Well you summarized the issue, but avoided drawing the obvious conclusion. On a personal level the right to discriminate is essential - you want to choose your personal friends and associates. On a business level that right does not exist in the Constitution, at least as generally interpreted even though Churches get to be exempted there for some reason, and so most businesses do not get to discriminate against individuals.
Oh and quit with the silly democracy = mob nonsense.
I'm assuming these laws apply to the majority of businesses because they are legal entities, therefore they are entangled with state and federal regulation.
Fair enough, but I think that the problem is that the current laws are still a bit patchy in this area - hence initiatives such as the subject of this thread to clarify and strengthen them.
Fred, please tell me where this of no discrimination concept is stated in the Constitution? I think the Constitution says "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." I also believe the Constitution is mute on the concept of fairness, equality or a host of other things people have come to view as rights. Does the Constitutionke give me the right to discriminate? it does give me the right to associate with who ever I see fit - which seems discriminatory to me! If you give me the load of crap that the Constitution is a living document - to paraphrase Tom Jefferson, if you believe the Constitution is a flexible document, beware because it can be stretched to become what have someone wants it to be. Just look at the Oregon and Colorado bakers who are now forced to bake goods which directly flies in the face of their sincerely held religious beliefs. My gosh, fines of a $135,000 and being forced to attend re-education programs. This sounds more like Stalinist Russia than the land of Liberty.
As for the Houston statutes. I believe the mayor demanded preachers submit their sermons for a political appropriateness review. When they refused, the mayor used the courts to obtain them. As a secular, constitutional libertarian, this concerns the hell out of me. This is not the rule of law, but rather the use of law to impose tyranny. However, to obscure my point, the first six words of the First Amendment states "Congress shall make no law..." This implies, to me, that the First amendment only applies at the Federal and not the State and local levels of government. Therefore, the state's of Oregon, Colorado and the City of Houston are free to establish religion, infringe on free speech, limit journalist and bar people from peaceful assembly. That said, I will stand with Christains, satanists, gays or anyone else who want to freely express them selves and will fight state and local rules which restrict these self evident rights. This includes the right to be a religious 'zealot', a bigot or a nut. Stretching the Constitution to reflect the mood of the week is dangerous and will bite you when someone you disagree with grabs the levers of national power.
As for Apple, they ar free to act as they see fit - free enterprise, freedom of speech and all. However, I worry as an investor that their advocacy will cloud their fiscal judgement (many examples: the guy in Seattle who decided all workers should get he same salary of $70K a year is now on the verge of bankruptcy after losing all of his good employees) or drive away customers. Remember, there are wide swaths of the world where this type of advocacy impacts the population's willingness to purchase products - think Saudi Arabia and all the Middle East (where homosexuals are stoned to death or worse), China, Iran, Russia (where homosexuals are prosecuted) and etc. combine the 'socially conservative regions of the world and we talking 70% of the world's land mass and 90% of its population.:\
The problem with these liberal lefties approach to 'equal rights' is that they are not equal they just tip the balance of favour the opposite way
Except for where institutions hire to fill quotas (which is not the purpose of equal rights measures), your statement is ignorant. If you were a member of an oppressed group, you'd know that it isn't enough to give "equal access" statements. Oppressed people need positive action to promote their entry into parts of society that are historically closed to them by discrimination. Parts that you probably have never experienced being barred from by said discrimination.
If he is then he is only the second most discriminated in this country. If he is also Christian then he is the most discriminated in this country.
Beg to differ but those of us that have zero interest in any religion and get called atheists for some reason (as if a collective noun is required for someone who simply doesn't believe in mythology) seem to get the short end of the stick in America.
If he is then he is only the second most discriminated in this country. If he is also Christian then he is the most discriminated in this country.
Beg to differ but those of us that have zero interest in any religion and get called atheists for some reason (as if a collective noun is required for someone who simply doesn't believe in mythology) seem to get the short end of the stick in America.
It's actually quite remarkable how out of touch with reality some people are. You have probably seen this article before, but it's worth reposting...
Christian nuts are not being discriminated against.
Whatever you want to believe.
Gay people, for example, would not discriminate against such idiots, for example if said Christian nut were the right person for the job they'd give them the job whilst not agreeing with that person or maybe even not liking that person. That's the difference.
Your claim is pathetically laughable.
Originally Posted by Fred Maxwell
It does not grant "special rights" to any group.
And yet we’re calling for the special rights granted to groups to be removed.
