NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.earnedmedia.org/lc1021.htm
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52549
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52549

Virginia Employee Fired for Supporting Marriage Amendment

Company's Action Will Backfire and Boost Support for November 7 Ballot Initiative

Contact: Liberty Counsel Public Relations Department, 800-671-1776

TIMBERVILLE, Va., Oct. 21 /Christian Newswire/ -- An employee of an agricultural foods company has been fired over the display of a sign on his private vehicle. The sign said "please vote for marriage on November 7." The company tried to force Luis Padilla to remove the hand-painted sign from his rear window after other employees claimed to be offended. Padilla's statement reflected his religious conviction that marriage should remain a union of one man and one woman. Expressing his viewpoint with others has now cost him his job, but will further his message, as it brings the marriage vote to the attention of more Virginians.

Virginia is one of seven states where voters will decide in November whether marriage will remain as the union of one man and one woman. The other states are Arizona, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee and Wisconsin. A proposed amendment is also pending in Colorado.

Liberty Counsel is a nationwide public interest civil liberties law firm with offices in Orlando and Virginia. Liberty Counsel has been involved in over 40 legal cases defending marriage as the union of one man and one woman, and conducts events to encourage pastors and leaders to support traditional marriage.

Anita L. Staver, President of Liberty Counsel, remarked: "I predict that Cargill Foods will regret offending the majority of Virginia voters - those who support marriage as the union of one man and one woman. This is one more example of how speech is stifled in the name of 'tolerance.' Mr. Padilla's viewpoint may have cost him is job, but will encourage others to take a stand by voting 'Yes' for marriage on November 7."

This is stifling of free speech! Down with the firing! :mp5:

I have a similar bumper sticker on my car and I would never remove it even it meant losing my job.

BTW, here is a scan of the bumper sticker that is on my car:

BTW, here is a scan of the bumper sticker that is on my car:

So you are gay? Or why do care at all?

Having a 700 club sticker on your car is going to get you a lot of negative attention.

Having a 700 club sticker on your car is going to get you a lot of negative attention.

I've had it on there for several weeks and no one has said anything about it to me. As a matter of fact, I used to have 2 other 700 Club bumper stickers on my car until they lost their sticky and fell off by themselves. Guess I'll have to order some new one's then and make sure I clean my car before I stick 'em on there. ;)

Between this and the guy that got arrested for criticising Cheney, America seems to be having a bout of selective amnesia. The First what now? Silly, everyone knows the Second Amendment is the first one. :rolleyes:

I've had it on there for several weeks and no one has said anything about it to me. As a matter of fact, I used to have 2 other 700 Club bumper stickers on my car until they lost their sticky and fell off by themselves. Guess I'll have to order some new one's then and make sure I clean my car before I stick 'em on there. ;)

May I ask what town/city you live in?

This is stifling of free speech!
No it isn't. You don't have the right to any job at all. Period. An employer can, at the employer's discretion, terminate employment. It's just that simple.

May I ask what town/city you live in?

Fairview, Tennessee. That's about 10 miles west of Nashville in a very conservative area.

No it isn't. You don't have the right to any job at all. Period. An employer can, at the employer's discretion, terminate employment. It's just that simple.

really... so you go and try and fire a female employee because she's female. try and fire an employee because of religion, explain your right to fire anyone at your discretion because you are the employer.

IF you have a boss, ask him/her. she'll explain it to you.

Fairview, Tennessee. That's about 10 miles west of Nashville in a very conservative area.

Nothing to be proud of.

No it isn't. You don't have the right to any job at all. Period. An employer can, at the employer's discretion, terminate employment. It's just that simple.

Saying I don't have the right work at ANY job because of my religious beliefs amounts to discrimination against people of faith. 'Nuff said.

BTW, here is a scan of the bumper sticker that is on my car:

*coughcoughhostedbyanidiotchristianbigotcoughcough*

Nothing to be proud of.

Why? I've driven all over the Nashville area with those stickers and parked my car in several different places. NO ONE has said ANYTHING to me about it.

http://www.earnedmedia.org/lc1021.htm
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52549
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52549

This is stifling of free speech! Down with the firing! :mp5:

While I repect that the employer has every right to fire me if I'm offending the other employees and thus affecting the work environment negatively, I'm also inclined to tell any co-worker who is that offended that someone has a different political viewpoint than they do that they need to grow the hell up and learn to appreciate the fact that not everyone is going to agree with them.

Saying I don't have the right work at ANY job because of my religious beliefs amounts to discrimination against people of faith. 'Nuff said.

If it was the gov't saying that, absolutely. As its a private company.....not so much, they are free to deny employement for any reason they see fit really. Which is were PC comes in, a corporation who fires people for their race/religion/gender is going to draw a shitload of criticism from the PC crowd; which isn't a bad thing IMO.

So, companies can fire employees that are not liberal enough. That's nice to know.

*coughcoughhostedbyanidiotchristianbigotcoughcough*

All us Christians are trying to do is stop this country from falling apart because of a thing called MORAL DECAY. You see, MORAL DECAY is the one thing that most often destroys nations. 'Nuff said.

If it was the gov't saying that, absolutely. As its a private company.....not so much, they are free to deny employement for any reason they see fit really.

No, it is the same for both the government and private companies. They can't do it. It's discrimination; pure and simple.

Oddly enough, I'd happily display a bumper sticker that said "Please vote for marriage," seeing as "voting for marriage" is exactly what I did when I voted against the asinine amendment in my state that would prevent people from getting married. (Sadly, it passed in spite of me. :( )

Of course, I suspect that bumper sticker added in something like "Vote YES on Our Piece-of-Crap Amendment," which would render it somewhat less palatable.

All us Christians are trying to do is stop this country from falling apart because of a thing called MORAL DECAY. You see, MORAL DECAY is the one thing that most often destroys nations. 'Nuff said.

Translation: we have to force our morality on other people or else America will fall apart.


You do realise that there is nothing christian in the constitution, and that it was written by agnostics, Deists, and atheists, right?

No, it is the same for both the government and private companies. They can't do it. It's discrimination; pure and simple.

I never said it wasn't discrimination; What I am saying is that private companies have the right to discriminate, sadly.

All us Christians are trying to do is stop this country from falling apart because of a thing called MORAL DECAY. You see, MORAL DECAY is the one thing that most often destroys nations. 'Nuff said.
Name one.

All us Christians are trying to do is stop this country from falling apart because of a thing called MORAL DECAY. You see, MORAL DECAY is the one thing that most often destroys nations. 'Nuff said.

I agree completely, especially with regard to America.

This new trend of Christians trying to push their religion into a government that was founded on being secular is a great example of MORAL DECAY.

All us Christians are trying to do is stop this country from falling apart because of a thing called MORAL DECAY. You see, MORAL DECAY is the one thing that most often destroys nations. 'Nuff said.

Translation: we have to force our morality on other people or else America will fall apart.


You do realise that there is nothing christian in the constitution, and that it was written by agnostics, Deists, and atheists, right?
you know, if you can also reverse that. you are forcing your morality on Christians as well.

so for the sake of argument, I ask that the delve into Moraity stop before it hijacks the thread.


I never said it wasn't discrimination; What I am saying is that private companies have the right to discriminate, sadly.they do not have the right to discriminate. no one does.

No, it is the same for both the government and private companies. They can't do it. It's discrimination; pure and simple.

Wrongful termination seems to be obvious in this case. Your employer has to have a valid reason to fire you. Besides, being fired for your religious beliefs is definately not legal.

Translation: we have to force our morality on other people or else America will fall apart.

You do realise that there is nothing christian in the constitution, and that it was written by agnostics, Deists, and atheists, right?

Wrong, that's just liberals trying to "change" our recorded history on us. Don't buy into the whole "this is suppose to be a secular nation" thing, my friend.

The law is suppose to keep people from doing stupid things, including sinful things, because that's what destroys nations.

