Employment Non-Discrimination Act

[Kizzume]

So, please explain clearly--does this affect Churches, businesses in general, or religious stores? What are you referring to? Are you suggesting that as a Christian, you should have the right as an employer to not hire people (let's say, in some business at the mall or something) based on the fact that their lifestyle or way of looking at things goes against your belief? If that's the case, I will have to disagree highly--religious people should not get special rights over other groups of people to discriminate against others. If non-religious people can't discriminate, neither should religious people. If this ISN'T what's being talked about, please explain what you ARE talking about.

[technocrat]

Um, no, I wasn't going to post in this thread; I said nothing about other threads. But now that you continue to fapping wildly to your own delusions of adequacy, I might as well. I was simply ignoring this thread and posting on others.

Returning to the point:


The argument that the first amendment gives employers open to the public the right to discriminate based on sexuality due to religious doctrine is absolute in its absurdity. It is without legal or ethical basis. Freedom of Religion has limitations. If Bob, the owner of Pizza Hut, claimed his religion forbade women to work there, it would be invalid to invoke the first amendment to defend a no-females hiring policy because It conveys no such protection.


If you allow employers to discriminate based on religious values, which are inherently irrational and without basis, then there's no inherent barrier to allowing any other religion to do the same thing with any other group it arbitrarily selects out. Applying your logic, someone could ban Christians from employment at the Days Inn if the owner's religion mandated it. That's ridiculous and already illegal. The problem is that the proponents of discrimination do not wish to look at or evenly apply their logic, so they segment it.

The only time you may discriminate is if you can show there is a genuine conflict between the worker's ability to do the job and the position. Simply being "gay" or "female" is not a valid justification for either firing or failing to hire either one. Period. There is no reason why being "gay" should be allowed a reason to fail to hire or to fire. A gay Christian can just as well work at Pizza Hut or any other establishment as well as any other employee. YOu merely want the special ability via your religion to discriminate whereas no other employer for any other group has this right.

IF we said "religion" allows discrimination of women, there would be an uproar, but if it's gay people, that's a-ok according to Christians who claim to love and tolerate everyone. In reality, it's quite obvious that "toleration" = letting Christians do whatever they want to anyone they want and "respecting" it because religion is sacred and cannot be questioned. Bullshit. Ain't gonna fly son.

[technocrat]

kizzume said:

So, please explain clearly--does this affect Churches, businesses in general, or religious stores? What are you referring to? Are you suggesting that as a Christian, you should have the right as an employer to not hire people (let's say, in some business at the mall or something) based on the fact that their lifestyle or way of looking at things goes against your belief? If that's the case, I will have to disagree highly--religious people should not get special rights over other groups of people to discriminate against others. If non-religious people can't discriminate, neither should religious people. If this ISN'T what's being talked about, please explain what you ARE talking about.

Fuzzy wuzzy w0ot. =D

That is all.

[Kizzume]

technocrat said:

Um, no, I wasn't going to post in this thread; I said nothing about other threads. But now that you continue to fapping wildly to your own delusions of adequacy, I might as well. I was simply ignoring this thread and posting on others.

Returning to the point:


The argument that the first amendment gives employers open to the public the right to discriminate based on sexuality due to religious doctrine is absolute in its absurdity. It is without legal or ethical basis. Freedom of Religion has limitations. If Bob, the owner of Pizza Hut, claimed his religion forbade women to work there, it would be invalid to invoke the first amendment to defend a no-females hiring policy because It conveys no such protection.


If you allow employers to discriminate based on religious values, which are inherently irrational and without basis, then there's no inherent barrier to allowing any other religion to do the same thing with any other group it arbitrarily selects out. Applying your logic, someone could ban Christians from employment at the Days Inn if the owner's religion mandated it. That's ridiculous and already illegal. The problem is that the proponents of discrimination do not wish to look at or evenly apply their logic, so they segment it.

The only time you may discriminate is if you can show there is a genuine conflict between the worker's ability to do the job and the position. Simply being "gay" or "female" is not a valid justification for either firing or failing to hire either one. Period. There is no reason why being "gay" should be allowed a reason to fail to hire or to fire. A gay Christian can just as well work at Pizza Hut or any other establishment as well as any other employee. YOu merely want the special via your religion to discriminate whereas no other employer for any other group has this right.

IF we said "religion" allows discrimination of women, there would be an uproar, but if it's gay people, that's a-ok according to Christians who claim to love and tolerate everyone. In reality, it's quite obvious that "toleration" = letting Christians do whatever they want to anyone they want and "respecting" it because religion is sacred and cannot be questions. Bullshit. Ain't gonna fly son.

I agree with what you're saying, however, the first paragraph really was unnecessary.

If we are to allow religious people to discriminate against whatever they want based on their religion, we need to allow EVERYONE to discriminate against whatever they want based on anything. We can't give religious people special rights over everyone else--that truly IS absurdity.

Now, this may be talking about something else entirely, I don't know, but in this instance, I can't see this as being anti-religious UNLESS it is something that affects the way churches operate. I haven't been able to find anything in this that suggests that, so I'm really not sure what the disapproval is about this. I definitely don't think religious people should have special rights over anyone else, but I also don't think religion should be eliminated from everywhere either.

[technocrat]

[quote[I agree with what you're saying, however, the first paragraph really was unnecessary.[/quote]

Their comments were unnecessary too.

[Kizzume]

They're not the ones who went on the attack first. Sorry. It's all right there for everyone to see. Yes, what they said was unnecessary, but it was merely a response. I suppose what you said was merely a response too--I'll try to give you that.

How did you feel about the rest of my response?

[technocrat]

My arguments were logical, fact-based, though. Theirs were purely ad hominems thrown against me in a pathetic effort to bypass what I am saying by attacking me with made up nonsense about smurfs. My "attacks" merely sound nasty, but they aren't actually personal attacks against them until they do that to me. When I trounce their arguments, they just turn around and try to switch the target to me and psychoanalyze why I am saying something. That's irritating.

[Kizzume]

What you STILL don't realize is that your "attacks" from everyone's perspective but yours really were attacks. You just don't seem to understand that. You may believe that you are more right than others, but unless you treat people as equals, much of your posts in the subject of religion are going to be taken as attacks. You put down people's intelligence over and over again, and that is not going to be reacted to very pleasantly. That's irritating.

If you can stop the slander, I'm sure everyone will stop the attacks--but you need to prove that you can stop the slanderous comments. That is why I mentioned that part of the sentence being unnecessary.

Notice, I only mentioned THAT initially, then went into how good your post was. Your post #61 was really good, but let's stop derailing things every time someone has a problem with your wording.

We're not going to go back to read through the hatred to see the meat and potatoes. If you want us to look at the meat and potatoes, tell it to us in a way that we're willing to read in its entirity, like you did in post #61.

[jq]

*sigh*

There must be a way to talk about these subjects without it getting this way. It feels almost ironic for it to be in the "deep cleansing" section, as the way these discussions turn out hardly ever "cleanse." It seems more like they rot and decay. (In my opinion, "deep cleansing" should be changed to "rot and decay.")

[Kizzume]

I still want to know from Hackfest what part of the non-discrimination act he has a hard time with.

[technocrat]

The fact that it disallows him, as an employer, to discriminate. That IS the problem. He wants a special right to discriminate based on religious rules.

[Kizzume]

That's what I'm assuming at this time, but until I see it written I'm going to give my assumption as much weight as a grain of salt.