I think it’s absolutely hilarious that there exists always a class of people who delude themselves into the basest nonsense. Endless entertainment.
And yet we’re calling for the special rights granted to groups to be removed.
I think it’s absolutely hilarious that there exists always a class of people who delude themselves into the basest nonsense. Endless entertainment.
No special rights, just protection from people who believe some guy in the sky exists as a reason to not hire people or afford them the same freedoms everyone has. When you're privileged and don't get everything you want for once it might seem the way you're deluding yourself to believe.
Frankly, I think government oversteps when it gets involved in non-governmental cases of discrimination. Businesses and individuals which are discriminatory would simply go away because of public pressure.
That worked so well in the south, didn't it? For ever person who refused to eat at a whites-only restaurant, there were probably three Klansmen who made it a point to eat there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
I am needless to say against this and other similar initiatives. They will no doubt be used to further discriminate against my kind.
Your "kind"? What kind is that? The Houston Equal Rights Ordinance (“HERO”) prohibits discrimination based on sex, race, color, ethnicity, national origin, age,familial status, marital status, military status, religion, disability, sexual orientation, genetic information, gender identity and pregnancy. If your you're denied access to a restroom because you are cisgender, paid less because you are a man, not hired because you're Christian, or denied a raise because you're not pregnant, this law protects you if the discrimination took place in Houston.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AtlApple
If he is then he is only the second most discriminated in this country. If he is also Christian then he is the most discriminated in this country.
I have a dream that one day white, heterosexual, cisgendered, Christian men will be able to use public restrooms without fear of being attacked and ridiculed.
I have a dream that one day white, heterosexual, cisgendered, Christian men will be allowed to play golf on those lush green courses beside their black, lesbian, transgendered, atheist sisters.
I have a dream that one day white, heterosexual, cisgendered, Christian men will be able to board a plane without everyone suspecting they are terrorists.
I have a dream that one day white, heterosexual, cisgendered, Christian men will be paid as much as Hispanic women doing the same job.
I have a dream that one day governments, businesses and schools will honor those Christian holidays that are so important to white, heterosexual, cisgendered, Christian men.
I have a dream that one day our citizens will rise up to proudly elect a white, heterosexual, cisgendered, Christian man to lead our great nation.
You're delusional.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
And yet we’re calling for the special rights granted to groups to be removed.
Name the groups to which you allege this legislation grants "special rights" and enumerate the rights.
Name the groups to which you allege this legislation...
Oh, I didn’t say anything about this specific legislation. I said the legislation that exists already is sufficient to describe equal rights under the law for all groups, and thus no further laws are necessary. Indeed, there are too many laws passed in the name of “equality” which specifically exist to discriminate. Those should be repealed.
In all seriousness and I appreciate the supportive post, but I just don't understand so called atheists banding together. I have zero in common with the next atheist. Not being a member of some club, in this case some a mythology group, doesn't make you have anything in common with someone else who isn't a member. I use tennis as an example in most of my discussions on the subject, so again I ask, if you don't play tennis do you therefore share the beliefs of another person who does't play tennis? Of course not. So I avoid any group calling themselves atheists as to me they are just another bunch of people looking to belong to something. What next, the church of atheists? LOL
Okay, so you’re just a hypocrite with zero argument and a slew of personal attacks, buzzwords, and downright lies.
Again, an endless stream of hilarity. Couldn’t be further from what they claim to support.
Oh, I didn’t say anything about this specific legislation. I said the legislation that exists already is sufficient to describe equal rights under the law for all groups, and thus no further laws are necessary. Indeed, there are too many laws passed in the name of “equality” which specifically exist to discriminate. Those should be repealed.
In your last paragraph you fail to take into account State's rights. Texas for example isn't exactly Massachusetts when it comes to human rights.
Okay, so you’re just a hypocrite with zero argument and a slew of personal attacks, buzzwords, and downright lies.
Again, an endless stream of hilarity. Couldn’t be further from what they claim to support.
Oh, I didn’t say anything about this specific legislation. I said the legislation that exists already is sufficient to describe equal rights under the law for all groups, and thus no further laws are necessary. Indeed, there are too many laws passed in the name of “equality” which specifically exist to discriminate. Those should be repealed.
Yet people get fired, despite your reference to these laws, if people find out they are gay. I'm glad to hear your entertained by that though...?!