Remember a few years ago when an employee was fired for displaying a "Vote for Kerry" bumper sticker? If I remember correctly, the firing was upheld. So it's damn legal.

Remember a few years ago when an employee was fired for displaying a "Vote for Kerry" bumper sticker? If I remember correctly, the firing was upheld. So it's damn legal.

link please? I highly doubt that the Employer listed that as the reason for termination.

I never said it wasn't discrimination; What I am saying is that private companies have the right to discriminate, sadly.

No they don't!!! Haven't you not heard of EOE (Equal Employment Opportunity)?

Wrong, that's just liberals trying to "change" our recorded history on us. Don't buy into the whole "this is suppose to be a secular nation" thing, my friend.

The law is suppose to keep people from doing stupid things, including sinful things, because that's what destroys nations.

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

Guess what? It's fucking law that the U.S. is not a Christian country.

Name one.

Most obviously, the Roman Empire.

Guess what? It's fucking law that the U.S. is not a Christian country.

It wasn't originally that way.

All us Christians are trying to do is stop this country from falling apart because of a thing called MORAL DECAY. You see, MORAL DECAY is the one thing that most often destroys nations. 'Nuff said.

I don't think you've said nearly enough, actually. Certainly not enough to convince me that stopping gay folks from getting marriage certificates from the states is helping prevent moral decay. You want to know what prevents moral decay? It's teaching people that they need to do the right thing and be loving and compassionate individuals like Christ, not that they need to fit a particular cultural model of the ideal person and follow a set of rules that are sometimes inappropriate or no longer applicable for our modern context.

And I certainly don't appreciate you speaking for Christians as a whole on this issue. I'm a very devout Christian myself, and in an incredibly surprising move, I don't agree with a lot of other Christians' approach to this issue. Imagine that, Christians not agreeing on everything.

link please? I highly doubt that the Employer listed that as the reason for termination.

Right here. (http://www.slate.com/id/2106714/)

Wrong, that's just liberals trying to "change" our recorded history on us. Don't buy into the whole "this is suppose to be a secular nation" thing, my friend.

The law is suppose to keep people from doing stupid things, including sinful things, because that's what destroys nations.

Who is to determine what is a "stupid act"? What is "sinful"? I don't see how you have the right to force your values on others. Gay marriage doesn't harm anyone or anything except for the blood pressure of bigots.

It wasn't originally that way.

The very same people who wrote the Constitution passed that treaty, kid.

I don't think you've said nearly enough, actually. Certainly not enough to convince me that stopping gay folks from getting marriage certificates from the states is helping prevent moral decay. You want to know what prevents moral decay? It's teaching people that they need to do the right thing and be loving and compassionate individuals like Christ, not that they need to fit a particular cultural model of the ideal person and follow a set of rules that are sometimes inappropriate or no longer applicable for our modern context.

And I certainly don't appreciate you speaking for Christians as a whole on this issue. I'm a very devout Christian myself, and in an incredibly surprising move, I don't agree with a lot of other Christians' approach to this issue. Imagine that, Christians not agreeing on everything.

Have you read the story of Soddom and Gomorrah and heard what God did to those cities. I think that's a good representation of what could happen to America if we fall down the same slippery immoral slope.

Jesus said in the Bible very clearly that the homosexual lifestyle is an abomination in the eyes of the Lord thy God.

Who is to determine what is a "stupid act"? What is "sinful"? I don't see how you have the right to force your values on others. Gay marriage doesn't harm anyone or anything except for the blood pressure of bigots.

It harms families. That's the problem in America is the breakdown of the traditional family. Think of the children for crying out loud! :eek:

The very same people who wrote the Constitution passed that treaty, kid.

Then it was unconstitutional.

It harms families. That's the problem in America is the breakdown of the traditional family. Think of the children for crying out loud! :eek:

That phrase has become a standing joke amongst secularists and anti-fundamentalists....Your starting to look like a troll.

It wasn't originally that way.

John Adams
Thomas Jefferson
James Madison (Y'know, the fellow who wrote the constitution)
Ben Franklin
& By some accounts George Washington

Deists and Universalists. Not christians, in any way shape or form.

It's very easy to forget, given our current culture, that the "hip" religion of the Enlightenment was Deism. Johnathan Edwards has a place in our society, but only beside Thomas Jefferson. Deal with it.

Have you read the story of Soddom and Gomorrah and heard what God did to those cities. I think that's a good representation of what could happen to America if we fall down the same slippery immoral slope.

Jesus said in the Bible very clearly that the homosexual lifestyle is an abomination in the eyes of the Lord thy God.

Hm, why San Francisco wasn't destroyed yet?

Jesus said in the Bible very clearly that the homosexual lifestyle is an abomination in the eyes of the Lord thy God.

Oh, did he now? Well, I'm sure you'll be able to link us to the quotation from the gospels where Jesus says that, then, right?

Have you read the story(as in it may or may not be true) of Soddom and Gomorrah and heard what God allegedly did to those cities. I think that's a good representation of what could happen to America if we fall down the same slippery immoral slope.

Jesus allegedly said in the Bible very clearly that the homosexual lifestyle is an abomination in the eyes of the Lord my God.

Fixed :)

Then it was unconstitutional.

I'm no expert, but isn't it in your constitution that the government won't endorse any religion? If so then the aforementioned treaty is very constitutional.

Right here. (http://www.slate.com/id/2106714/)

thanks. oh, and...

By this morning, Geddes, who has declined to comment publicly on the matter, had apparently had enough of the bad publicity. Through an intermediary, he offered Gobbell an apology and said she could have her old job back. he did reverse the firing. she could've also taken the company to court and, with the right lawyer, would've won.

so the Firing was only held because she didn't go back. It would be interesting to see what is in her official records tho.

John Adams
Thomas Jefferson
James Madison (Y'know, the fellow who wrote the constitution)
Ben Franklin
& By some accounts George Washington

Deists and Universalists. Not christians, in any way shape or form.

It's very easy to forget, given our current culture, that the "hip" religion of the Enlightenment was Deism. Johnathan Edwards has a place in our society, but only beside Thomas Jefferson. Deal with it.

You're only naming a few out of the some 90 founding fathers. You're forgetting the rest of them.

Then it was unconstitutional.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

That has got to be the single most fucktarded thing ever written in the history of the forum. Point out how it is unconstitutional, and quote the damn Constitution, or admit that you were talking out of your ass.

All us Christians are trying to do is stop this country from falling apart because of a thing called MORAL DECAY. You see, MORAL DECAY is the one thing that most often destroys nations. 'Nuff said.

No you historically ignorant baboon. People destroy nations. Normally with implements designed to cause pain, death and destruction. Moral decay has got squat to do with it.

You're only naming a few out of the some 90 founding fathers. You're forgetting the rest of them.

Guess what? Almost all of them were deists too. One thing you learn quickly when you study history is that, in that time period, Christianity was damn near dead among the wealthy.

You're only naming a few out of the some 90 founding fathers. You're forgetting the rest of them.

all of whom were involved in ratifying the constitution.

I'm no expert, but isn't it in your constitution that the government won't endorse any religion? If so then the aforementioned treaty is very constitutional.

"The government shall not respect an establishment of religion, nor restrict the free exercise thereof."

As per say the part after the comma is usually ignored by liberals these days, so tell me do you think it's right for a company to discriminate and fire an employee for his religious beliefs?

Guess what? Almost all of them were deists too. One thing you learn quickly when you study history is that, in that time period, Christianity was damn near dead among the wealthy.

No, half of them seminary degrees.

You're only naming a few out of the some 90 founding fathers. You're forgetting the rest of them.

I'm naming the important ones.

You know, the ones who had a large had in shaping our public policy. Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison were the first 4 Presidents, you see. Franklin was, by and large, considered the glue that held the founding fathers together.

Also, one of the first laws passed by the congress established under the Articles of Confederation was a law that removed any ban on Atheists holding property.

http://www.earnedmedia.org/lc1021.htm
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52549
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52549



This is stifling of free speech! Down with the firing! :mp5:

I have a similar bumper sticker on my car and I would never remove it even it meant losing my job.

