Tolerance: Allowing people to be who and what they are.

[Plasmaball]

section 7 of the civil rights act: EC. 2000e-2. [Section 703]

(a) Employer practices

It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or

(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.


Like it or not our laws apply to everyone.

thats thin..if you can prove it. Thats if he didnt sign in his contract a public speaking clause.

Highly unlikely since lawyers include those as a matter of course these days to protect the employer.

yeah..lawyers....all about the details....Had they not you would have seen Phil arguing this i assume.

 

[Mac1958]

No one is seeking to do any such thing, and no one is seeking to ‘shut down’ speech he doesn’t like.

In fact, quite the opposite is being advocated.

What is being advocated is a free, unbridled, full-throated exchange of ideas in the context of a free, private, and democratic society – nothing more.

That’s why there’s no such thing as ‘political correctness,’ because all views are valid, all ideas are equal, and all members of private society will evaluate the merits of the ideas and views expressed to determine what is appropriate and what is not.

One of the more inexplicable posts I've seen in a while.

First, on this ongoing attempt of yours to pretend that Political Correctness doesn't even exist, when people on your own side of the spectrum here are defending it; when it's not difficult to go to Dictionary.com or Google or any number of other sources to get both myriad descriptions and examples of PC. My guess is that, by pretending it doesn't exist you are trying to make it go away. Okay, certainly your call there, but it's just very odd to me.

See, we tend to assign terms to groups of behaviors. Examples might be the groups of behaviors that are collectively called dementia or prejudice or conservatism or liberalism or love. To a fairly well-defined group of behaviors we ascribe the term "Political Correctness". And I beg you, please don't insult me by going obtuse and asking for examples. We all know what I'm talking about, and I know you do, too.

But then you say the following, which caused my eyes to bug out my head like those of Marty Feldman:

"What is being advocated is a free, unbridled, full-throated exchange of ideas in the context of a free, private, and democratic society – nothing more.

"That’s why there’s no such thing as ‘political correctness,’ because all views are valid, all ideas are equal, and all members of private society will evaluate the merits of the ideas and views expressed to determine what is appropriate and what is not."

I am stunned. "Free, unbridled, full-throated exchange of ideas"? I assume you mean by those who are not intimidated into silence by others who would go after their livelihood or their reputation. Those who would immediately resort to shouts of "racist" and/or "homophobe" at the slightest excuse to intimidate their target, put them on the defensive and thereby control the conversation.

And "all views are valid, all ideas are equal"? This one may be even MORE stunning. Even your own allies on the Left would laugh you out of the auditorium with that one. Tell me how Rush Limbaugh qualifies, that should be amusing.

Maybe you were being facetious. But reading this attempt at altruistic tolerance is insulting if you're not playing around. You people proudly admit that you want to shut down speech of those with whom you disagree. The PC Police are intolerant and do NOT believe in a diversity of opinions.

Gawd, I hope I can un-see that post.

.

 

[Plasmaball]

And "all views are valid, all ideas are equal"? This one may be even MORE stunning. Even your own allies on the Left would laugh you out of the auditorium with that one. Tell me how Rush Limbaugh qualifies, that should be amusing.

thank the internet and fox news model.

political correctness does happen but these examples are not it. its fun repeating things that have already been answered.

 

[Plasmaball]

With a slight correction I have admitted it several times. Speech that denigrates and slows down progress.

There ya go, I appreciate your honesty.

I don't know what Plasmaball is so afraid of.

.

im for the free market to decide what happens. I really dont give a shit what you say out in public, just dont come crying like a little baby when the reaction is negative.

this isnt a free speech issue nor is any of this. Phil, and everyone else who the OP listed still have their freedom of speech intact. For the love of dogs you cant even get that right, how do you even expect to have any of the rest right?

I think you folks are genetically incapable of providing straight, honest responses.

Come on, say it: Just admit that you're willing to do whatever it legally takes to shut down speech that you don't like, to intimidate people into keeping their mouths shut, and to punish those who don't follow your rules.

Aren't you proud of that? What are you afraid of?

.

You folks? you know how many times i've gone into your threads you've made and gave you an actual answer when nobody else would give you the time of day Mac?
Numerous.

When you going to admit you would have sided with the crown?

 

[Katzndogz]

what civil right?

section 7 of the civil rights act: EC. 2000e-2. [Section 703]

(a) Employer practices

It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or

(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.


