Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your question reveals a basic lack of understanding of our Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which prohibit an employer from discriminating on the basis of ones political affiliation, or religious beliefs.
I have the wrong understanding? Hahaha. You, my friend, are completely and utterly wrong.
There is no Constitutional protection that prohibits an employer from discriminating based on political affiliation or religious beliefs (or race, or sex, or one's speech, or for any other reason). Period.
There are certain STATUES and LAWS that prohibit employers from discriminating based on certain things. These, however, are not Constitutional rights - they are statutory rights. For instance, The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits private employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a LAW, not the Constitution. The right not to be discriminated against by your private employer because of your religious beliefs does not come from the Constitution - it comes from an act of Congress, and if Congress decided to repeal that LAW tomorrow, that protection would cease to exist.
Quote:
If you had read the article I posted in my original post (which was a separate thread to address this very issue, but hijacked and moved to this thread) you would have seen where that author explained it very clearly, which gave me no reason to write my own version (why reinvent the wheel?). Here is what he said:
I read the article. The author did clearly state some things - unfortunately, she clearly stated many things that are false.
Quote:
Generally, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of race, national origin, color, religion, and gender. Congress later enacted legislation that expanded discrimination to include age and disability. Eventually, discrimination under federal law came to include marital status, sexual orientation and political affiliation, as well. [snip].
This is absolutely incorrect. Congress has not enacted laws that make it illegal for private actors to discriminate based on sexual orientation or political affiliation.
She seems to be confusing several things and believes that certain limited laws apply more broadly then they actually do.
1) - Bill Clinton did issue an executive order (still standing) that makes it illegal for the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, but that only applies to one employer - the federal government.
2) - Employees of governments (the federal government, state governments, city governments, etc) are protected under federal law and Constitutional principles from discrimination by their employer (the government) on the basis of political affiliation and political speech.
There is no federal law that protects people from discrimination based upon sexual orientation or political affiliation or political beliefs or one's speech at the hands of private employers, and there most certainly is no such protection found in the 1st Amendment of the Constitution since it doesn't apply to private actors.
Quote:
an employee cannot be wrongfully terminated in California or terminated on the basis of discrimination, that is, on the basis of age, race, sexual orientation, gender, disability, political affiliation, religion, or national origin
California might have laws that do prohibit private employers from discriminating based on political affiliation/beliefs and certain types of speech. I don't know off the top of my head if they do, nor do I care enough to spend the time and energy investigating it. But I'm certainly not going to take the idiot who wrote this article at her word.
I wonder if these "tolerant" liberals and Democrats next step will be go after anyone who donated money against the illegal alien Dream Act or 20 week abortion bans. Gay marriage is only a stepping stone and a test run for the rest of the liberal agenda.
Anyone who supports gay marriage is certain to also support illegal immigration. That is how the spectrum of liberalism goes. Anyone who supports illegal immigration will also support late term abortion.
In any case, someone's PERSONAL political views and involvement is separate from their competency at their job. Liberals and Democrats really don't believe in someone's right to have a personal life, unless that person is Bill Clinton.
No, this is wrong and here is why In Loving, Virginia’s Supreme Court justified a ban on interracial marriages by citing religious beliefs.
Here is why from a brief filed in Loving v Virginia: “I believe that the tendency to classify all persons who oppose [this type of relationship] as ‘prejudiced’ is in itself a prejudice,” a psychologist said. “Nothing of any significance is gained by such a marriage.
Here is why Deut. 7:1-4 or Genesis 28:1:
”So Isaac called for Jacob and blessed him and commanded him: “Do not marry a Canaanite woman.” Throughout the history of the church, Canaanites have been commonly associated with people of African descent, thus fueling the interpretations leveled against interracial marriage. God’s people are not only warned against marrying Canaanites, but they are cautioned against marrying anyone outside the group.
Here is why Scott v. Georgia (1869): This relationship "is not only unnatural, but is always productive of deplorable results ... [Their children turn out] generally effeminate ... [their relationship is] productive of evil."
People don't get it this argument is old and the same and has been had many times before. People always attempt to say their bigotry is justified because it is a religious belief. If this society would have allowed opposition interracial marriage to viewed not as racial bigotry but as religious objection, we'd have a lot more opposition to interracial marriage.
As a society if you deem being anti-homosexual marriage as just based on religious belief, then you get a more anti-homosexual society one in which opposing the right of homosexuals to marry will be seen as a legitimate viewpoint to hold and a legit viewpoint to pursue legislatively.
None of this changes the fact that it is their religious belief. Our society does not tell people what religious beliefs they may have, although it may at times tell them how they can act on those religious beliefs. The standard should be the extent of impact it has on others.
Oh, I agree. The point is that you can not just arbitrarily claim that people actions and beliefs are based on bigotry or hatred and dismiss that they are motivated by true religious beliefs, when the opposite is true in most cases. As far as what is acceptable and what is not, depends on how much it impacts others. In MY OPINION, it is unacceptable for a civil servant to refuse to issue a lawful marriage license based on their religious beliefs but I think someone ought to be able to decline to make a wedding cake, especially when there is another place in reasonable distance that is willing to, based on religious beliefs. It is fine for a person to refuse a blood transfusion based on religious beliefs, but you can't be another person's doctor and refuse to give one based on your religious beliefs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Linda_d
So, because some people claim that adults having sex with children is part of their "true religious beliefs", then we should allow adults to have sex with children?
I answered that in the sentenced right after the one you bolded.
Quote:
As far as what is acceptable and what is not, depends on how much it impacts others.
I think we can all agree that allowing adults to have sex with children would have a negative impact on children and therefore isn't acceptable.
People have held all sorts of religious beliefs over the millennia that we find not merely distasteful but morally repugnant today: slavery, blood sacrifice—even human sacrifice. Which beliefs are acceptable and which are not? Who is the arbiter?
Jesus Christ.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
he doesn't care.
