Conquer Club

Full Frontal on the First: Atlanta Fire Chief

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Atlanta Fire Chief...

 
Total votes : 0

Re: Full Frontal on the First: Heroes and Cowards

Postby Phatscotty on Fri Nov 14, 2014 12:30 pm

Modern Day American Heroes all three of these people. Crispy you may notice they are saying the exact same thing I said a few pages back.

T-Shirt Maker Who Refused to Print Gay Pride Shirts Is Being Punished — but These Lesbian Business Owners Reveal Why They’re Supporting Him

Image

Kathy Trautvetter and Diane DiGeloromo, a lesbian couple who own and operate BMP T-shirts, a New Jersey-based printing company, sat down with Glenn Beck Thursday night to explain why they are standing up for an embattled Christian printer who refused to make shirts for a gay pride festival.

Trautvetter and DiGeloromo have openly defended the right of Blaine Adamson, owner of Hands on Originals, a Kentucky-based T-shirt company, to decline an order for the Gay and Lesbian Services Organization of Lexington — a refusal that local officials in Lexington say violates the law.

“I know how hard it is to build a business and it’s very personal,” Trautvetter said, noting that she put herself in Adamson’s position and felt compelled to defend him. “You put your blood and your sweat and your tears into every bit of it.”

DiGeloromo said that the couple has received positive responses thus far from the public for taking a stand in support of Adamson and his religious conscience, despite the fact that they clearly have ideological disagreements with him when it comes to sexuality.
“We feel this really isn’t a gay or straight issue. This is a human issue,” DiGeloromo said. “No one really should be forced to do something against what they believe in. It’s as simple as that.”

She said that if BMP T-shirts were to be approached by the virulently anti-gay Westboro Baptist Church, for instance, that the couple would not want to provide services to the group.

“I highly doubt we would be doing business with them,” DiGeloromo said. “We would be very angry if we were forced to do so.”



Trautvetter and DiGeloromo also said that they don’t understand why couples would want a wedding cake — or any service for that matter — from someone who is staunchly opposed to providing it.

“Everybody votes with their dollars,” Trautvetter said. “People shop where they want to shop because they’re comfortable with that retailer and why you’d want to go with somebody who doesn’t agree with you — and there’s others who do agree with you — that’s who I want to do business with.”

Beck praised the women for having the conversation, noting that it’s important for people to be decent to one another regardless of their disagreements. Trautvetter agreed, claiming that she sees a divisive gap widening in society and is hoping to help bridge the divide.

“We want everybody to at least get it a little closer. Let us understand each other,” she said. “I put myself in [Adamson's] place and I hope that some of the Christian right and the people who enjoy your show would do the same for us. Try to understand what our lives are like.”

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/11 ... de-shirts/
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Full Frontal Assault on First Amendment

Postby crispybits on Fri Nov 14, 2014 3:44 pm

Phatscotty wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:
crispybits wrote:1).....religion should be able to preach what it wants in the privacy of their churches, it's when they act to impose those beliefs on those who don't share them and by doing so break civil laws that I have a problem.


(1) I agree.


Crispy, how is that any different from saying homosexuals should be able to do whatever they want in the privacy of their own homes, it's when they act to impose their lifestyle on others who disagree....


Lets see if you can understand the fundamental difference here:

(a) Mary complains that her school won't let her do a course in carpentry because the principal believes that only men should be carpenters. Mary says men and women should have equality of opportunity.

(b) The principal complains that the school board force him to let Mary into the carpentry class because to exclude her is against the law. He says that he's being forced to participate in a woman being a carpenter.

I'll give you a hint, in (a) Mary is complaining about something in her own life in order to gain the freedom to participate in society in the way she wants to. In (b) the principal is complaining to deny someone else the opportunity to make the choices they want to in their own life.

To make it really clear how ridiculous it is to suggest that someone selling something to someone means they are somehow participating in their lifestyle imagine a big restaurant owner. On one table over one side of his restaurant he has a meeting of senior executives from BP Oil. On the other side of his restaurant at the same time he has a meeting of activist planners from Greenpeace. Using the theory that somehow business owners are participating in the lifestyles of their customers you would have to argue that he is both pro-environmentalist and pro-oil industry. Another day he has Richard Dawkins sat at one table and a church synod meeting of priests sat at another. Is he now pro-religion or pro-atheist?

The correct answer in both cases is, of course, that he's neither. His customer's lifestyles say absolutely nothing about his lifestyle or beliefs, they are simply customers. He should treat all groups with the respect due to other humans, and provide his restaurant service with the professionalism one would expect from someone offering a commercial service like that.

Those gay t-shirt makers should have no right to turn away the WBC purely because of WBC religious beliefs either. Religious belief is protected too (I think - it is in the UK anyway). Just because they are on the other side of the gay/straight coin doesn't mean they are being any less childish by claiming they can choose what to discriminate against others for.
User avatar
Major crispybits
 
Posts: 942
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:29 pm

Re: Full Frontal Assault on First Amendment

Postby TA1LGUNN3R on Fri Nov 14, 2014 4:27 pm

crispybits wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:
crispybits wrote:1).....religion should be able to preach what it wants in the privacy of their churches, it's when they act to impose those beliefs on those who don't share them and by doing so break civil laws that I have a problem.


(1) I agree.


Crispy, how is that any different from saying homosexuals should be able to do whatever they want in the privacy of their own homes, it's when they act to impose their lifestyle on others who disagree....


Lets see if you can understand the fundamental difference here:

(a) Mary complains that her school won't let her do a course in carpentry because the principal believes that only men should be carpenters. Mary says men and women should have equality of opportunity.

(b) The principal complains that the school board force him to let Mary into the carpentry class because to exclude her is against the law. He says that he's being forced to participate in a woman being a carpenter.

I'll give you a hint, in (a) Mary is complaining about something in her own life in order to gain the freedom to participate in society in the way she wants to. In (b) the principal is complaining to deny someone else the opportunity to make the choices they want to in their own life.