Look, I know you're a troll and all, but at least you could get the facts right. The employee was fired for insubordination. The sticker was related to it, but he was fired because his bosses gave him an ultimatum and he bet that his bosses wouldn't do anything about it. He was wrong.

Don't get me wrong--I don't agree with the firing. I think it was a stupid thing to do, just as it was last year when that employer fired a woman for not taking her John Kerry sticker off her car. But free speech is a government issue, not a corporate one.

"The government shall not respect an establishment of religion, nor restrict the free exercise thereof."

As per say the part after the comma is usually ignored by liberals these days, so tell me do you think it's right for a company to discriminate and fire an employee for his religious beliefs?

The government ain't companies, kid. We aren't living in a fascist state. Plus, I notice you ignored how that phrase makes the Treaty of Tripoli constitutional. You're in your own little world.

"The government shall not respect an establishment of religion, nor restrict the free exercise thereof."

As per say the part after the comma is usually ignored by liberals these days, so tell me do you think it's right for a company to discriminate and fire an employee for his religious beliefs?

Since when has outlawing sin through secular law ever been Christian?

Have you read the story of Soddom and Gomorrah and heard what God did to those cities. I think that's a good representation of what could happen to America if we fall down the same slippery immoral slope.

Oh yeah? Strangely, I haven't noticed God doing that sort of thing for the past...oh, 2000 years or so. Care to provide any evidence that such a thing is likely?

And you still have yet to substantiate your position that letting gay folks get a marriage certificate is an example of moral decay.

Jesus said in the Bible very clearly that the homosexual lifestyle is an abomination in the eyes of the Lord thy God.

I've read the Bible a fair bit, straight through a couple times, even the boring books, and various NT and OT passages pretty regularly at Sunday services. And I don't remember Jesus saying anything like that. However, you're welcome to prove my memory wrong if you want.

No, half of them seminary degrees.

That doesn't make one Christian, kid. Hell, remember the acclaimed minister a few years back turned out to be an atheist?

"The government shall not respect an establishment of religion, nor restrict the free exercise thereof."

Exactly! which is why the bible is not the basis of the constitution, otherwise practicing atheism, judaeism, islam, hinduism, sikhism, buddhism, or any other religion would be illegal

No it isn't. You don't have the right to any job at all. Period. An employer can, at the employer's discretion, terminate employment. It's just that simple.

So I could fire someone for being black, gay, or an atheist?

Then it was unconstitutional.

Then live elsewhere. If you don't like what the founding fathers wrote down on the constitution, claiming it to be unconstitutional, you obviously don't belong there. Maybe you'll be happier in Iran.

"The government shall not respect an establishment of religion, nor restrict the free exercise thereof."

As per say the part after the comma is usually ignored by liberals these days, so tell me do you think it's right for a company to discriminate and fire an employee for his religious beliefs?

You have free exercise as much as you want, so long as you don't use the government to interupt my free exercise.

Unfortunately, the "Morals" (what wonderful moral values, Hate, fear, and oppression) crowd won't allow that to happen. You have every right to practice your religion, be it through prayer, church attendance, conversion, or public displays. The government cannot stop you.

You do not have the right to force others to conform to your "moral" values by using the government because that is a violation of their free exercise.

Guess what 'bro. You've got No moral high ground here, so stop pretending you do.

"The government shall not respect an establishment of religion, nor restrict the free exercise thereof."

As per say the part after the comma is usually ignored by liberals these days, so tell me do you think it's right for a company to discriminate and fire an employee for his religious beliefs?


Well, allowing marriage to homosexuals doesn't mean that all the "good" christians have to become homosexual, does it? Is there any restriction?

It harms families. That's the problem in America is the breakdown of the traditional family. Think of the children for crying out loud! :eek:

What? Children are going to be emotionally crippled for seeing gay people? I think that they would be more messed up by soaking up the hate for others from their parents.

And the traditional family is breaking down largely because spouses cheat on each other. Homosexuality doesn't have anything to do with it. Tell married couples to be faithful to each other instead of screaming about the scariness of gays.

It harms families. That's the problem in America is the breakdown of the traditional family. Think of the children for crying out loud! :eek:

Your "traditional family" isn't even a century old. On the other hand, homosexuals have been getting married since the time of the Greeks, and probably before that.

Have you read the story of Soddom and Gomorrah and heard what God did to those cities. I think that's a good representation of what could happen to America if we fall down the same slippery immoral slope.

Jesus said in the Bible very clearly that the homosexual lifestyle is an abomination in the eyes of the Lord thy God.


What verse was that?

What verse was that?

Myass 6:9

"The government shall not respect an establishment of religion, nor restrict the free exercise thereof."

As per say the part after the comma is usually ignored by liberals these days, so tell me do you think it's right for a company to discriminate and fire an employee for his religious beliefs?

no, it's the part that comes before "shall" that is usually ignored by conservatives these days.

A private company is not the government. Therefore the first amendment has no application towards it.

What verse was that?

I am pretty sure its based off of laws in the OT from leviticus or deuteronomy...

So I could fire someone for being black, gay, or an atheist?

It would depend largely on applicable state and federal statutes, not in any way on the constitution.

Myass 6:9


oddly enough, your post was #69 :eek:You must be God sent or something!

I am pretty sure its based off of laws in the OT from leviticus or deuteronomy...
Got it
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh.htm

So I could fire someone for being black, gay, or an atheist?Nope, but in many states you can fire someone for no reason. You just can't contest their unemployment benefits. Now, if the employee can prove that your company is systematically firing atheists, blacks, gays, or is making the workplace hostile to them, they might be able to sue, but that's often a tough case to make.

I am pretty sure its based off of laws in the OT from leviticus or deuteronomy...

Thats what I thought. I have never read Jesus saying anything like that.

Luis Padilla worked for human resources at the Cargill plant. As a human resources officer, his job is to keep the employees productive.

Padilla had worked in human resources at the company's Timberville plant, north of Harrisonburg, since May, the company said.

He then displayed a sign in his car that made some employees unhappy, and caused a stir.

"He was asked to do something relatively simple--remove from his truck two signs that several employees complained about," Klein said. "He did not do that."

He did not comply. Well, he removed the signs will his vehicle was on company property, but then put them back on when he left the company property, and parked again on company property, the next day.

Klein said when three employees complained about the signs, managers asked Padilla to remove them. He took them down, but only temporarily.

"He came back the next day with them, and he didn't park in the parking lot, but he parked by the front gate," said Klein, pointing out the area still is considered company property.

Notice how this whole thing does not necessarily involve Luis Padilla's religion.

While the law protects government employees from being fired for actions outside of work, Willis said the same doesn't extend to employees of private firms, like Cargill.

Those companies are bound only by federal laws prohibiting discrimination based on things like race, sexual orientation or nationality, he said.

"If you could tie this to one of those protected classes ... then the employee might have a cause of action," Willis said.

Therefore,...
Padilla was fired for insubordination, not his political views, spokesman Mark Klein said.

All quotes stolen from:
http://www.dailypress.com/news/local/virginia/dp-va--amendmentfiring1019oct19,0,2809147.story?coll=dp-headlines-virginia

Got it

Ah, but BS didn't assert that "the Old Testament says" or "Paul says," both of which would have at least some (fairly limited) validity. He very specifically said "Jesus said," and that's just plain not true. I'm just waiting for him to admit that. :)

Wrongful termination seems to be obvious in this case. Your employer has to have a valid reason to fire you. Besides, being fired for your religious beliefs is definately not legal.

You can't fire someone for being certain things (ie, woman, ethnical or religios minority, etc.). But you can fire anyone for ANY other reason. There is only a certain number of things, called protected classes, such that for being a member of that class cannot be a reason for firing. But employers own the money that they spend on your salary and (unless you have a contract in which they agreed otherwise) they have the right to do whatever they want with their money -- including not paying for your services (as an employee) anymore. Having money does not mean giving up the freedom of what to do with it. Wrongful termination can only occur when you have a contract governing your relationship with your employer.