In all seriousness and I appreciate the supportive post, but I just don't understand so called atheists banding together. I have zero in common with the next atheist. Not being a member of some club, in this case some mythology group, doesn't make you have anything in common with someone else who isn't a member. I use tennis as an example in most of my discussions on the subject, so again I ask, if you don't play tennis do you therefore share the beliefs of another person who does't play tennis? Of course not. So I avoid any group calling themselves atheists as to me they are just another bunch of people looking to belong to something. That next, the church of atheists? LOL
I hope this makes sense.
No - I completely agree with your sentiments on that. The article is interesting primarily in drawing attention to the attitudes of much of religious America to those who do not choose to embrace religion, and in putting into more accurate context the bleating about oppressed Christians.
No - I completely agree with your sentiments on that. The article is interesting primarily in drawing attention to the attitudes of much of religious America to those who do not choose to embrace religion, and in putting into more accurate context the bleating about oppressed Christians.
On that I agree totally. You could not get hired as town dog catcher in the US if you stated you were an atheist. Most religious Americans would prefer a Muslim over an atheist as they have been brain washed to fear non believers even more. Why? Because 'the church' has always feared those who are not indoctrinated more than anything else.
Comments
Well you summarized the issue, but avoided drawing the obvious conclusion. On a personal level the right to discriminate is essential - you want to choose your personal friends and associates. On a business level that right does not exist in the Constitution, at least as generally interpreted even though Churches get to be exempted there for some reason, and so most businesses do not get to discriminate against individuals.
Oh and quit with the silly democracy = mob nonsense.
I'm assuming these laws apply to the majority of businesses because they are legal entities, therefore they are entangled with state and federal regulation.
Fair enough, but I think that the problem is that the current laws are still a bit patchy in this area - hence initiatives such as the subject of this thread to clarify and strengthen them.
As for the Houston statutes. I believe the mayor demanded preachers submit their sermons for a political appropriateness review. When they refused, the mayor used the courts to obtain them. As a secular, constitutional libertarian, this concerns the hell out of me. This is not the rule of law, but rather the use of law to impose tyranny. However, to obscure my point, the first six words of the First Amendment states "Congress shall make no law..." This implies, to me, that the First amendment only applies at the Federal and not the State and local levels of government. Therefore, the state's of Oregon, Colorado and the City of Houston are free to establish religion, infringe on free speech, limit journalist and bar people from peaceful assembly. That said, I will stand with Christains, satanists, gays or anyone else who want to freely express them selves and will fight state and local rules which restrict these self evident rights. This includes the right to be a religious 'zealot', a bigot or a nut. Stretching the Constitution to reflect the mood of the week is dangerous and will bite you when someone you disagree with grabs the levers of national power.
As for Apple, they ar free to act as they see fit - free enterprise, freedom of speech and all. However, I worry as an investor that their advocacy will cloud their fiscal judgement (many examples: the guy in Seattle who decided all workers should get he same salary of $70K a year is now on the verge of bankruptcy after losing all of his good employees) or drive away customers. Remember, there are wide swaths of the world where this type of advocacy impacts the population's willingness to purchase products - think Saudi Arabia and all the Middle East (where homosexuals are stoned to death or worse), China, Iran, Russia (where homosexuals are prosecuted) and etc. combine the 'socially conservative regions of the world and we talking 70% of the world's land mass and 90% of its population.:\
Except for where institutions hire to fill quotas (which is not the purpose of equal rights measures), your statement is ignorant. If you were a member of an oppressed group, you'd know that it isn't enough to give "equal access" statements. Oppressed people need positive action to promote their entry into parts of society that are historically closed to them by discrimination. Parts that you probably have never experienced being barred from by said discrimination.
Please tell us this is a bad joke. What are you, a white heterosexual male?
^ Discrimination against bigots is definitely on the rise.
Please tell us this is a bad joke. What are you, a white heterosexual male?
If he is then he is only the second most discriminated in this country. If he is also Christian then he is the most discriminated in this country.
Is someone yelling at you on your paperboy route?
Is someone yelling at you on your paperboy route?
That's an unfair comment and a needless personal attack.
Na, I'd say you're one of a kind and no one is even aware of it, so no worries
Beg to differ but those of us that have zero interest in any religion and get called atheists for some reason (as if a collective noun is required for someone who simply doesn't believe in mythology) seem to get the short end of the stick in America.
If he is then he is only the second most discriminated in this country. If he is also Christian then he is the most discriminated in this country.
Beg to differ but those of us that have zero interest in any religion and get called atheists for some reason (as if a collective noun is required for someone who simply doesn't believe in mythology) seem to get the short end of the stick in America.