To make it really clear how ridiculous it is to suggest that someone selling something to someone means they are somehow participating in their lifestyle imagine a big restaurant owner. On one table over one side of his restaurant he has a meeting of senior executives from BP Oil. On the other side of his restaurant at the same time he has a meeting of activist planners from Greenpeace. Using the theory that somehow business owners are participating in the lifestyles of their customers you would have to argue that he is both pro-environmentalist and pro-oil industry. Another day he has Richard Dawkins sat at one table and a church synod meeting of priests sat at another. Is he now pro-religion or pro-atheist?

The correct answer in both cases is, of course, that he's neither. His customer's lifestyles say absolutely nothing about his lifestyle or beliefs, they are simply customers. He should treat all groups with the respect due to other humans, and provide his restaurant service with the professionalism one would expect from someone offering a commercial service like that.

Those gay t-shirt makers should have no right to turn away the WBC purely because of WBC religious beliefs either. Religious belief is protected too (I think - it is in the UK anyway). Just because they are on the other side of the gay/straight coin doesn't mean they are being any less childish by claiming they can choose what to discriminate against others for.


Of course they should. A business owner should have the right to refuse service for any reason they want. That doesn't mean it's a sound business strategy, but that's irrelevant.

Let's extend your restaurateur example to a restaurant in the Gulf. BP just dumped a fuck-ton of oil in the gulf and hasn't cleaned it up. The shrimp restaurant shouldn't be able to refuse service to the BP exec?

-TG
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class TA1LGUNN3R
 
Posts: 2699
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 12:52 am
Location: 22 Acacia Avenue

Re: Full Frontal on the First: Heroes and Cowards

Postby crispybits on Fri Nov 14, 2014 4:33 pm

They can, they just can't do it based on the gender, sexuality, race, age or religion of the BP exec. They have to have some other good reason to do so.
User avatar
Major crispybits
 
Posts: 942
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:29 pm

Re: Full Frontal on the First: Heroes and Cowards

Postby BigBallinStalin on Fri Nov 14, 2014 6:04 pm

crispybits wrote:They can, they just can't do it based on the gender, sexuality, race, age or religion of the BP exec. They have to have some other good reason to do so.


How about reputation--e.g. brand names?

Would you sell your products to the KKK? Which organizations can an owner choose to exclude from his services?

It seems reasonable to refuse to offer one's services to an organization like the Westboro Baptist Church. Sure, that's discrimination of a religion, but so what?


Here's another problem. What if customers are systematically biased against certain religions, ages, races, genders, etc.? As a business owner, it may be folly to sell to certain people which the customers do not like. Given this constraint, it makes sense to discriminate against gender, age, etc.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Full Frontal on the First: Heroes and Cowards

Postby DoomYoshi on Tue Nov 18, 2014 1:36 pm

I agree to this Constitution, with all its faults — if they are such; — because I think a general government necessary for us, and there is no form of government but what may be a blessing to the people, if well administered; and I believe further, that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other.
░▒▒▓▓▓▒▒░
User avatar
Captain DoomYoshi
 
Posts: 10715
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 9:30 pm
Location: Niu York, Ukraine

Re: Full Frontal on the First: Heroes and Cowards

Postby BigBallinStalin on Tue Nov 18, 2014 8:40 pm

DoomYoshi wrote:I agree to this Constitution, with all its faults — if they are such; — because I think a general government necessary for us, and there is no form of government but what may be a blessing to the people, if well administered; and I believe further, that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other.


The left the right, one step backward from the hills all comes tumbling at the mass point entity.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Full Frontal on the First: Heroes and Cowards

Postby mrswdk on Tue Nov 18, 2014 9:35 pm

crispybits wrote:They can, they just can't do it based on the gender, sexuality, race, age or religion of the BP exec. They have to have some other good reason to do so.


Things crispy forbids from being used as a reason to deny service:
- gender
- sexuality
- race
- age
- religion

Things crispy does not forbid, and which I believe fall under the heading of 'good reason to deny service':
- physical unattractiveness
- social class
- nationality
- is sympathetic to the views of John McCain
- looks shifty
- wearing Japanese clothing
- driving a Japanese car
- walks like a Japanese person
Lieutenant mrswdk
 
Posts: 14898
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 10:37 am
Location: Red Swastika School

Re: Full Frontal on the First: Heroes and Cowards

Postby crispybits on Thu Nov 20, 2014 3:25 am

mrswdk wrote:
crispybits wrote:They can, they just can't do it based on the gender, sexuality, race, age or religion of the BP exec. They have to have some other good reason to do so.


Things the law* forbids from being used as a reason to deny service:
(* depending on your location mileage may vary)

- gender
- sexuality
- race
- age
- religion

Things the law does not forbid, and which sometimes still fall under the heading of 'you're still being a douchebag':
- physical unattractiveness
- social class
- nationality
- is sympathetic to the views of John McCain
- looks shifty
- wearing Japanese clothing
- driving a Japanese car
- walks like a Japanese person


Fixed that for you
User avatar
Major crispybits
 
Posts: 942
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:29 pm

Re: Full Frontal on the First: Heroes and Cowards

Postby crispybits on Thu Nov 20, 2014 3:33 am

BigBallinStalin wrote:
crispybits wrote:They can, they just can't do it based on the gender, sexuality, race, age or religion of the BP exec. They have to have some other good reason to do so.


How about reputation--e.g. brand names?

Would you sell your products to the KKK? Which organizations can an owner choose to exclude from his services?

It seems reasonable to refuse to offer one's services to an organization like the Westboro Baptist Church. Sure, that's discrimination of a religion, but so what?

Here's another problem. What if customers are systematically biased against certain religions, ages, races, genders, etc.? As a business owner, it may be folly to sell to certain people which the customers do not like. Given this constraint, it makes sense to discriminate against gender, age, etc.


How does discriminating against reputation not fall into one of the other categories. They have a reputation for X or Y or Z. If X, Y or Z are protected in law then you're not allowed to discriminate based on that. If it's not you are. Pretty simple really.

*Uninformed amateur legal opinion - It may be possible to discriminate based on being a member of the WBC if you can also show that you do not discriminate based on someone being a christian in general. You're not objecting to their religion in this case, you're objecting to some other thing. You would have to define what the other thing is in non-religious terms however to defend your case if accused of religious discrimination.