Got it

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh.htm

Leviticus 18:22
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

That's a much more useful verse for his position, yes. There are also some in the Pauline writings.

Of course, I'm sure you know as well as I that the verse doesn't translate to "Thou shalt stop all who sin by using your governments to enforce God's law upon them." ;)

Got it


http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh.htm

The translation of that verse is heavily disputed. There's a good chance that the Hebrew refers to a ban on sleeping with menstruating women. Unfortunately, the Hebrew can not be literally translated into English,as doing so makes the whole thing incoherent.

Ah, but BS didn't assert that "the Old Testament says" or "Paul says," both of which would have at least some (fairly limited) validity. He very specifically said "Jesus said," and that's just plain not true. I'm just waiting for him to admit that. :)

Exactly, and as christians don't abide by most jewish laws, it is rather baseless to follow this one.

What I find when I look at Fundementalist christians is a similarity to James' teachings, James was Jesuses brother and tried to assert the "jewishness" of christ's teachings. He wanted christians to still abide by all the jewish laws laid out by Moses and Abraham, his sect died out before 500 A.D.

"The government shall not respect an establishment of religion, nor restrict the free exercise thereof."

As per say the part after the comma is usually ignored by liberals these days, so tell me do you think it's right for a company to discriminate and fire an employee for his religious beliefs?

Pay attention kid, I'm with you that the firing was unfair. I'm against you with respect to America having Christian foundations and that. It's clearly a secular country.

Most obviously, the Roman Empire.

If I remember correctly, the Roman Empire fell appart after accepting Christianity. I am not saying that's what caused, but what if? :)

Exactly, and as christians don't abide by most jewish laws, it is rather baseless to follow this one.


Indeed. I have long found it rather baffling that uncircumcised, clean-shaven, ham-sandwich-eating people will regularly cite Leviticus as the source of their beliefs. It doesn't make a great deal of sense.

The only way to deal with trolls is to limit your reaction to reminding others not to respond to trolls.

really... so you go and try and fire a female employee because she's female.
It's called "At Will Employment". Maybe you should look it up.

Most obviously, the Roman Empire.

Funny thing is, the Roman Empire didn't fall untill after christianity was introduced into it.

No, over inflation, barbarian hordes, over expansion and political corruption had nothing to do with it

Saying I don't have the right work at ANY job because of my religious beliefs amounts to discrimination against people of faith.
You don't have the right to work at any job, period. Jobs are not rights.

The only way to deal with trolls is to limit your reaction to reminding others not to respond to trolls.

Translation: "i am a troll. haha u r teh stupdi! hurr"

At least that's the vibe I get.

they do not have the right to discriminate. no one does.
Wrong--we all have the right to do so. It's part of being human; we can decide whom we want to associate with, whom we may wish to employ, whom we may wish to do whatever with. That's "discrimination".

Have you read the story of Soddom and Gomorrah and heard what God did to those cities.
Oh, you mean the fact that there is no god, and what archaeologists have most likely found was that it was an earthquake and volcanic eruption that destroyed a city, which they speculate could have been Sodom. However, the two mentioned cities, to my knowledge, haven't been found.


PAUL said in the Bible very clearly that the homosexual lifestyle is an abomination in the eyes of the Lord thy God.
Edited for accuracy. Jesus said exactly NOTHING about homosexuality.

"The government shall not respect an establishment of religion, nor restrict the free exercise thereof."

As per say the part after the comma is usually ignored by liberals these days, so tell me do you think it's right for a company to discriminate and fire an employee for his religious beliefs?
Sure. After all, it's not the government which is doing the firing, is it?

Translation: "i am a troll. haha u r teh stupdi! hurr"

The Vibe I get is "you don't agree with me, ergo you are a troll"

Which I believe is a form of trolling ironically

So I could fire someone for being black, gay, or an atheist?
If you wanted to, and assuming for the moment that idiotic "your job is yours and no one can do anything about it" laws didn't exist (which they shouldn't).

Edited for accuracy. Jesus said exactly NOTHING about homosexuality.

May be true, but since the Bible is all from God it really doesn't matter who said it. Paul is a representative of God so if Paul says it, then it is still evil.

Fortunately I don't care if Jesus or Paul said it, I think there are much more evil things in the world then homosexuality.

Edited for accuracy. Jesus said exactly NOTHING about homosexuality.

Neither did Paul, actually. Arsenokoites translates as male temple prostitutes.

If you wanted to, and assuming for the moment that idiotic "your job is yours and no one can do anything about it" laws didn't exist (which they shouldn't).

Well people should only be fired for things like laziness, incompetance, rudeness etc. Simply holding what may be an unpopular belief certainly shouldn't be grounds for termination.

Neither did Paul, actually. Arsenokoites translates as male temple prostitutes.

Wait a sec....they had temple prostitutes?! Best ancient religion evar.

The translation of that verse is heavily disputed. There's a good chance that the Hebrew refers to a ban on sleeping with menstruating women.

No, there isn't. "V'et zachar lo tishkav" is very clear; "zachar" means male.

The uncertainty is with "mishkevei ishah" (usually translated "as with womankind"; literally referring to the "lyings of womankind.")

Unfortunately, the Hebrew can not be literally translated into English,as doing so makes the whole thing incoherent.

You can get a pretty close approximation, and most translations do that fairly well.

Guess what? It's fucking law that the U.S. is not a Christian country.

Don't bother. In an earlier thread, I posted a list of quotes from about a dozen founding fathers plus several later presidents on the separation of church and state as well as their personal beliefs. BS claimed they were faked, then mentioned the "other 90" there as well w/o presenting any evidence to support himself.

No, there isn't. "V'et zachar lo tishkav" is very clear; "zachar" means male.

The uncertainty is with "mishkevei ishah" (usually translated "as with womankind"; literally referring to the "lyings of womankind.")



You can get a pretty close approximation, and most translations do that fairly well.

A search of that phrase came up with the following. http://zeek.net/jay_04094.shtml

It's interesting, to say the least.

May be true, but since the Bible is all from God it really doesn't matter who said it. Paul is a representative of God so if Paul says it, then it is still evil.

Fortunately I don't care if Jesus or Paul said it, I think there are much more evil things in the world then homosexuality.

That's assuming that the bible is still in it's purest form (which would be when it was transcribed, X years ago), which it is most definately not. It has been messed with by plenty of people over time -- kings removing parts they don't agree with, adding stuff, etc. Something as important as the bible is susceptible to manipulation when done effectively and gradually.

My point is that the whole "God said it, let's do it" mindset doesn't really work, because there's no way to ascertain the validity of anything He may have said. This is important to consider when making spirituality-driven rules such as the aforementioned 'marriage amendment'.

Personally, I don't believe homosexuality or gay marriage to be 'wrong' in any way whatsoever. It is unfortuante that a man was fired because he believed it was, and I disagree with Cargill's decision about it -- it was obviously politico-religious discrimination (+1 making up new words, go me).

I'd also like to point out that I'm neither actively religious nor homosexual.

Well people should only be fired for things like laziness, incompetance, rudeness etc. Simply holding what may be an unpopular belief certainly shouldn't be grounds for termination.
Perhaps. Perhaps not. But it is the owner's company.

That's assuming that the bible is still in it's purest form (which would be when it was transcribed, X years ago), which it is most definately not. It has been messed with by plenty of people over time -- kings removing parts they don't agree with, adding stuff, etc. Something as important as the bible is
susceptible to manipulation when done effectively and gradually.

One of the reasons I don't feel particularly religious despite what my parents may want. After a couple millenia of humans controlling what is in the Bible, who knows how it could have been changed over the years. I would want to hear direct from God Himself if the Bible is still correct and then what religion, if any, is interpreting it correctly.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. But it is the owner's company.