Like it or not our laws apply to everyone.

None of the above applies in this instance.

Not only does it not apply, but A&E already gave up any argument they might have had.

 

[Mac1958]

There ya go, I appreciate your honesty.

I don't know what Plasmaball is so afraid of.

.

im for the free market to decide what happens. I really dont give a shit what you say out in public, just dont come crying like a little baby when the reaction is negative.

I think you folks are genetically incapable of providing straight, honest responses.

Come on, say it: Just admit that you're willing to do whatever it legally takes to shut down speech that you don't like, to intimidate people into keeping their mouths shut, and to punish those who don't follow your rules.

Aren't you proud of that? What are you afraid of?

.

You folks? you know how many times i've gone into your threads you've made and gave you an actual answer when nobody else would give you the time of day Mac?
Numerous.

When you going to admit you would have sided with the crown?

Unlike you, I'm more than happy to provide straight answers. Just do me a favor and try to drag your question -- which even you admitted was "extreme" -- to within a few zip codes of the topic. You're putting so much effort into diversion that you're just not making sense.

Is the crown supposed to represent the PC Police or the rest of us?

Make some sense here and I'll try to give you a response.

.

 

[Plasmaball]

im for the free market to decide what happens. I really dont give a shit what you say out in public, just dont come crying like a little baby when the reaction is negative.

You folks? you know how many times i've gone into your threads you've made and gave you an actual answer when nobody else would give you the time of day Mac?
Numerous.

When you going to admit you would have sided with the crown?

Unlike you, I'm more than happy to provide straight answers. Just do me a favor and try to drag your question -- which even you admitted was "extreme" -- to within a few zip codes of the topic. You're putting so much effort into diversion that you're just not making sense.

Is the crown supposed to represent the PC Police or the rest of us?

Make some sense here and I'll try to give you a response.

.

everyone else got what i am saying. Ive also been very clear,and playing stupid might work on others.
its clear you rather just avoid any real challenge to your weak arguments.

 

[R.D.]

Your employer can make you sign a contract not to say anything that will cause your employer any loss of reputation and/or income and can legally terminate your employment if you violate that contract.

So if you work for ACME, inc and you go on Facebook or Twitter and post that ACME makes lousy explosives that always blow up in the coyote's face ACME can fire you.

Yes, those contracts actually exist and they are perfectly legal.

Red herring. His expressed views to GQ have zero reflection on A&E. They are not a competing religion or moral authority as much as they might like to believe

He was interviewed by GQ because he was employed by A&E. If he had been self employed there would have been no issue but he was an active employee of A&E at the time.

The only red herring is this deflection of yours into utter irrelevancy;

They are not a competing religion or moral authority as much as they might like to believe

That's just pure silliness.

Because he was employed by A&E is why they cannot fire him for his religious beliefs. That his association with the channel made him fodder is of no consequence where the law applies. A&E's attempt to stifle him backfired. Big time. Again

 

[Plasmaball]

Red herring. His expressed views to GQ have zero reflection on A&E. They are not a competing religion or moral authority as much as they might like to believe

He was interviewed by GQ because he was employed by A&E. If he had been self employed there would have been no issue but he was an active employee of A&E at the time.

The only red herring is this deflection of yours into utter irrelevancy;

They are not a competing religion or moral authority as much as they might like to believe

That's just pure silliness.

Because he was employed by A&E is why they cannot fire him for his religious beliefs. That his association with the channel made him fodder is of no consequence where the law applies. A&E's attempt to stifle him backfired. Big time. Again

how do you argue around the scores of lawyers who most likely covered this.

 

[R.D.]

irrelevant, you don't have the contract in front of you, thus you cant provide the actual section where he is allowed to do so. I can not provide evidence to the contrary, so its a moot point really.

No so. But do you honestly believe he signed aways his rights to express and practice his faith?

he didnt so irrelevant again.

So you think he signed a contract, lawfully dismissing his civil rights, but didn't?

 

[Mac1958]

Unlike you, I'm more than happy to provide straight answers. Just do me a favor and try to drag your question -- which even you admitted was "extreme" -- to within a few zip codes of the topic. You're putting so much effort into diversion that you're just not making sense.

Is the crown supposed to represent the PC Police or the rest of us?

Make some sense here and I'll try to give you a response.

.

everyone else got what i am saying. Ive also been very clear,and playing stupid might work on others.
its clear you rather just avoid any real challenge to your weak arguments.