On your last point, it makes no sense to discriminate based on a protected characteristic if it costs you more in fines and other punishments for doing so than the profit from the discriminatory customer base. Once that customer base finds there are no businesses willing to break the law just to secure their patronage they will end up going to businesses that do follow the law anyway.
User avatar
Major crispybits
 
Posts: 942
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:29 pm

Re: Full Frontal on the First: Heroes and Cowards

Postby thegreekdog on Fri Nov 21, 2014 10:59 am

BigBallinStalin wrote:
crispybits wrote:They can, they just can't do it based on the gender, sexuality, race, age or religion of the BP exec. They have to have some other good reason to do so.


How about reputation--e.g. brand names?

Would you sell your products to the KKK? Which organizations can an owner choose to exclude from his services?

It seems reasonable to refuse to offer one's services to an organization like the Westboro Baptist Church. Sure, that's discrimination of a religion, but so what?


Here's another problem. What if customers are systematically biased against certain religions, ages, races, genders, etc.? As a business owner, it may be folly to sell to certain people which the customers do not like. Given this constraint, it makes sense to discriminate against gender, age, etc.


There are many court cases dealing with the "some other good reason" issue, but the ultimate issue is whether there are certain reasons that some portion of the population agrees are bad reasons to refuse service. The issue that PS raises (I think) is that when you force a printer to print t-shirts with gay slogans, the printer has to choose between her religion and her business; ultimatley, she is making a choice that potentially affects her religion and, as far as the Constitution is concerned, her religion is something that is protected (the same (or more some would argue - me, for one) than race, sexual orientation, and gender).

So you potentially have the tryannical majority (gay supporters) making a decision that affects the minority (the religious business owner) - okay, that's cool, except we have the Constitution which arguably says you can't do that (and, by the way, the Constitution exists to protect against the tyranny of the majority, among other things).
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7245
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Full Frontal on the First: Heroes and Cowards

Postby mrswdk on Fri Nov 21, 2014 11:42 am

BigBallinStalin wrote:What if customers are systematically biased against certain religions, ages, races, genders, etc.? As a business owner, it may be folly to sell to certain people which the customers do not like.


Indeed. A good example would be English language schools in China. Many parents looking for an English tutor will favor white people over those of other ethnicities, to the point of deliberately avoiding non-white teachers. It's like you're not a 'proper' Westerner unless you have blonde hair and blue eyes. If a school has a lot of customers who feel this way, it would be an error for them to fill their staffroom with ABCs, blacks etc., because this will hurt their business, possibly even so much that their school will have to close.

I have no idea if this is legal or not, but in practice the businesses are given the freedom to operate under the principles of free market economics and in any case are usually not stupid enough to explicitly state that they do not hire non-white teachers.

Seriously, what kind of moron says 'I refuse to serve gays' instead of just 'We have too many orders at the moment to accept any more, sorry'? You're obviously just inviting trouble.
Lieutenant mrswdk
 
Posts: 14898
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 10:37 am
Location: Red Swastika School

Re: Full Frontal on the First: Heroes and Cowards

Postby BigBallinStalin on Fri Nov 21, 2014 1:58 pm

crispybits wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
crispybits wrote:They can, they just can't do it based on the gender, sexuality, race, age or religion of the BP exec. They have to have some other good reason to do so.


How about reputation--e.g. brand names?

Would you sell your products to the KKK? Which organizations can an owner choose to exclude from his services?

It seems reasonable to refuse to offer one's services to an organization like the Westboro Baptist Church. Sure, that's discrimination of a religion, but so what?

Here's another problem. What if customers are systematically biased against certain religions, ages, races, genders, etc.? As a business owner, it may be folly to sell to certain people which the customers do not like. Given this constraint, it makes sense to discriminate against gender, age, etc.


How does discriminating against reputation not fall into one of the other categories. They have a reputation for X or Y or Z. If X, Y or Z are protected in law then you're not allowed to discriminate based on that. If it's not you are. Pretty simple really.

*Uninformed amateur legal opinion - It may be possible to discriminate based on being a member of the WBC if you can also show that you do not discriminate based on someone being a christian in general. You're not objecting to their religion in this case, you're objecting to some other thing. You would have to define what the other thing is in non-religious terms however to defend your case if accused of religious discrimination.

On your last point, it makes no sense to discriminate based on a protected characteristic if it costs you more in fines and other punishments for doing so than the profit from the discriminatory customer base. Once that customer base finds there are no businesses willing to break the law just to secure their patronage they will end up going to businesses that do follow the law anyway.


Hmm... Think of it this way. Suppose there's a large subset of humans who are prejudiced against various groups. In turn, they filter out 'undesirables'--whether it be for employment, for dating, and what not. Ultimately, choice requires discrimination because it's impossible to give equal opportunity to everyone (it's too costly). E.g. if you choose to date someone, you're discriminating against all other possible dates. You're not giving everyone 'equal opportunity'.

So, at this stage, it depends on the reason for discrimination. (1) information costs: it's costly to acquire additional information on various groups and sub-groups of humans, so people tend to opt for lower cost means--e.g. see mrswdk's story about how customers choose English teachers. It's discriminatory, but on average they're likely to get better teachers (i.e. teachers who sound and know more about English).

Now, insert Law A which is suppose to mitigate discrimination. Will it work? Well, if it says, "no explicit discrimination in hiring people or selling goods to people," then it drives discrimination underground. Why? Because the demand for discrimination still remains, and it becomes extremely difficult to now root it out and then punish it. Then, there's the costs of such laws. Suppose you pass similar laws for basketball and football teams: there's too many black people, so make it more diverse by imposing 'import' quotas which favor whites and asians. This obviously will lead to bad outcomes. The same goes for similar laws imposed on other market enterprises.

This is generally why I view anti-discrimination laws and 'import' quotas based on race' to be a load of counter-productive nonsense which people like because the intentions of the law appeal to their emotions.
Last edited by BigBallinStalin on Fri Nov 21, 2014 2:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Full Frontal on the First: Heroes and Cowards

Postby BigBallinStalin on Fri Nov 21, 2014 2:01 pm

mrswdk wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:What if customers are systematically biased against certain religions, ages, races, genders, etc.? As a business owner, it may be folly to sell to certain people which the customers do not like.