With comments like that does that mean there should be no job protections of any kind? No workers comp, etc.?

With comments like that does that mean there should be no job protections of any kind? No workers comp, etc.?
Only if the owner wants to provide it. Otherwise, no. No one has the right to any job, period.

http://www.earnedmedia.org/lc1021.htm
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52549
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52549



This is stifling of free speech! Down with the firing! :mp5:

I have a similar bumper sticker on my car and I would never remove it even it meant losing my job.
The fired man should sue that company for all their worth, and walk away a rich man for his injury. Although normally I think this country has gone a little lawsuit crazy I can't believe he got fired for that what BS.

One of the reasons I don't feel particularly religious despite what my parents may want. After a couple millenia of humans controlling what is in the Bible, who knows how it could have been changed over the years. I would want to hear direct from God Himself if the Bible is still correct and then what religion, if any, is interpreting it correctly.

I just talked to God, and apparently the atheists have it correct. No, He doesn't understand it either.

Only if the owner wants to provide it. Otherwise, no. No one has the right to any job, period.

BS period. When you live in a country and use that countries market you have a responsibility to be fair to your workers othewise get the hell out.

So what your saying is i could fire a man because i dont like black people if I had a black empoylee because no one has a right to a job period.

THATS a load man.

I'm glad this guy got fired. In fact I wouldn't be to bothered if all christians lost their jobs, but thats a different matter.

The fired man should sue that company for all their woth, and walk away a rich man for his injury

It wouldn't even get to a jury. His case would get tossed on summary judgment.

I'm glad this guy got fired. In fact I wouldn't be to bothered if all christians lost their jobs, but thats a different matter.

That's discriminatory.

they do not have the right to discriminate. no one does.

Tell that to those who are fired (or refused employment, or denied an apartment, etc.) for being gay. It is still quite legal in much of the US. So until it is illegal to fire gay people just for being gay anywhere in the US, I'm not going to shed a tear over some religious bigot getting fired for trying to spread his hatred. What's good for the goose...

It wouldn't even get to a jury. His case would get tossed on summary judgment.

yet a man wins a lawsuit over hot coffee what is the problem with our legal system.

That's discriminatory.
yep, your point?

BS period. When you live in a country and use that countries market you have a responsibility to be fair to your workers othewise get the hell out.
What is "fair"?


So what your saying is i could fire a man because i dont like black people if I had a black empoylee because no one has a right to a job period.
Yes.


THATS a load man.
Prove it.

yet a man wins a lawsuit over hot coffee what is the problem with our legal system.

Er, it was a woman and the coffee was unreasonably hot, and McDonalds knew about that fact. They lost because they where aware that their coffee was served at dangerously high temperatures and covered that fact up.

yet a man wins a lawsuit over hot coffee what is the problem with our legal system.

I prefer the criminal trial arena's Twinkie Defense. If that would work, anything will.

yep, your point?

Fine, just admit that your no better than the christian bigots you profess to hate.

Fine, just admit that your no better than the christian bigots you profess to hate.

We already knew that.

Well, the guy is an asshole. He supports taking away other peoples rights because it offends him so I find it deliciously ironic that he got fired.

That said, he should have had the right to show it. The employer should have taken the high road and kept him. However if it got rid of business (gay refused to support them) then there is no reason why he shouldn't have been fired. His attitude toward certain customers lost them service and he should be replaced.. but from what I read it was just the other employees who complained, so no the company should not have fired him.

Padilla's firing "not only reeks of discrimination and hostility toward Christians,..."
I didn't know all Christians were hateful bigots.... that's strange considering my Christian friends I don't think that that view point represents their viewpoint at all.

All us Christians are trying to do is stop this country from falling apart because of a thing called MORAL DECAY. You see, MORAL DECAY is the one thing that most often destroys nations. 'Nuff said.

Which ones would that be?

Based on the number of superstitious cults, I think it's safe to assume that at least one prohibits people from congregating on Sundays.

Now if followers of that particular superstition banded together & attempted to get their religious ban turned into state or federal law, and advertised the fact in in the workplace, would Christians be falling all over themselves to defend the advertisers?

Or would they think that the workplace perhaps isn't the best soap box in the world?

I'm a punker & look the part. Always have. I have never ever seen any Christian - or anyone else, for that matter - assert that I have the right to display tatoos, clothes with antagonistic shit written all over it, or even just my mohawk when I'm at work. What makes a fucked up Christian theocrat different? Do they get special dispensation just because they're insane or what?

And.. Why isn't the scumbag in a mental instutution?

Which ones would that be?

Well, other then Biblical nations...

No, I don't think there are any modern nations destroyed by "immorality". You know from what I understand, both Canada and the U.K. are considered more "morally decadant" then the United States is.

BTW, here is a scan of the bumper sticker that is on my car:

we don't much like homophobes here in NSG.

they do not have the right to discriminate. no one does.

Wouldn't that be taking away your right to decide who you wish to associate with? If you don't like a particular group/race/gender/whathaveyou, do others have the right to force you to be a part of that group/etc/etc?

Isnt' that partially what being a free person is about?

And for the record, I think the company firing him for it was a stupid waste of time and completely unnecessary. They should have told the offended whiners that if they don't like it, don't look.

I've had it on there for several weeks and no one has said anything about it to me. As a matter of fact, I used to have 2 other 700 Club bumper stickers on my car until they lost their sticky and fell off by themselves. Guess I'll have to order some new one's then and make sure I clean my car before I stick 'em on there. ;)

Gawd - how old is this car of yours, anyway?

You don't have the right to work at any job, period. Jobs are not rights.
Do people have the right to live?

If you wanted to, and assuming for the moment that idiotic "your job is yours and no one can do anything about it" laws didn't exist (which they shouldn't).
Firing someone for being terrible at what you hired them for is fine, firing them for their race is not.

we don't much like homophobes here in NSG.

I dunno, we accept all the other types of bigots running around this place.

Gawd - how old is this car of yours, anyway?

Seeing as how they were 700 Club stickers, he is better off without them.

we don't much like homophobes here in NSG.

Saying that marriage is only between a man and a woman does not make you a homophobe.

Gawd - how old is this car of yours, anyway?


Really cheap stickers maybe?

Saying I don't have the right work at ANY job because of my religious beliefs amounts to discrimination against people of faith. 'Nuff said.
Supporting a Marriage Amendment is a political belief not a religious one.

you know, if you can also reverse that. you are forcing your morality on Christians as well.
Ah yes JuNii's pet bullshit statement to appease the conservatives.

Saying it a million times makes it no more true.

It harms families. That's the problem in America is the breakdown of the traditional family. Think of the children for crying out loud! :eek:
Think of the children that could be rescued from orphanages by stable gay couples.

Have you read the story of Soddom and Gomorrah and heard what God did to those cities.
They tried to rape angels! That's a far cry from gay marriage.

And no, Jesus did not say that homosexuality was abomination. If you're Christian at least read the Bible.

Guess what? Almost all of them were deists too. One thing you learn quickly when you study history is that, in that time period, Christianity was damn near dead among the wealthy.
Christianity has almost always been near dead among the wealthy.

Isnt' that partially what being a free person is about?
Consider the fact that dictators have incredible amounts of freedom. They only have that because the people below them don't have freedom. Freedom must be distributed equally, not just to employers. (and kings/dictators, obviously)

Saying that marriage is only between a man and a woman does not make you a homophobe.

Seeing how it is argued that unless homosexuals receive the same rights as a hetero couple it is not surprising that when someone disagrees that they are instantly accused of homophobia.

Seeing how it is argued that unless homosexuals receive the same rights as a hetero couple it is not surprising that when someone disagrees that they are instantly accused of homophobia.

Depends on what your idea of homophobia is. If you define it as

"the belief that homosexuals do not deserve the same rights as heterosexuals"

then what he Biblical socialism is saying is homophobic. I don't think homophobia can be defined that way though.

