There either is or isn't a law in place. You can't have both. Choose one.
For states that don't have a law preventing sexual orientation discrimination you want Apple to be for such discrimination because those in favour of that such a deplorable act could sue Apple for choosing to discriminate. I disagree with your stated fear.
You are still conflating things...
1. A law preventing discrimination against sexual orientation.
2. An intent to implement hiring practices involving real instances of discrimination.
3. Concern over people using the new law as a basis to sue in order to make money not to redress some injustice real or perceived.
I honestly don't think you are capable of recognizing the differences between these things. You have been conditioned by liberal orthodoxy to immediately label anybody who is somehow opposed to such a law or concerned about bad practices to which it may give rise as "discriminatory". Therefore you are the one who is being intolerant and bigoted.
I'm sure you will keep flailing wildly though trying to look "smart" and "compassionate".
There either is or isn't a law in place. You can't have both. Choose one.
For states that don't have a law preventing sexual orientation discrimination you want Apple to be for such discrimination because those in favour of that such a deplorable act could sue Apple for choosing to discriminate. I disagree with your stated fear.
I have to run. I have some things to do. I may return later to see what you have come up with to respond.
1. A law preventing discrimination against sexual orientation.
2. An intent to implement hiring practices involving real instances of discrimination.
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">3. Concern over people using the new law as a basis to sue in order to make money not to redress some injustice real or perceived.</span>
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">I honestly don't think you are capable of recognizing the differences between these things. You have been conditioned by liberal orthodoxy to </span>
immediately<span style="line-height:1.4em;"> label anybody who is somehow opposed to such a law or concerned about bad practices to which it may give rise as "discriminatory". Therefore you are the one who is being intolerant and bigoted.</span>
I'm sure you will keep flailing wildly though trying to look "smart" and "compassionate".
Go back and reread what you wrote before you start placing labels on people or you'll end up digging yourself a deeper hole.
I haven't left yet (still waiting to get a grocery list together). I never said that "I am right" because I am leaving. Try responding to what I said instead of mischaracterizing me to make it more convenient for you to respond.
So your response is that you can't respond. I guess that's better than your previous hold digging so I'll take the win.
Where did I say that I couldn't respond? Once again, you are making things up that I didn't say so that you have something more convenient to respond to. Why don't you demonstrate a little more capability and respond to my point about how you are conflating things. Explain how that is wrong.
Where did I say that I couldn't respond? Once again, you are making things up that I didn't say so that you have something more convenient to respond to. Why don't you demonstrate a little more capability and respond to my point about how you are conflating things. Explain how that is wrong.
How crazy of me to interpret the words "I have to run" followed by "I may return later" to mean you're not going to post for awhile. :no: I must be out of my fucking mind to make that connection¡
To anybody else who may be following this notice how these two people with whom I am having this discussion are not really able to make a point in response to what I said.
My point was that passing new laws pertaining to employment and discrimination in hiring practices could well saddle Apple with lawsuits arising from that law. To me it doesn't make much sense for a business to willingly call for the saddling of itself with such a potential liability. These people responded and tried to characterize all that as "discrimination" and then they mischaracterized the things that I said in order to make what I said easier for them to respond to. Different things were conflated together, I pointed this out and offered a challenge to explain how this wasn't the case, and I got no such response...just more mischaracterizations of what I said.
This is why I dismiss the views and rhetoric of these folks who are obviously steeped in bigoted liberal orthodoxy.
Respond to what I actually said not what you misquoted me as having said.
What you said was bullshit and you got called out on it, but you didn't like your words being splayed out because you had flailed to consider the bigger picture. You, understandably, got upset but instead of saying you messed up you decided to dig in and defense your bigoted position with name calling.
How crazy of me to interpret the words "I have to run" followed by "I may return later" to mean you're not going to post for awhile. I must be out of my fucking mind to make that connection¡
I said "I may return later to see what you have come up with to respond". You said "So your response is that you can't respond."
You just cannot engage me without mischaracterizing what I said can you?
What you said was bullshit and you got called out on it, but you didn't like your words being splayed out because you had flailed to consider the bigger picture. You, understandably, got upset but instead of saying you messed up you decided to dig in and defense your bigoted position with name calling.
No. I pointed out how you were conflating several things together and not really responding to the point I made. I corrected you when you mischaracterized me.
To anybody else who may be following this notice how these two people with whom I am having this discussion are not really able to make a point in response to what I said.
My point was that passing new laws pertaining to employment and discrimination in hiring practices could well saddle Apple with lawsuits arising from that law. To me it doesn't make much sense for a business to willingly call for the saddling of itself with such a potential liability. These people responded and tried to characterize all that as "discrimination" and then they mischaracterized the things that I said in order to make what I said easier for them to respond to. Different things were conflated together, I pointed this out and offered a challenge to explain how this wasn't the case, and I got no such response...just more mischaracterizations of what I said.
This is why I dismiss the views and rhetoric of these folks who are obviously steeped in bigoted liberal orthodoxy.
As previously noted, Apple didn't make any such opinion about sexual discrimination, Tim Cook did in his personal Twitter account. But as you noted, lawsuits will happen regardless of what Apple does because they have money which makes any position you take any Apple or Tim Cook moot.