Indeed. A good example would be English language schools in China. Many parents looking for an English tutor will favor white people over those of other ethnicities, to the point of deliberately avoiding non-white teachers. It's like you're not a 'proper' Westerner unless you have blonde hair and blue eyes. If a school has a lot of customers who feel this way, it would be an error for them to fill their staffroom with ABCs, blacks etc., because this will hurt their business, possibly even so much that their school will have to close.

I have no idea if this is legal or not, but in practice the businesses are given the freedom to operate under the principles of free market economics and in any case are usually not stupid enough to explicitly state that they do not hire non-white teachers.

Seriously, what kind of moron says 'I refuse to serve gays' instead of just 'We have too many orders at the moment to accept any more, sorry'? You're obviously just inviting trouble.


And if such a seller is that stupid, then I'd be less inclined to purchase from them. His overt discrimination helps inform me on my purchasing decisions. Win-win!
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Full Frontal on the First: Heroes and Cowards

Postby BigBallinStalin on Fri Nov 21, 2014 2:05 pm

thegreekdog wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
crispybits wrote:They can, they just can't do it based on the gender, sexuality, race, age or religion of the BP exec. They have to have some other good reason to do so.


How about reputation--e.g. brand names?

Would you sell your products to the KKK? Which organizations can an owner choose to exclude from his services?

It seems reasonable to refuse to offer one's services to an organization like the Westboro Baptist Church. Sure, that's discrimination of a religion, but so what?


Here's another problem. What if customers are systematically biased against certain religions, ages, races, genders, etc.? As a business owner, it may be folly to sell to certain people which the customers do not like. Given this constraint, it makes sense to discriminate against gender, age, etc.


There are many court cases dealing with the "some other good reason" issue, but the ultimate issue is whether there are certain reasons that some portion of the population agrees are bad reasons to refuse service. The issue that PS raises (I think) is that when you force a printer to print t-shirts with gay slogans, the printer has to choose between her religion and her business; ultimatley, she is making a choice that potentially affects her religion and, as far as the Constitution is concerned, her religion is something that is protected (the same (or more some would argue - me, for one) than race, sexual orientation, and gender).

So you potentially have the tryannical majority (gay supporters) making a decision that affects the minority (the religious business owner) - okay, that's cool, except we have the Constitution which arguably says you can't do that (and, by the way, the Constitution exists to protect against the tyranny of the majority, among other things).


I agree, but most don't care about appeals to the Constitution when the Constitution disagrees with them.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Full Frontal on the First: Heroes and Cowards

Postby crispybits on Fri Nov 21, 2014 5:25 pm

thegreekdog wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
crispybits wrote:They can, they just can't do it based on the gender, sexuality, race, age or religion of the BP exec. They have to have some other good reason to do so.


How about reputation--e.g. brand names?

Would you sell your products to the KKK? Which organizations can an owner choose to exclude from his services?

It seems reasonable to refuse to offer one's services to an organization like the Westboro Baptist Church. Sure, that's discrimination of a religion, but so what?


Here's another problem. What if customers are systematically biased against certain religions, ages, races, genders, etc.? As a business owner, it may be folly to sell to certain people which the customers do not like. Given this constraint, it makes sense to discriminate against gender, age, etc.


There are many court cases dealing with the "some other good reason" issue, but the ultimate issue is whether there are certain reasons that some portion of the population agrees are bad reasons to refuse service. The issue that PS raises (I think) is that when you force a printer to print t-shirts with gay slogans, the printer has to choose between her religion and her business; ultimatley, she is making a choice that potentially affects her religion and, as far as the Constitution is concerned, her religion is something that is protected (the same (or more some would argue - me, for one) than race, sexual orientation, and gender).

So you potentially have the tryannical majority (gay supporters) making a decision that affects the minority (the religious business owner) - okay, that's cool, except we have the Constitution which arguably says you can't do that (and, by the way, the Constitution exists to protect against the tyranny of the majority, among other things).


I will wholeheartedly agree when you, or any other religious person, can point to the instructions in the bible not to trade or do business with gay people (or to make it easier just sinners will do)

And they should be more powerful than the time when Paul said that Christians should obey the laws of the land (Romans 13), when Paul said that Chritians should treat everyone with respect and dignity (in fact, better than you would expect to be treated yourself) (Phillipians 2), when Jesus regurgitated the long known "golden rule" (Matthew 7) or when Jesus refused to condemn an adultress (John 11). When the verse they pick is more powerful than the central tenets of Jesus' teachings about loving your neighbour, loving your enemy, not judging people, etc that's when I'll admit there is a religious justification not to sell someone a frickin' cake or t-shirt.

Or are you seriously arguing that laws that say you're not allowed to discriminate based on certain inherent and protected characteristics are unconstitutional because they deny people the freedom to practice their religion freely? Then I could find you a psychotic loony group who believe in human sacrifice that by the very same argument make laws against murder unconstitutional. Religion is not a magic get out of jail free card to ifgnore anything you don't like, nor should it ever be...
User avatar
Major crispybits
 
Posts: 942
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:29 pm

Re: Full Frontal on the First: Heroes and Cowards

Postby crispybits on Fri Nov 21, 2014 5:48 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:Hmm... Think of it this way. Suppose there's a large subset of humans who are prejudiced against various groups. In turn, they filter out 'undesirables'--whether it be for employment, for dating, and what not. Ultimately, choice requires discrimination because it's impossible to give equal opportunity to everyone (it's too costly). E.g. if you choose to date someone, you're discriminating against all other possible dates. You're not giving everyone 'equal opportunity'.

So, at this stage, it depends on the reason for discrimination. (1) information costs: it's costly to acquire additional information on various groups and sub-groups of humans, so people tend to opt for lower cost means--e.g. see mrswdk's story about how customers choose English teachers. It's discriminatory, but on average they're likely to get better teachers (i.e. teachers who sound and know more about English).

Now, insert Law A which is suppose to mitigate discrimination. Will it work? Well, if it says, "no explicit discrimination in hiring people or selling goods to people," then it drives discrimination underground. Why? Because the demand for discrimination still remains, and it becomes extremely difficult to now root it out and then punish it. Then, there's the costs of such laws. Suppose you pass similar laws for basketball and football teams: there's too many black people, so make it more diverse by imposing 'import' quotas which favor whites and asians. This obviously will lead to bad outcomes. The same goes for similar laws imposed on other market enterprises.