Depends on what your idea of homophobia is. If you define it as

"the belief that homosexuals do not deserve the same rights as heterosexuals"

then what he Biblical socialism is saying is homophobic. I don't think homophobia can be defined that way though.

Well isn't it the same thing when people scream about miscegenation and worry about polluting the races? Those people are considered racists. Couldn't it also be said that those who oppose gay marriage are homophobic?

Well isn't it the same thing when people scream about miscegenation and worry about polluting the races? Those people are considered racists. Couldn't it also be said that those who oppose gay marriage are homophobic?

That's a very good point. I was thinking about the people that see marriage as a tradition of western society that should be preserved as it is. But I guess someone who wants to deny homosexuals the right to marriage simply out of spite could be seen as homophobics.

That's a very good point. I was thinking about the people that see marriage as a tradition of western society that should be preserved as it is. But I guess someone who wants to deny homosexuals the right to marriage simply out of spite could be seen as homophobics.

People need to draw an arbitrary moral line. It was inter-racial marriage just a few decades ago and it is gay marriage now. I'm sure in time the bigots will retreat on this just as they did on opposing inter-racial marriage. Traditions change after all and marriage is hardly a simple religious ceremony anyway as judges, ship captains etc. can marry couples.

BAAWA mentioned it earlier, but it's called "At-Will Employment", and it's the same mechanism that allows an employee to terminate work at any time without just cause. As long as there was no express contract, then either party is free to terminate the employment at any moment. As long as it doesn't violate any federal statutes regarding anti-discrimination then it's a perfectly valid termination. Invalid reasons for termination are on a basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, or handicap status. Unfortunately, this man was not terminated for any of these reasons, but on the basis of a viewpoint that he quite clearly made known to all, a viewpoint that is not specific to any one religion. He was not fired for having a certain view, but for expressing that view quite prominently at work, creating a hostile workplace for fellow employees. A valid termination.

BAAWA mentioned it earlier, but it's called "At-Will Employment", and it's the same mechanism that allows an employee to terminate work at any time without just cause. As long as there was no express contract, then either party is free to terminate the employment at any moment. As long as it doesn't violate any federal statutes regarding anti-discrimination then it's a perfectly valid termination. Invalid reasons for termination are on a basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, or handicap status. Unfortunately, this man was not terminated for any of these reasons, but on the basis of a viewpoint that he quite clearly made known to all, a viewpoint that is not specific to any one religion. He was not fired for having a certain view, but for expressing that view quite prominently at work, creating a hostile workplace for fellow employees. A valid termination.

Perhaps I missed some things from the thread, I thought all he did was display the bumper sticker and some people whined to management about being "offended"?

Ah yes JuNii's pet bullshit statement to appease the conservatives.

Saying it a million times makes it no more true.nope, it just shows that "Shoving moraitly and beliefs down another's throat" works both ways.

thus I don't want this to devolve into a debate about religion/morality which is personal and should never be "forced down" anyone's throat.

Many companies have a policy against discussing or promoting politics on company time/company property (this is to prevent heated discussions while at work). Therefore, a bumper sticker or sign in/on a car would be going against that policy, and could be a cause for termination (if the person refused to cover/remove it).

Perhaps I missed some things from the thread, I thought all he did was display the bumper sticker and some people whined to management about being "offended"?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11840233&postcount=77

People "whined" about being offended and complained to management. Management informed Mr. Padilla that his sign was inappropriate and that it would not be displayed anywhere upon their property, as is their right. Mr. Padilla ignored this request until it no longer was a request, but an ultimatum. He then complied for a period of one day before the sign returned to display on company property. Therefore, he was terminated for insubordination. Entirely valid termination. He could have had that sign on his truck the moment he was no longer on their property, and he could continue to believe in his misguided beliefs all day long, as long as he didn't make other employees uncomfortable by prominently displaying those beliefs. He chose to ignore the concerns of fellow employees and the demands of the people who sign his checks.

http://www.earnedmedia.org/lc1021.htm
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52549
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52549



This is stifling of free speech! Down with the firing! :mp5:

I have a similar bumper sticker on my car and I would never remove it even it meant losing my job.

In Virginia? I strongly suspect bullshit.

nope, it just shows that "Shoving moraitly and beliefs down another's throat" works both ways.

thus I don't want this to devolve into a debate about religion/morality which is personal and should never be "forced down" anyone's throat.

In this case, it does not work both ways. Legallizing gay marriage forces nothing upon those against it.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11840233&postcount=77

People "whined" about being offended and complained to management. Management informed Mr. Padilla that his sign was inappropriate and that it would not be displayed anywhere upon their property, as is their right. Mr. Padilla ignored this request until it no longer was a request, but an ultimatum. He then complied for a period of one day before the sign returned to display on company property. Therefore, he was terminated for insubordination. Entirely valid termination. He could have had that sign on his truck the moment he was no longer on their property, and he could continue to believe in his misguided beliefs all day long, as long as he didn't make other employees uncomfortable by prominently displaying those beliefs. He chose to ignore the concerns of fellow employees and the demands of the people who sign his checks.

I see nothing offensive about his signs. People just like to complain about nothing. Under the current laws his firing may be valid but it hardly makes it right. People see something they don't like and think they have the right to remove it from their sight. They need to grow up and not start crying because someone thinks gays should't get married.

No it isn't. You don't have the right to any job at all. Period. An employer can, at the employer's discretion, terminate employment. It's just that simple.

Yet that stops it from being completely anti free speech... how? And there are many things put in place by government to stop people getting fired for stupid things like this.

In this case, it does not work both ways. Legallizing gay marriage forces nothing upon those against it.

actually... no, let's not get into that here.

Depends on what your idea of homophobia is. If you define it as

"the belief that homosexuals do not deserve the same rights as heterosexuals"

then what he Biblical socialism is saying is homophobic. I don't think homophobia can be defined that way though.

As homophobia is defined as an irrational hatred of homosexuals, I think it really does mean that.

actually... no, let's not get into that here.

Well, it doesn't.

Unless you count being able to tell other people what they can't do as somehow being an imposition upon you.

I see nothing offensive about his signs. People just like to complain about nothing. Under the current laws his firing may be valid but it hardly makes it right. People see something they don't like and think they have the right to remove it from their sight. They need to grow up and not start crying because someone thinks gays should't get married.
His job is to make the employees comfortable in their working environment. Now, imagine that he had a bumper sticker that said that blacks shouldn't be allowed to marry. That would make employees uncomfortable, especially if one of them was black. (Odds are that at least one of the employees was gay, given the fact that current estimates place homosexuals at ten percent of the population.) So, he was doing the exact opposite of what his job was. I seem to recall that being grounds for termination.

His job is to make the employees comfortable in their working environment. Now, imagine that he had a bumper sticker that said that blacks shouldn't be allowed to marry. That would make employees uncomfortable, especially if one of them was black. (Odds are that at least one of the employees was gay, given the fact that current estimates place homosexuals at ten percent of the population.) So, he was doing the exact opposite of what his job was. I seem to recall that being grounds for termination.

I suppose, but it really worries me when you are told to take something off of your own vehicle. It may be insulting but it is your car. I've seen cars with some real garbage on it so I suppose they aren't having any trouble with their stickers. In comparison, this guy's was quite mild.

Well, it doesn't.

Unless you count being able to tell other people what they can't do as somehow being an imposition upon you.it's belief and tenants of belief. Just because YOU cannot see anything wrong with it, doesn't mean that anyone who does is narrow minded.

Take the Veil argument in England. people wear veils because it's a religious law. no one is hurt by it, no one is directly affected...

yet, when using it for proper Identification of a person, wether it be for secuity reasons or for upholding the law, forcing someone to remove that veil goes against their religious pricipals and thus you are forcing law and procedures down their throats. yet, it is necessary to protect everyone.
and there are cases where it's being shown that it hampers communication... so where does the line get drawn?

