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.
In my opinion, if you want a company of non believers in America and it is your company you should be able to hire that. I think the government needs to keep its nose out of hiring unless safety is involved. I am a law abiding person so if the law is on the books, I abide with it; but personally I would not care if you hired who you please. Hiring someone really different from then rest of the staff can cause workplace tension and stop productivity. An employer should be able to hire anyone he feels helps his company function in a more efficient way.
I am glad the Supreme Court is ruling according to our constitution. Freedom of religion is good.
Sure, because workers hinder productivity all the time by talking about what insurance package they decided to take.
Besides - every job I've ever worked, I've heard colleagues and supervisors both tell at least one story about a religious blowhard that liked to proselytize on the clock and ticked off everyone else. "Where is this person now?" I would ask. Can you guess where?
Thus it would seem that religion, not the lack of it, is more responsible for a lack of efficiency. If you keep religion out of the workplace, there's no reason for an atheist (or non-Christian) to stop production. But get one religious zealot in there and it isn't long before the bickering starts. And I'm not even talking about bickering between the religious and non-religious. You'll have Christians vs. people of other religions, one denomination vs. another denomination, Catholic vs. Protestant, liberal vs. conservative ... and soon half the building is getting in on the fun.
But without the blowhard making waves with proslytizing and preaching on the job, no one has a reason to feel as if they need to defend their own beliefs.
What I find interesting, though, is how so many people here are suddenly coming forward saying that there should essentially be no protections against discrimination when hiring and firing.
Funny how no one seemed to have this opinion when these protections involved race, ethnicity, age, national origin, and most importantly, religion.
But the hatred for gays is so great that you folks are willing to strip away those protections from everyone else just so you can have your little gay-hating legal lynch mob. The lengths some people are willing to go just to make sure gays are kept as far away from the rest of society as possible is, quite frankly, disquieting.
Actually, it's all starting to make sense now. Perhaps homosexualy has, in fact, been responsible for the decline and destruction of other societies.
Not directly, though. Rather, the decline happened because the anti-gay crowd wanted to exclude gays from society so much that they were willing to destroy society to achieve their goal.
Total fail. False analogy and violation of Godwin's Law within the first 10 posts. Go back to start and write, "I am a bad poster 100 times."
You aren't even knowledgeable about what Godwin's Law states, so instead of doing something useless like writing "I'm a bad poster" 100 times, you should read and re-read Godwin's Law 100 times.
Then you can actually come back here and -rebut- my post instead of hiding behind the erroneous assertion that my analogy is false. (How is it false? How does Godwin's Law apply? So on and so forth.)
Otherwise, you're just a drive-by sniper as far as I'm concerned.
Look at the post I was responding to when I said that. You responded to my response to someone else. He/she said I wanted freedom without giving freedom to those who discriminate. That was who I was responding to when you responded to me.
The point wasn't to equate those things with discrimination, but to say freedom is only good if it is good for the society. Discrimination is bad for society in my opinion. And who do I hate exactly?
When one overstates a case to the degree that they elevate a mere disagreement to a comparison with Nazism, murder, slavery, and pedophilia it makes it a little hard to later claim that there was an attempt to make some subtle point. It comes off as hatred for the one you are disagreeing with. Maybe that's not what you're about, but it sure came off that way. My disagreement is not necessarily with your point but with the way you tried to make it.
When one overstates a case to the degree that they elevate a mere disagreement to a comparison with Nazism, murder, slavery, and pedophilia it makes it a little hard to later claim that there was an attempt to make some subtle point. It comes off as hatred for the one you are disagreeing with. Maybe that's not what you're about, but it sure came off that way. My disagreement is not necessarily with your point but with the way you tried to make it.
Where did I say anything about Nazis? It wasn't that subtle of a point, you just missed it. Btw, I do HATE discrimination. I grew up in small town Alabama and saw it every day of my life, albeit not directed at me but others, and it sickened me. Still does.
Where did I say anything about Nazis? It wasn't that subtle of a point, you just missed it. Btw, I do HATE discrimination. I grew up in small town Alabama and saw it every day of my life, albeit not directed at me but others, and it sickened me. Still does.
Your ally Shirina used the Nazi reference. Your hatred is clearly directed at those who disagree with you.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,871,431 times
Reputation: 4559
Quote:
Originally Posted by memphisblues1986
Exactly! They have no problem saying gay people are pedophiles, or that gay marriage will lead to people marrying dogs and so forth. Just remember, they are known for being hypocrites, and it is showing.
Memphis, I am pro same sex marriage (read my posts).
I must admit though, that having some experience with precedence setting in the courts, I frankly see no difference between same sex marriage and polygamy marriages, the caveat being that it must be between consenting adults.
And honestly, if the courts ruled polygamy was legal, who cares? It doesn't affect me any more than same sex marriage, and I'm not sure of the negative affect on society, other than there are a few less females to go around for us hetro males.
So, yes, same sex marriage decisions do have the possibility of being applied to other consensual unions.
It seems to me that the fundamental point of the whole topic is being missed with all the rhetoric and grandstanding in this debate.
The concept at ground zero is that some religious organizations do not want to hire LGBTs. The courts supported this as their right and now we are upset.
Why do these organization not want to hire LGBT employees? Do these same organizations organize gay bashing events such as were prevelant a few years ago? Do they routines seek out and harrass specific LGBT individuals? Is there something about their behavior that indicates they devote their life's to finding and destroying LGBT lifestyles?
From my observations, their fight against the LGBT lifestyle is vocal and somewhat intolerant, but seldom is against an individual or goes seeking any specific targets. It is instead a general war of opportunity. That being said, why should such an organization wish to employ LGBT individuals as their representatives?
Is it immoral for a fitness center to avoid hiring obese people for their trainers or counter staff? Should it be required for companies to hire average joes to endorse their products instead of athelets or celebrities? Is it reasonable for a Muslim organization to hire an Hasidic Jew to represent them to the community?
I am aware that private religious schools are required to hire people to teach classes in religious instruction without regard for that person religious beliefs. One school I am acquainted with was forced to hire a professed atheist to teach baptist theology to elementary students. This does not seem logical to me to force an organization to hire representatives that do not profess the same values and lifestyle of the organization they will be representing.
In a situation where the employee is a visible part of an organization whose business is how people live, how is their personal life a non factor? I would not want to work with an accounting firm whose employees live paycheck to paycheck with no savings. I would not be confident with a 325lb aerobics instructor. I would not want to buy adult sex toys from a nun.
That does not mean I am anti-fat person, anti-broke person or anti-nun. It only means I can recognize a disconnect between expressed goals and personal motivation. As a business owner I would want my employees to "look" the part as well as preach the business mission. I don't want to hire someone to sell my organic green health products as they wear synthetic material and smoke cigarrettes while eating hot dogs with chili.
You aren't even knowledgeable about what Godwin's Law states, so instead of doing something useless like writing "I'm a bad poster" 100 times, you should read and re-read Godwin's Law 100 times.
Then you can actually come back here and -rebut- my post instead of hiding behind the erroneous assertion that my analogy is false. (How is it false? How does Godwin's Law apply? So on and so forth.)
Otherwise, you're just a drive-by sniper as far as I'm concerned.
Godwin's Law: "As an online discussion gets longer, the probability of a reference to Hitler or Nazis approaches one." You just blew your cork ten posts from the start.
As to rebutting your ridicululous post, all reasonable people would agree that those who might discriminate are not to be equated with Nazis.
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.