This is generally why I view anti-discrimination laws and 'import' quotas based on race' to be a load of counter-productive nonsense which people like because the intentions of the law appeal to their emotions.


Yes personal choice involves discrimination all the time. But the thing is there are no laws against that nor would I personally support laws of that kind (for example, I don't think people should be punished for saying "I won't date her because she's black" by the law)

But there is a difference between a person making choices about their own life, and a business openly offering to do trade with the general public. If I was to sell a romantic date with me on ebay for example, I should be prevented from saying I won't sell it to a black person. I'm offering a service (admittedly probably not one that would make me a great deal of money), not making a lifestyle choice about how I live my own life in private.

There's also a massive difference between being for ending negative discrimination, and being for instituting positive discrimination. I don't think positive discrimination is a good idea at all. Ask me any day if there should be minority quotas on employment or whatever and I'll say no. But only because I think it's the wrong way to tackle negative discrimination. As an analogy, I don't like speed bumps, I don't think they are the right way to combat speeding in school zones or other built up areas. I'm also not really bothered to do much about speed bumps while there are still people that drive too fast for safety in these areas. If we could eradicate the problem of people driving inappropriately, then there would no longer be a need for speed bumps. Similarly, if we could end negative discrimination (in professional/commercial spheres, not personal ones) then we would also have no need for the positive discrimination. I choose to put my efforts into addressing the problem rather than complaining about the consequences of the counter-measures I disagree with when the secondary effects are still less harmful to society than the primary problem.

As for driving it underground, that's how it starts. Racism was overt, then a bunch of anti-racism laws got passed, and it definitely didn't vanish. The smarter racists just found workarounds to still discriminate within the law. Now, some decades later how much racism is there compared to during the time of the civil rights movement? (Here's a hint, the answer is much less). Yes it still exists, but by taking away the oxygen of positive publicity and by making it clear that the society we live in is one that finds discrimination on racial grounds unacceptable, it's slowly becoming less of a problem. Is a law a quick fix magic pill? Definitely not. Does a law play a part in a wider strategy of combating racism. I would say yes, and I believe that the evidence backs me up. If you think I'm wrong then fine, but you haven't provided any evidence that the use of legal measures is ineffective as you claim. Give me an example of a society where an anti-discrimination law was passed which, given time, did not become less discriminatory at least in part due to that law.
User avatar
Major crispybits
 
Posts: 942
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:29 pm

Re: Full Frontal on the First: Heroes and Cowards

Postby BigBallinStalin on Fri Nov 21, 2014 8:19 pm

crispybits wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:Hmm... Think of it this way. Suppose there's a large subset of humans who are prejudiced against various groups. In turn, they filter out 'undesirables'--whether it be for employment, for dating, and what not. Ultimately, choice requires discrimination because it's impossible to give equal opportunity to everyone (it's too costly). E.g. if you choose to date someone, you're discriminating against all other possible dates. You're not giving everyone 'equal opportunity'.

So, at this stage, it depends on the reason for discrimination. (1) information costs: it's costly to acquire additional information on various groups and sub-groups of humans, so people tend to opt for lower cost means--e.g. see mrswdk's story about how customers choose English teachers. It's discriminatory, but on average they're likely to get better teachers (i.e. teachers who sound and know more about English).

Now, insert Law A which is suppose to mitigate discrimination. Will it work? Well, if it says, "no explicit discrimination in hiring people or selling goods to people," then it drives discrimination underground. Why? Because the demand for discrimination still remains, and it becomes extremely difficult to now root it out and then punish it. Then, there's the costs of such laws. Suppose you pass similar laws for basketball and football teams: there's too many black people, so make it more diverse by imposing 'import' quotas which favor whites and asians. This obviously will lead to bad outcomes. The same goes for similar laws imposed on other market enterprises.

This is generally why I view anti-discrimination laws and 'import' quotas based on race' to be a load of counter-productive nonsense which people like because the intentions of the law appeal to their emotions.


Yes personal choice involves discrimination all the time. But the thing is there are no laws against that nor would I personally support laws of that kind (for example, I don't think people should be punished for saying "I won't date her because she's black" by the law)

But there is a difference between a person making choices about their own life, and a business openly offering to do trade with the general public. If I was to sell a romantic date with me on ebay for example, I should be prevented from saying I won't sell it to a black person. I'm offering a service (admittedly probably not one that would make me a great deal of money), not making a lifestyle choice about how I live my own life in private.


Yeah, I just don't see an essential difference between the two (maybe because I've been reading too much econ). I agree that as a person I should be allowed to make choices about my own life, but if I own a business upon which my services rely then that business is also within the scope of my life. The decisions I make in the dating market and the labor market affect my relations with others--depending on (a) their expectations of morally good behavior and (b) the manner in which I hide my inherent discriminatory practices (which everyone has).

If I own a business--e.g. I do people's taxes, then it's not like everyone has an equal right to my services. At some point, I may receive so many potential clients that I must discriminate along various margins--because I cannot offer them all the same service. I'm not gonna run a complicated regression analysis on all of them; I'm gonna use cheaper means--e.g. 'I can't stand ill-tempered clients, so I'll discriminate against the annoying'.

So far so good, but suppose I have a history of dealing with Quebecan clients, and 90% of them have been whiny and speak terrible English. I'll put them last on my list of potential clients to serve. Effectively, I've discriminated against them, but it's economically sensible. Given my experience, it's not worth the risk to treat all equally even though 10% of the Quebecans could be good clients.

It's morally irresponsible to argue that I must treat everyone equally, regardless of their Quebecan status, because that requires me to eat additional costs which the 'moral expert' does not incur. The 'moral expert' feels good about intentions but tends to ignore consequences which the expert does not directly incur--e.g. my greater costs incurred, and the costs incurred by Quebecans in dealing with a person who does not want to deal with them (expect lower product quality). In short, their moral framework faces externalized costs, so it's cheap moral talk on their part.