Everyone? Huh? I went back a few pages and one leftwinger predictably thought your 1774 thing was delightful. Should I have kept going? Could you provide the posts in which everyone was getting what you're saying?

Or could you just re-phrase?

This diversionary stuff just gets old.

.

 

[Plasmaball]

No so. But do you honestly believe he signed aways his rights to express and practice his faith?

he didnt so irrelevant again.

So you think he signed a contract, lawfully dismissing his civil rights, but didn't?

nope but then he didnt have his violated.

 

[R.D.]

what civil right?

section 7 of the civil rights act: EC. 2000e-2. [Section 703]

(a) Employer practices

It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or

(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.


Like it or not our laws apply to everyone.

None of the above applies in this instance.

'Cause you say so?

Fact is they backed off, so you are actually right now.

 

[Plasmaball]

Unlike you, I'm more than happy to provide straight answers. Just do me a favor and try to drag your question -- which even you admitted was "extreme" -- to within a few zip codes of the topic. You're putting so much effort into diversion that you're just not making sense.

Is the crown supposed to represent the PC Police or the rest of us?

Make some sense here and I'll try to give you a response.

.

everyone else got what i am saying. Ive also been very clear,and playing stupid might work on others.
its clear you rather just avoid any real challenge to your weak arguments.

Everyone? Huh? I went back a few pages and one leftwinger predictably thought your 1774 thing was delightful. Should I have kept going? Could you provide the posts in which everyone was getting what you're saying?

Or could you just re-phrase?

This diversionary stuff just gets old.

.

i agree so can you stay on topic please.

im for the free market to decide what happens. I really dont give a shit what you say out in public, just dont come crying like a little baby when the reaction is negative.

thus proving you wrong...

when you going to admit you are a crown lover mac?

 

[Mac1958]

everyone else got what i am saying. Ive also been very clear,and playing stupid might work on others.
its clear you rather just avoid any real challenge to your weak arguments.

Everyone? Huh? I went back a few pages and one leftwinger predictably thought your 1774 thing was delightful. Should I have kept going? Could you provide the posts in which everyone was getting what you're saying?

Or could you just re-phrase?

This diversionary stuff just gets old.

.

i agree so can you stay on topic please.

im for the free market to decide what happens. I really dont give a shit what you say out in public, just dont come crying like a little baby when the reaction is negative.

thus proving you wrong...

when you going to admit you are a crown lover mac?

I guess this means you're not going to clarify your question, as I have now asked multiple times in multiple ways. Okay, I tried.

Yet another example of why it's essentially impossible to have an honest conversation with a partisan ideologue.

.

 

[R.D.]

he didnt so irrelevant again.

So you think he signed a contract, lawfully dismissing his civil rights, but didn't?

nope but then he didnt have his violated.

Right. They backed off.

 

[Derideo_Te]

section 7 of the civil rights act: EC. 2000e-2. [Section 703]

(a) Employer practices

It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or

(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.


Like it or not our laws apply to everyone.

None of the above applies in this instance.

'Cause you say so?

Fact is they backed off, so you are actually right now.

Onus is on you to prove relevancy. So far you haven't.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Red herring. His expressed views to GQ have zero reflection on A&E. They are not a competing religion or moral authority as much as they might like to believe

He was interviewed by GQ because he was employed by A&E. If he had been self employed there would have been no issue but he was an active employee of A&E at the time.

The only red herring is this deflection of yours into utter irrelevancy;

They are not a competing religion or moral authority as much as they might like to believe

That's just pure silliness.

Because he was employed by A&E is why they cannot fire him for his religious beliefs. That his association with the channel made him fodder is of no consequence where the law applies. A&E's attempt to stifle him backfired. Big time. Again

Only silliness is on your part by pretending that he was free to harm his employer.

 

[Plasmaball]

So you think he signed a contract, lawfully dismissing his civil rights, but didn't?

nope but then he didnt have his violated.

Right. They backed off.

but you dont know the reason why. His civil rights.....why am i repeating this to you? I know why because you want to be right.

 

[R.D.]

None of the above applies in this instance.

'Cause you say so?

Fact is they backed off, so you are actually right now.

Onus is on you to prove relevancy. So far you haven't.

Wrong.

They caved. There is nothing more to prove. The simple fact of the matter is they tried to play hard ball and lost. Big time.