoever, mean to him. If he displays either he is branded as a racist. In many circles a black guy isn't allowed to dress up in a nice business suit, speak good English, and relate to others with "Miss Manners" ettiquete. If he does he is accused of being an "oreo" or 'acting white, which is a betrayal of his people', or he is a 'hanky head'.

One group on one hand demeans and denigrates marriage as a dying institution but militantly demand that gays be able to use the word and refuse any compromise that would meet the needs/wants of both groups. Others rightfully recognize that to change what marriage is would in fact for all practical purposes destroy marriage as an institution, but rather than work out compromises for homosexuals and heterosexuals alike, they block efforts to help gay couples to solve real issues such as right of inheritance, hospital visitation privileges, etc.

In my view this kind of stuff trivializes real racism and discrimination and creates huge barriers to eliminating racist or bigoted attitudes from our culture. At what point will we stop this kind of insane stupidity, let people be offended when it is only words, get past semantics so that we can solve real problems, and exercise some common sense again?

 

[Gunny]

I hope that is sarcasm

Why? Who are you to think you can dictate who one can and cannot hire?

 

[Gunny]

To be openly gay does not mean that intimate details of homosexual acts are graphically described to passersby on the street.

Where do you come up with that shit?

Knowing or sensing that someone is a homosexual, while interviewing an applicant, and then basing a decision solely on that is wrong...and that is the point gunny.

Yes it does. It means you're telling me more than I need or want to know.

What are you calling shit? The fact that it isn't okay IMO to be "openly" anything that is compleltey irrelevant to anything I need to know?

If you don't tell me, then I cannot discriminate. The fact that you fill out an application means I'm going to discriminate. If that application doesn't ask "Are you gay or straight?" then you volunteering information I don't need is YOUR fault.

In addition, it is NOT your place to tell me who I can and cannot hire based on YOUR agenda.

 

[Taomon]

Why? Who are you to think you can dictate who one can and cannot hire?

Because discrimination is against the law and an actionable (civil lawsuit) offense.

Where have you been?

 

[Taomon]

Yes it does. It means you're telling me more than I need or want to know.

What are you calling shit? The fact that it isn't okay IMO to be "openly" anything that is compleltey irrelevant to anything I need to know?

If you don't tell me, then I cannot discriminate. The fact that you fill out an application means I'm going to discriminate. If that application doesn't ask "Are you gay or straight?" then you volunteering information I don't need is YOUR fault.

In addition, it is NOT your place to tell me who I can and cannot hire based on YOUR agenda.

Fine gunny, discriminate against someone and find out what happens. But someone announcing that he or she is gay is not the same as them telling someone intimate details of their sexual escapades. Nor does that mean that they will. You obviously do not know any gay people. You are basing your ideology on paranoid bigotry.