There's also a massive difference between being for ending negative discrimination, and being for instituting positive discrimination. I don't think positive discrimination is a good idea at all. Ask me any day if there should be minority quotas on employment or whatever and I'll say no. But only because I think it's the wrong way to tackle negative discrimination. As an analogy, I don't like speed bumps, I don't think they are the right way to combat speeding in school zones or other built up areas. I'm also not really bothered to do much about speed bumps while there are still people that drive too fast for safety in these areas. If we could eradicate the problem of people driving inappropriately, then there would no longer be a need for speed bumps. Similarly, if we could end negative discrimination (in professional/commercial spheres, not personal ones) then we would also have no need for the positive discrimination. I choose to put my efforts into addressing the problem rather than complaining about the consequences of the counter-measures I disagree with when the secondary effects are still less harmful to society than the primary problem.

As for driving it underground, that's how it starts. Racism was overt, then a bunch of anti-racism laws got passed, and it definitely didn't vanish. The smarter racists just found workarounds to still discriminate within the law. Now, some decades later how much racism is there compared to during the time of the civil rights movement? (Here's a hint, the answer is much less). Yes it still exists, but by taking away the oxygen of positive publicity and by making it clear that the society we live in is one that finds discrimination on racial grounds unacceptable, it's slowly becoming less of a problem. Is a law a quick fix magic pill? Definitely not. Does a law play a part in a wider strategy of combating racism. I would say yes, and I believe that the evidence backs me up. If you think I'm wrong then fine, but you haven't provided any evidence that the use of legal measures is ineffective as you claim. Give me an example of a society where an anti-discrimination law was passed which, given time, did not become less discriminatory at least in part due to that law.


Well, we've run into an unresolvable issue: correlation != causation, and I haven't seen the empirical data which estimates the impact of laws on changing discriminatory behavior (e.g. try measuring changes in cultural attitudes). I could imagine running regressions that compare "societies with anti-discrimination laws" v. "societies without anti-discrimination laws" but the number and measurement of relevant variables baffles me. Another issue is measuring discrimination after it's been driven underground. Surveys won't properly reveal it because people may be bullshitting themselves about how they actually think and behave (social desirability bias).

My general opinion about racism and prejudice is that over time people become more educated (whether in school, immediate social relations, or stuff they read), and consequentially become less 'dickish'. As the older generations die out, younger generations fill in the average, thus vulgar attitudes of the past become a pastime (e.g. look at how women were treated on TV shows in the 50s v. today. It's not like we had a regulatory board demanding that women be treated better on TV; therefore, do x, y, and z. I believe that consumers over time changed their preferences about such matters, so the producers responded accordingly).
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Full Frontal on the First: Atlanta Fire Chief

Postby Phatscotty on Tue Jan 13, 2015 3:21 am

Included is a New York Times article and a FOX article

Atlanta Mayor Reed
Image

Atlanta Fire Chief Cochrane
Image

Atlanta Fire Chief: I was fired because of my Christian faith

“It’s a frightening day in the United States when a person cannot express their faith without fears of persecution following,” White told me. “It’s persecution when a godly fire chief loses his job over expressing his Christian faith.”
“That’s the day that God convicted me in my heart that I wanted to be a firefighter when I grew up,” Cochran said. “All I thought about growing up in Shreveport was not being poor and being a firefighter.”



Kelvin Cochran was five-years-old when he realized that he wanted to be a firefighter.

“My family was very, very poor,” Cochran told me. “We were living in a shotgun house in an alley – three big brothers, two little sisters.”

One Sunday afternoon the Cochran children heard a fire truck stop across from their neighbor’s home. Miss Maddie’s house was one fire.

And God granted Kelvin Cochran the desires of his heart. The little boy in the shotgun shack grew up to become the fire chief of Shreveport. He was named the Atlanta fire chief in 2008 – a position he served until 2009 when was called to serve in the Obama Administration as a fire administrator. In 2010 he returned to Atlanta where he was unanimously confirmed to once again be the city’s fire chief.

But now Chief Cochran’s storied career is up in smoke – all because of a book he wrote for a men’s Bible study group at his Baptist church.

Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed announced Tuesday that Cochran had been fired. The announcement came on the same day Cochran was supposed to return to work following a 30-day suspension.

“The LGBT members of our community have a right to be able to express their views and convictions about sexuality and deserve to be respected for their position without hate or discrimination,” Cochran told me in an exclusive interview. “But Christians also have a right to express our belief regarding our faith and be respected for our position without hate and without discrimination. In the United States, no one should be vilified, hated or discriminated against for expressing their beliefs.”

Cochran had been suspended in November because of a passage he wrote about homosexuality in a book titled, “Who Told You That You Were Naked?” The book’s theme is about biblical morality.

“This is about judgment,” Mayor Reed said during a Tuesday press conference. “This is not about religious freedom. This is not about free speech. Judgment is the basis of the problem.”

Last November the mayor posted a public condemnation of the fire chief on his official Facebook page.

“I profoundly disagree with and am deeply disturbed by the sentiments expressed in the paperback regarding the LGBT community,” the mayor wrote. “I will not tolerate discrimination of any kind within my administration.”

The mayor went on to inform the public that Cochran had been suspended without pay and was ordered to complete a sensitivity training class.

“I want to be clear that the material in Chief Cochran’s book is not representative of my personal beliefs, and is inconsistent with the Administration’s work to make Atlanta a more welcoming city for all of her citizens -- regardless of their sexual orientation, gender, race and religious beliefs,” Mayor Reed wrote.

So what in the world did Cochran write that was so offensive to the mayor and the LGBT community?

According to the GA Voice, a publication that covers the LGBT community, there were two items that caused concern:

“Uncleanness – whatever is opposite of purity; including sodomy, homosexuality, lesbianism, pederasty, bestiality, all other forms of sexual perversion.”

“Naked men refuse to give in, so they pursue sexual fulfillment through multiple partners, with the opposite sex, the same sex, and sex outside of marriage and many other vile, vulgar and inappropriate ways which defile their body – temple and dishonor God.”

Cochran said he referenced homosexuality on less than a half a page in the 160-page book.

“I did not single out homosexuality,” he said. ‘I simply spoke to sex being created by God for pro-creation and He intended it to be between a man and a woman in holy matrimony – and that any other sex outside of that is sin.”

Cochran told me that someone within the department obtained a copy of the book and took it to openly-gay city council member Alex Wan.

Wan released a statement supporting Cochran’s termination and said it “sends a strong message to employees about how much we value diversity and how we adhere to a non-discriminatory environment.”