Keep trying guys. The grocery list is finished. I am taking off now. Not because I can't respond but because I have to get back with tonight's supper. There is a very strong likelihood that I will check out your responses because they will probably once again mischaracterize what I said and I will have to set the record straight once again.
No. I pointed out how you were conflating several things together and not really responding to the point I made. I corrected you when you mischaracterized me.
I have never stated I know your character, I only know the words you have stated and that is what I've responded to. You, on the other hand, have taken a different route toward me.
I am a long time citizen and it troubles me when Christian bigots use their political position to push their religious agenda on everyone (remember, religion is now debunked bunch of bronze age lies).
It troubles me when atheist bigots use their political position to push their anti-religious agenda on everyone.
Comments
There either is or isn't a law in place. You can't have both. Choose one.
For states that don't have a law preventing sexual orientation discrimination you want Apple to be for such discrimination because those in favour of that such a deplorable act could sue Apple for choosing to discriminate. I disagree with your stated fear.
You are still conflating things...
1. A law preventing discrimination against sexual orientation.
2. An intent to implement hiring practices involving real instances of discrimination.
3. Concern over people using the new law as a basis to sue in order to make money not to redress some injustice real or perceived.
I honestly don't think you are capable of recognizing the differences between these things. You have been conditioned by liberal orthodoxy to immediately label anybody who is somehow opposed to such a law or concerned about bad practices to which it may give rise as "discriminatory". Therefore you are the one who is being intolerant and bigoted.
I'm sure you will keep flailing wildly though trying to look "smart" and "compassionate".
There either is or isn't a law in place. You can't have both. Choose one.
For states that don't have a law preventing sexual orientation discrimination you want Apple to be for such discrimination because those in favour of that such a deplorable act could sue Apple for choosing to discriminate. I disagree with your stated fear.
I have to run. I have some things to do. I may return later to see what you have come up with to respond.
Go back and reread what you wrote before you start placing labels on people or you'll end up digging yourself a deeper hole.
So your response is that you can't respond. :rolleyes: I guess that's better than your previous hold digging so I'll take the win.
[I’m leaving, therefore I’m right.]
Great job. Masterful work.
Great job. Masterful work.
I haven't left yet (still waiting to get a grocery list together). I never said that "I am right" because I am leaving. Try responding to what I said instead of mischaracterizing me to make it more convenient for you to respond.
Try responding to what I said…
HA! That’s some great irony.
I did, by the way.
So your response is that you can't respond.
Where did I say that I couldn't respond? Once again, you are making things up that I didn't say so that you have something more convenient to respond to. Why don't you demonstrate a little more capability and respond to my point about how you are conflating things. Explain how that is wrong.
HA! That’s some great irony.
I did, by the way.
Respond to what I actually said not what you misquoted me as having said.
How crazy of me to interpret the words "I have to run" followed by "I may return later" to mean you're not going to post for awhile. :no: I must be out of my fucking mind to make that connection¡
To anybody else who may be following this notice how these two people with whom I am having this discussion are not really able to make a point in response to what I said.
My point was that passing new laws pertaining to employment and discrimination in hiring practices could well saddle Apple with lawsuits arising from that law. To me it doesn't make much sense for a business to willingly call for the saddling of itself with such a potential liability. These people responded and tried to characterize all that as "discrimination" and then they mischaracterized the things that I said in order to make what I said easier for them to respond to. Different things were conflated together, I pointed this out and offered a challenge to explain how this wasn't the case, and I got no such response...just more mischaracterizations of what I said.
This is why I dismiss the views and rhetoric of these folks who are obviously steeped in bigoted liberal orthodoxy.
What you said was bullshit and you got called out on it, but you didn't like your words being splayed out because you had flailed to consider the bigger picture. You, understandably, got upset but instead of saying you messed up you decided to dig in and defense your bigoted position with name calling.
How crazy of me to interpret the words "I have to run" followed by "I may return later" to mean you're not going to post for awhile.
I said "I may return later to see what you have come up with to respond". You said "So your response is that you can't respond."
You just cannot engage me without mischaracterizing what I said can you?
What you said was bullshit and you got called out on it, but you didn't like your words being splayed out because you had flailed to consider the bigger picture. You, understandably, got upset but instead of saying you messed up you decided to dig in and defense your bigoted position with name calling.
No. I pointed out how you were conflating several things together and not really responding to the point I made. I corrected you when you mischaracterized me.
That explains why you were incapable of making a point in response to what Soli said, huh.
As previously noted, Apple didn't make any such opinion about sexual discrimination, Tim Cook did in his personal Twitter account. But as you noted, lawsuits will happen regardless of what Apple does because they have money which makes any position you take any Apple or Tim Cook moot.
Keep trying guys. The grocery list is finished. I am taking off now. Not because I can't respond but because I have to get back with tonight's supper. There is a very strong likelihood that I will check out your responses because they will probably once again mischaracterize what I said and I will have to set the record straight once again.
^ ...how's that? ;-)
I have never stated I know your character, I only know the words you have stated and that is what I've responded to. You, on the other hand, have taken a different route toward me.
I am a long time citizen and it troubles me when Christian bigots use their political position to push their religious agenda on everyone (remember, religion is now debunked bunch of bronze age lies).
It troubles me when atheist bigots use their political position to push their anti-religious agenda on everyone.