It's actually quite remarkable how out of touch with reality some people are. You have probably seen this article before, but it's worth reposting...
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-28616115
Whatever you want to believe.
Your claim is pathetically laughable.
It does not grant "special rights" to any group.
And yet we’re calling for the special rights granted to groups to be removed.
I think it’s absolutely hilarious that there exists always a class of people who delude themselves into the basest nonsense. Endless entertainment.
No special rights, just protection from people who believe some guy in the sky exists as a reason to not hire people or afford them the same freedoms everyone has. When you're privileged and don't get everything you want for once it might seem the way you're deluding yourself to believe.
Frankly, I think government oversteps when it gets involved in non-governmental cases of discrimination. Businesses and individuals which are discriminatory would simply go away because of public pressure.
That worked so well in the south, didn't it? For ever person who refused to eat at a whites-only restaurant, there were probably three Klansmen who made it a point to eat there.
Quote:
I am needless to say against this and other similar initiatives. They will no doubt be used to further discriminate against my kind.
Your "kind"? What kind is that? The Houston Equal Rights Ordinance (“HERO”) prohibits discrimination based on sex, race, color, ethnicity, national origin, age,familial status, marital status, military status, religion, disability, sexual orientation, genetic information, gender identity and pregnancy. If your you're denied access to a restroom because you are cisgender, paid less because you are a man, not hired because you're Christian, or denied a raise because you're not pregnant, this law protects you if the discrimination took place in Houston.
If he is then he is only the second most discriminated in this country. If he is also Christian then he is the most discriminated in this country.
I have a dream that one day white, heterosexual, cisgendered, Christian men will be able to use public restrooms without fear of being attacked and ridiculed.
I have a dream that one day white, heterosexual, cisgendered, Christian men will be allowed to play golf on those lush green courses beside their black, lesbian, transgendered, atheist sisters.
I have a dream that one day white, heterosexual, cisgendered, Christian men will be able to board a plane without everyone suspecting they are terrorists.
I have a dream that one day white, heterosexual, cisgendered, Christian men will be paid as much as Hispanic women doing the same job.
I have a dream that one day governments, businesses and schools will honor those Christian holidays that are so important to white, heterosexual, cisgendered, Christian men.
I have a dream that one day our citizens will rise up to proudly elect a white, heterosexual, cisgendered, Christian man to lead our great nation.
You're delusional.
And yet we’re calling for the special rights granted to groups to be removed.
Name the groups to which you allege this legislation grants "special rights" and enumerate the rights.
Name the groups to which you allege this legislation...
Oh, I didn’t say anything about this specific legislation. I said the legislation that exists already is sufficient to describe equal rights under the law for all groups, and thus no further laws are necessary. Indeed, there are too many laws passed in the name of “equality” which specifically exist to discriminate. Those should be repealed.
In all seriousness and I appreciate the supportive post, but I just don't understand so called atheists banding together. I have zero in common with the next atheist. Not being a member of some club, in this case some a mythology group, doesn't make you have anything in common with someone else who isn't a member. I use tennis as an example in most of my discussions on the subject, so again I ask, if you don't play tennis do you therefore share the beliefs of another person who does't play tennis? Of course not. So I avoid any group calling themselves atheists as to me they are just another bunch of people looking to belong to something. What next, the church of atheists? LOL
I hope this makes sense.
In your last paragraph you fail to take into account State's rights. Texas for example isn't exactly Massachusetts when it comes to human rights.
It's actually quite remarkable how out of touch with reality some people are. You have probably seen this article before, but it's worth reposting...
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-28616115
In all seriousness and I appreciate the supportive post, but I just don't understand so called atheists banding together. I have zero in common with the next atheist. Not being a member of some club, in this case some mythology group, doesn't make you have anything in common with someone else who isn't a member. I use tennis as an example in most of my discussions on the subject, so again I ask, if you don't play tennis do you therefore share the beliefs of another person who does't play tennis? Of course not. So I avoid any group calling themselves atheists as to me they are just another bunch of people looking to belong to something. That next, the church of atheists? LOL
I hope this makes sense.
No - I completely agree with your sentiments on that. The article is interesting primarily in drawing attention to the attitudes of much of religious America to those who do not choose to embrace religion, and in putting into more accurate context the bleating about oppressed Christians.
On that I agree totally. You could not get hired as town dog catcher in the US if you stated you were an atheist. Most religious Americans would prefer a Muslim over an atheist as they have been brain washed to fear non believers even more. Why? Because 'the church' has always feared those who are not indoctrinated more than anything else.