The book caused a firestorm within Atlanta’s LGBT community and there were many calls for him to be fired – a decision the mayor finally agreed to.

“I guess they got what they asked for,” Cochran said.

Georgia Equality Executive Director Jeff Graham told GA Voice Cochran’s “anti-gay” views could result in a hostile work environment.

“This is not about his religious views but his about his ability to lead a diverse work force,” he said. “It’s unfortunate that this had to happen. I feel the mayor has done the right thing to ensure all employees are treated fairly.”

The allegations against Cochran amount to a he-said, he-said between the fire chief and the mayor.

Reed said that he had no knowledge that Cochran was writing a book. However, Cochran said the director of Atlanta’s ethics office had not only given him permission to write the book, but to also mention in his biography that he was the city’s fire chief.

Cochran said he gave a copy of the book to Mayor Reed in January, 2014 and the mayor told him he planned on reading it during an upcoming trip.

Cochran also admitted that he gave copies of the book to several members of the fire department – individuals with whom he had personal relationships.

The mayor also took issue with Cochran speaking publicly about his suspension. However, Cochran said he honored the mayor’s guidance and did not speak to the media. He did, however, share his testimony in several churches.

“I did not dishonor him in the process,” Cochran told me.

Cochran wants to make clear that he does not hate anyone.

“The essence of the Christian faith is a love without condition, sir,” he told me. “I have demonstrated that love in the fire service for 34 years. There’s not any person of any people group that has interacted with me for any measure of time that can say I have hate or disregard or discrimination in my heart for any people group.”

Cochran’s plight has drawn condemnation from a number of religious groups across Georgia including the influential Georgia Baptist Convention.

“This is appalling,” said Robert White, president of the Georgia Baptist Convention. “This has everything to do with his religious beliefs.”

White told me he believes the mayor succumbed to pressure from the city’s LGBT community.

“It’s a frightening day in the United States when a person cannot express their faith without fears of persecution following,” he told me. “It’s persecution when a godly fire chief loses his job over expressing his Christian faith.”

And the fire chief’s firing could spark public protests and demonstrations from the state’s Christian community.

“We’re past the point of taking a public stand,” White told me. “Christians must stand up for their rights.”

Cochran told me he is considering his legal options – but one thing is certain. He has no desire to get his old job back.

“I believe God has greater things for me,” the father and grandfather said. “I love the fire services. It’s a childhood dream come true.”

And don’t go feeling sorry for Chief Cochran.

“I’m not discouraged and I’m not downtrodden,” he said. “This is a God thing and He’s going to do great things and He will vindicate me publicly.”[/quote]
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/01/ ... ian-faith/



http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/12/us/at ... .html?_r=0
Religious Bias Issues Debated After Atlanta Mayor’s Dismissal of Fire Chief

ATLANTA — Mayor Kasim Reed’s decision to dismiss his fire chief last week for giving co-workers copies of a Christian self-help book condemning homosexuality is fanning new kinds of legal and political flames in this city, where deeply held religious convictions exist in a kind of defining tension with a reputation for New South tolerance.

Mr. Reed fired Kelvin Cochran, the chief, on Tuesday over the distribution of his book, which condemns homosexual acts as “vile, vulgar and inappropriate.” Reached at home on Thursday, Mr. Cochran referred all questions to his lawyers, who issued a statement on his behalf.

“I am heartbroken that I will no longer be able to serve the city and the people I love as fire chief, for no reason other than my Christian faith,” Mr. Cochran said in the statement released by the Alliance Defending Freedom, an Arizona-based conservative legal organization that is representing him. “It’s ironic that the city points to tolerance and inclusion as part of its reasoning. What could be more intolerant and exclusionary than ending a public servant’s 30 years of distinguished service for his religious beliefs?”

Those sentiments are particularly weighty in Atlanta, where the legacy of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., a hometown hero, remains a moral guidepost for governance. As a legal matter, the spat may eventually be settled in court: Greg Scott, a spokesman for the Alliance Defending Freedom, said that the chief and his lawyers were “currently assessing legal options” that might “vindicate his right to free speech.”

But the case has already proved to be a major headache for Mr. Reed, one of the most powerful Democrats in elected office in the South.

The mayor argued that his firing of the chief had nothing to do with Mr. Cochran’s Christian faith, but rather with a lack of judgment on the part of a man charged with managing a 750-member department.

Mr. Reed said that the chief failed to follow proper protocol in receiving approvals from city officials to publish his book, a claim that Mr. Cochran disputes. Mr. Reed also said that Mr. Cochran opened the city to possible discrimination lawsuits.

Beth Littrell, a senior lawyer in the Southern regional office of Lambda Legal, a New York-based gay rights group, called Mr. Reed’s decision “courageous.”

“You can’t couch bigotry and create an intimidating environment at work, and cloak it in your beliefs and not expect to have consequences,” Ms. Littrell said.

But conservatives and religious organizations were outraged. The Georgia Baptist Convention has organized an online petition demanding that the firing be reversed. The evangelist Franklin Graham, in an opinion piece for a religious news site, called Mr. Cochran the “latest target of politically correct bullying against Bible-believing Christians.”

On Twitter, State Representative Christian Coomer, a Republican from Cartersville, Ga., called Mr. Reed the “anti-free speech, anti-religious freedom, anti-free press mayor of Atlanta.”

Continue reading the main storyContinue reading the main storyContinue reading the main story
Mr. Reed said Friday that his email inbox had been flooded with hundreds of messages per day criticizing the decision. And it could eventually become unwanted baggage for the ambitious, 45-year-old mayor, whose tenure will end in 2018 because of term limits.

If Mr. Reed ever ventures beyond Atlanta and into a race for statewide office, the incident could end up hurting him among rural, Christian whites, who, as a rule, tend to be wary of Atlanta politicians. But the mayor said that he had no regrets.

“I think it’s more important that I’m able to look myself in the mirror,” he said, adding: “In any future campaign I’ll be happy to talk about my record in office — and I’d be happy to talk about my termination of Kelvin Cochran.”

More pressing is the possible effect that Mr. Cochran’s firing could have on a continuing debate over whether Georgia needs a so-called religious freedom law, which would give more legal sway to individuals who challenge state and local government policies that they believe to be discriminatory.