Some Christian schools of thought are against Gay Marrages and they will fight against it. Forcing them to accept it into their community is infact shoving one set of beliefs onto another person's life. just like they are trying to impose their Religious views on others.

Since when are they being forced to accept it?

it's belief and tenants of belief. Just because YOU cannot see anything wrong with it, doesn't mean that anyone who does is narrow minded.

Take the Veil argument in England. people wear veils because it's a religious law. no one is hurt by it, no one is directly affected...

yet, when using it for proper Identification of a person, wether it be for secuity reasons or for upholding the law, forcing someone to remove that veil goes against their religious pricipals and thus you are forcing law and procedures down their throats. yet, it is necessary to protect everyone.
and there are cases where it's being shown that it hampers communication... so where does the line get drawn?

Some Christian schools of thought are against Gay Marrages and they will fight against it. Forcing them to accept it into their community is infact shoving one set of beliefs onto another person's life. just like they are trying to impose their Religious views on others.
But in this case both sides want to wear velis, allowing both sides to wear velis is not effecting the ability of the other side to also where veils if they should choose to do so

In your example a person was forced into an action against their religous beliefs.

In the example of gay marrige no one is actualy personaly forced into any action against their beliefs, they just have to let someone else alone.

Since when are they being forced to accept it?

Were you responding to me? If you are, I simply wonder when this censorship will stop. These people found his sticker to be offensive but who knows what they may complain about next. It is not as if the sticker was derogratory or anything, if they don't agree that is their choice but complaining about it is dumb.

I, being gay, of course don't support the 700 Club, the amendment, or any bigoted views such as those represented by said bumper sticker. However, I certainly don't think that it was appropriate for this man to be fired just because of his opinions.

Were you responding to me? If you are, I simply wonder when this censorship will stop. These people found his sticker to be offensive but who knows what they may complain about next. It is not as if the sticker was derogratory or anything, if they don't agree that is their choice but complaining about it is dumb.

I was responding to the person who stated that people would be forced to accept gay marriage in the post above me. If you fulfill those requirements, then yes, I was responding to you.

But in this case both sides want to wear velis, allowing both sides to wear velis is not effecting the ability of the other side to also where veils if they should choose to do so

In your example a person was forced into an action against their religous beliefs.

In the example of gay marrige no one is actualy personaly forced into any action against their beliefs, they just have to let someone else alone.

which is why I said in SOME CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT.
They do think that by allowing this (same sex marriage), it is a sin, because they did nothing/failed to stop it. so by allowing this amendment to fail, you are forcing them into sin or at least, forcing them to accept the sin.

I personally don't care one way or another about Same Sex Marriage. sure I think it's a sin, but it's a sin that has to be avoided by personal choice, not by tenant of law. but while I will not try to stop it, I will neither support it. so essentially, I won't do any cartwheels if such an amendment passes or fails.

Since when are they being forced to accept it? see my response to Upward. for some schools of christian thought, to let such an amendment to fail is forcing them to accept it.

Were you responding to me? If you are, I simply wonder when this censorship will stop. These people found his sticker to be offensive but who knows what they may complain about next. It is not as if the sticker was derogratory or anything, if they don't agree that is their choice but complaining about it is dumb.
I think he meant me.

I was responding to the person who stated that people would be forced to accept gay marriage in the post above me. If you fulfill those requirements, then yes, I was responding to you.

Ah. Well no it wasn't me. That is a obviously a matter for the voters though.

I think he meant me.

I see. :cool:

Do people have the right to live?
Yes. Jobs aren't rights, though.


Firing someone for being terrible at what you hired them for is fine, firing them for their race is not.
If you support freedom of association and property rights, it certainly is.

Yet that stops it from being completely anti free speech... how?
Do jews have to allow neo-nazis to hold a rally in a synagogue? Is the fact that they don't allow that contrary to free speech?

Do jews have to allow neo-nazis to hold a rally in a synagogue? Is the fact that they don't allow that contrary to free speech?

Come on, the guy has a pro traditional marriage bumper sticker. He isn't carrying signs into his workplace declaring his wish to kill gays or something. Your scenario doesn't make sense at all.

Come on, the guy has a pro traditional marriage bumper sticker.
Irrelevant. You don't have freedom of speech on someone else's property. That's just reality.

Irrelevant. You don't have freedom of speech on someone else's property. That's just reality.

Your words are on my computer screen, which is my property. As such, you are no longer allowed to post, because you don't have freedom of speech.

Your words are on my computer screen, which is my property. As such, you are no longer allowed to post, because you don't have freedom of speech.

No he is writing to the SERVER ... you happen to be requesting that information from the server

Now the owner of the SERVER (the actual device he is sending the information to) DOES have limitations on freedom of speech based on the owners feelings

Such as no trolling rules
And no Nazi flags

Actually while jokingly stated your post was a good example of how people do NOT have freedom of speech on private property as is ... even over the web

Your words are on my computer screen, which is my property. As such, you are no longer allowed to post, because you don't have freedom of speech.
Ah, but they are only displayed there. They are stored somewhere else--on someone else's property.

You. Lose.

Name one.

Rome. The greed of the senetors that opposed Tiberus is what threw the city into chaos when it became divided between those who supported Tiberus and those who believed the lies spread about him by the senetors that Tiberus wanted to be "king of Rome". The greed of the Roman millitary and soldiers is what drove Tiberus to defend his fathers principles.

Irrelevant. You don't have freedom of speech on someone else's property. That's just reality.

Just because you own a piece of land, does not mean that that land becomes a soverign state. You are subject to the government of that state, and thus the state decidies ultimately to some extent or another what is and is not permisable on that land. If it says freedom of speech is aplicable EVERYWHERE then it is aplicable on your land if that land is within the states domain.

Do jews have to allow neo-nazis to hold a rally in a synagogue? Is the fact that they don't allow that contrary to free speech?

There is sensativity and there is insult. What you suggest contravines the right of asscoation. IE People being allowed to ascoiate amoung others for peaceful purposes without disterbance.

You know, I'm in favor of legalizing Gay Marriage... but I'm still also in favor of people being able to express themselves. Freedom of speech is a very important right - without it, we might as well be living in North Korea or Iran... so, even though the view-point he was expressign is contrary to mine, I have to say I don't think he should have been fired. This is just one more example of extremists, extremists on both sides of the arguement, trying to restrict Freedom of Speech...

Just because you own a piece of land, does not mean that that land becomes a soverign state.
Then neo-nazis have the right to preach their hate in a synagogue.

But you know how stupid that sounds, right. So why don't you try again.

There is sensativity and there is insult. What you suggest contravines the right of asscoation.
Ah, but according to you "If it says freedom of speech is aplicable EVERYWHERE then it is aplicable on your land if that land is within the states domain."

Reconcile your blatant contradiction. Now.

I prefer the criminal trial arena's Twinkie Defense. If that would work, anything will.

There was never any such thing as "the twinkie defense".

Neither White nor his defense team ever claimed that White's consumption of junk food had wrought psychological or physiological changes in White that caused him to act in way inconsistent with his "normal" behavior when he shot George Moscone and Harvey Milk. White's defense was that he had been suffering from a long-standing and untreated depression that diminished his capacity to distinguish right from wrong, and thus he was not capable of the premeditation required to support a charge of first degree murder. Dr. Martin Blinder was called as a witness by the defense to testify that the conversion of the previously health-conscious White to a diet of Twinkies and other junk foods was evidence of his depression

http://www.snopes.com/legal/twinkie.htm

Just because you own a piece of land, does not mean that that land becomes a soverign state. You are subject to the government of that state, and thus the state decidies ultimately to some extent or another what is and is not permisable on that land. If it says freedom of speech is aplicable EVERYWHERE then it is aplicable on your land if that land is within the states domain.

But that's not what the state said. The state siad the government would not regulate the free exercise of speech. It said nothing about requiring you to allow speech on YOUR property.

In fact doing so would likely be a violation of the 4th amendment.

Ah, but according to you "If it says freedom of speech is aplicable EVERYWHERE then it is aplicable on your land if that land is within the states domain."