Such a bill has been pre-filed in the State House of Representatives in anticipation of the coming legislative session, which starts Monday. Mr. Cochran’s firing has already been cited by some of the bill’s Republican supporters as an example of the kind of religious persecution Georgians face.

Continue reading the main story

Many of Mr. Cochran’s supporters are also supporting the bill.

Last year, similar legislation died in the Republican-controlled Legislature after critics said that it would have allowed individuals and businesses to discriminate against gays on religious grounds.

The most significant opposition came from international corporations like Delta Air Lines, which have transformed Atlanta into a regional economic powerhouse. In a statement last year, Delta said that such bills would violate the company’s “core values of mutual respect.”

State Senator Josh McKoon, a sponsor of the legislation last year, said that nothing in the bills, last year or this year, would have allowed businesses to discriminate against gay people. He said that the news media and the business community conflated the Georgia bill with high-profile legislation in Arizona, under debate around the same time, that would have allowed businesses to discriminate against gays. (The Arizona bill, which passed the state legislature, was vetoed by Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican, last February.)

Mr. McKoon is eager to bring up the matter again in the coming session. So far, the business community remains opposed: In December, Trey Childress, a former chief operating officer for two Republican governors, sent lawmakers a letter urging them to once again vote no. Mr. Childress said he had written the letter on behalf of a coalition of businesses called Competitive Georgia.

“Georgia is better than this,” Mr. Childress wrote. “Our reputation, as a state, is at risk.”

It remains to be seen if grass-roots anger over Mr. Cochran’s firing will overtake objections of the business class. Mr. Reed is among those who oppose the bill, and he said it is likely that the corporate sector still has the upper hand. Still, he could not mask his frustration with Mr. Cochran.

“I hired him to put out fires,” Mr. Reed said. “Not to create them.”
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Full Frontal on the First: Atlanta Fire Chief

Postby mrswdk on Tue Jan 13, 2015 3:57 am

I guess it's a fair point that it seems strange for the things that firefighter wrote in his book to be singled out as discriminatory and therefore damaging to his ability to work as part of a diverse workforce on account of them being homophobic, yet he can slam straight people who like anal, promiscuous people, people who have sex outside marriage and other legal behaviors and that's fine. Why are such statements considered to 'marginalize' and 'alienate' gay people and yet it's fine to talk that way about other lifestyles?

That said, it's also dumb for him to try and argue that he has been fired 'for his Christian faith'. He has been fired for his intolerance and discriminatory attitudes, which he was perfectly free to keep to himself for the duration of his time working as a public servant (in which case it would never have become an issue).
Lieutenant mrswdk
 
Posts: 14898
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 10:37 am
Location: Red Swastika School

Re: Full Frontal on the First: Atlanta Fire Chief

Postby Metsfanmax on Tue Jan 13, 2015 4:02 am

Kasim Reed helped institute a course on the Bible for Georgia schools before he became mayor of Atlanta. It is kind of hard to believe that he is on a crusade to destroy public expression of Christianity.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Metsfanmax
 
Posts: 6722
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm

Re: Full Frontal on the First: Atlanta Fire Chief

Postby Phatscotty on Tue Jan 13, 2015 6:42 am

Metsfanmax wrote:Kasim Reed helped institute a course on the Bible for Georgia schools before he became mayor of Atlanta. It is kind of hard to believe that he is on a crusade to destroy public expression of Christianity.


heh
Barack Obama helped instruct a course on the U.S.Constitution for University of Chicago before he became president of the United States. Therefore, It's kind of hard to believe that he is on a crusade to fundamentally transform the U.S. Constitution. Certainly not the First Amendment or anything to do with Christianity!!'


George Bush officially promised to end nation building at dozens of University's, from which he has many degrees. Therefore, I find it kind of hard to believe he then went on a crusade to destroy countries and then spend hundreds of billions rebuilding those countries!


Hahaha!! all of a sudden you are giving benefit of the doubt to a guy based his handling of the Bible?. It is pretty messed up how you use Bible like that, when it's convenient huh, to lend leverage to your position? Side with a person based on their belief in, how do you put it, 'Spaghetti Monster? Trying to use the Bible that you don't believe in for your own personal greedy agenda? 'Humans :roll:
I thought you were done with the manipulation? I suppose this is the time you call me out as a sucker, because I saw it all along and you knew it, and that was your perspective, perhaps even your pleasure? Watching me watch it all go down. YOU SICK f*ck!

WAIT A SEC!!! unless....maybe You.....You talked to God?....didn't ya? DIDN'T YA???? yup, you did! I can tell! You motor-boatin s.o.b.! YOU OLD SAILOR YOU!

Image
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Full Frontal on the First: Atlanta Fire Chief

Postby Phatscotty on Tue Jan 13, 2015 7:05 am

mrswdk wrote:I guess it's a fair point that it seems strange for the things that firefighter wrote in his book to be singled out as discriminatory and therefore damaging to his ability to work as part of a diverse workforce on account of them being homophobic, yet he can slam straight people who like anal, promiscuous people, people who have sex outside marriage and other legal behaviors and that's fine. Why are such statements considered to 'marginalize' and 'alienate' gay people and yet it's fine to talk that way about other lifestyles?

That said, it's also dumb for him to try and argue that he has been fired 'for his Christian faith'. He has been fired for his intolerance and discriminatory attitudes, which he was perfectly free to keep to himself for the duration of his time working as a public servant (in which case it would never have become an issue).


#1 Doesn't seem strange to me. Not one bit.

#2 Who was discriminated against? Who was not 'tolerated'? What he wrote in a book is an 'attitude'? Is that 'attitude' you speak of only banning some people from comment on that attitude one way or the other? Or is it the same on the other side of the plate when switch-hitting? Do they have to keep their 'attitude' to themselves? Also for the duration of his time working as a public servant? Or do only certain people have the right to 'be who they are' and others not?

Anyone who wants to, just come right out and say it straight! Homosexuality trumps Christianity every time! Now we all can see how it goes down. We have Freedom of Religion, but if it's Christianity, it's not to leave the closet. Nope, not in the bedroom either, IN THE CLOSET!!!!
Then, finally, you guys agree with me and what I have been saying all along.

User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users