Reconcile your blatant contradiction. Now.

Freedom of speech is aplicable up to the point that it contradicts other freedoms. Its not contradictorary at all

For example, the state provides me with freedom of movement. That does not mean I have the right to drive my car over your front garden and destroy your fence and ram the front of your house. You have right to defence of property.

Then neo-nazis have the right to preach their hate in a synagogue.

But you know how stupid that sounds, right. So why don't you try again.

Freedom of asscoasion

And before you call contradiction, rights are by their nature limited by other rights. See the right to freedom of movement vs the right to protection of property.

You lose. Go home

Freedom of speech is aplicable up to the point that it contradicts other freedoms. Its not contradictorary at all
Then you admit that you were wrong. Good.

Freedom of asscoasion
Freedom of speech.

You lose. Go home.

It offends people. They asked nicely, he didn't do it. If he had posted a sign saying "Screw Mexicans" People would be appalled and against him. He posted a sign that said, in a fancy way "Screw Gays" and people are angry about his "Right to free speech being stifled"

Bugger off and get real guys.

It offends people.

So?

They asked nicely, he didn't do it. If he had posted a sign saying "Screw Mexicans" People would be appalled and against him. He posted a sign that said, in a fancy way "Screw Gays" and people are angry about his "Right to free speech being stifled"

Bugger off and get real guys.

If he had a sign on his car that said, "I love Mexicans," or "Gays are great," that would offend people too. My equality sticker from the HRC offends people. Yellow ribbons that say, "Support our troops," offend some people. Bumper stickers that support Bush offend people. Bumper stickers that bash Bush offend people. However, I have a right to put any bumper sticker on my car that isn't illegal, and unless said bumper sticker interferes with my job or implies that the company I work for agrees (which can pretty much only happen if I am a delivery-person), it is none of my employer's business.

If he had a sign on his car that said, "I love Mexicans," or "Gays are great," that would offend people too. My equality sticker from the HRC offends people. Yellow ribbons that say, "Support our troops," offend some people. Bumper stickers that support Bush offend people. Bumper stickers that bash Bush offend people. However, I have a right to put any bumper sticker on my car that isn't illegal, and unless said bumper sticker interferes with my job or implies that the company I work for agrees (which can pretty much only happen if I am a delivery-person), it is none of my employer's business.

This is certainly a grey area, but would you consider an employee writing "Support Your Local Klan" on their back glass to be a form of harassment?

nope, it just shows that "Shoving moraitly and beliefs down another's throat" works both ways.

thus I don't want this to devolve into a debate about religion/morality which is personal and should never be "forced down" anyone's throat.
I've been here for over 2 years (been deleted for inactivity a dozen times though) and I've seen you say it as many times and never rationalised it.

Some Christian schools of thought are against Gay Marrages and they will fight against it. Forcing them to accept it into their community is infact shoving one set of beliefs onto another person's life. just like they are trying to impose their Religious views on others.
You're arguing for the right to not be offended, which is not a recognised right. What set of beliefs are you on about?

see my response to Upward. for some schools of christian thought, to let such an amendment to fail is forcing them to accept it.
Yes, you did indeed have to accept the law, for example the law that says you can't beat people up.

Yes. Jobs aren't rights, though.

Realistically how can one live without an income? You're against welfare, you're against the right to work so what do you expect people to do?

If you support freedom of association and property rights, it certainly is.
I also support human rights and equality of opportunity.

You don't have freedom of speech on someone else's property.
And you wonder why there's a growing anti-capitalist movement in the Americas.

Property is not the only human right.

He was not fired for having a certain view, but for expressing that view quite prominently at work, creating a hostile workplace for fellow employees. A valid termination.
You have an unappealing tendency to hypocrisy when it's politically convenient for you. This wasn't your opinion on the case where the woman was fired for openly supporting John Kerry.

You have an unappealing tendency to hypocrisy when it's politically convenient for you. This wasn't your opinion on the case where the woman was fired for openly supporting John Kerry.

Her job wasn't to make the other employees feel comfortable.

This is certainly a grey area, but would you consider an employee writing "Support Your Local Klan" on their back glass to be a form of harassment?

A form of harrassment? Yes. An illegal form of harrassment? No. An offense for which someone could be fired? No.

While more people will be offended by it, he would probably be equally offended by someone who wrote, "Support the NAACP," on the back glass of their car. Would it be permissable to fire someone for that? If not, it would not be permissable to fire the Klan guy.

A form of harrassment? Yes. An illegal form of harrassment? No. An offense for which someone could be fired? No.

While more people will be offended by it, he would probably be equally offended by someone who wrote, "Support the NAACP," on the back glass of their car. Would it be permissable to fire someone for that? If not, it would not be permissable to fire the Klan guy.

[I personally support this company's ability to terminate this worker regardless of free speech protections, but that is another discussion I don't want to start]

You are consistent, but I believe that you are setting a precedent that may be tough to maintain, especially for employers. What happens when employees start a pattern of "one-upsmanship" or openly flaunting extremely flammatory ideas that alienate large portions of the workforce?

You are consistent, but I believe that you are setting a precedent that may be tough to maintain, especially for employers. What happens when employees start a pattern of "one-upsmanship" or openly flaunting extremely flammatory ideas that alienate large portions of the workforce?

Openly flaunting would generally tend to require doing it on company time. If a person, for instance, wears a t-shirt that says, "Support the Klan," that will suggest to any customers that the company supports that position, and the wearer can be disciplined/fired. If she uses company time to pass out flyers or tries to push her views in the faces of coworkers, that is also a punishable offense.

However, it's not what we're talking about. We are talking about what a person does with his personal property which is not involved in completing his job.


The real problem, however, is that it would be clear discrimination if the employer allowed "Support the NAACP" or equality stickers but did not allow "Suport the clan" or "Ban gay marriage" stickers. And I don't think any employer has any business telling people that they can't put bumper stickers on their cars.

However, it's not what we're talking about. We are talking about what a person does with his personal property which is not involved in completing his job.

To turn the tables, what disallows an employer from making a political statement by not allowing someone to express those views on the employer's property?

The real problem, however, is that it would be clear discrimination if the employer allowed "Support the NAACP" or equality stickers but did not allow "Suport the clan" or "Ban gay marriage" stickers. And I don't think any employer has any business telling people that they can't put bumper stickers on their cars.

Certainly it is, but do we have any protection from discrimination for political views? I am showing my legal ignorance because I really don't know.

Realistically how can one live without an income? You're against welfare, you're against the right to work so what do you expect people to do?
They can work. But jobs aren't rights. If they were, then jobs MUST BE PROVIDED regardless.


I also support human rights and equality of opportunity.
Then you must support property rights.


And you wonder why there's a growing anti-capitalist movement in the Americas.
I both do and don't. On the one hand, I realize that there are a lot of people who are stupid, jealous, social engineers, etc. who want to mold reality to their whims. They are the anti-capitalists. On the other, I don't see why people would want to submit to those dictators.


Property is not the only human right.
Yes, it is. All rights are property rights.

To turn the tables, what disallows an employer from making a political statement by not allowing someone to express those views on the employer's property?

The only statement the employer could make in this regard would be to disallow all political statements. Thus, no particular political statement would be made.

Certainly it is, but do we have any protection from discrimination for political views? I am showing my legal ignorance because I really don't know.

Specifically? No. It probably depends on whether or not the state in question is one which requires justification for termination of employment. In such states, "He doesn't agree with me politically," generally would not be a legal reason for terminating employment, as such disagreements would not affect the ability of the employee to do her job. In a fire-at-will state, there *might* be problems if the employer makes it clear that political disagreements are the reason for the termination, but doesn't have to give a reason at all.

The only statement the employer could make in this regard would be to disallow all political statements. Thus, no particular political statement would be made.

So the employer is not allowed to make political statements with his property, but the worker has that right protected?

So the employer is not allowed to make political statements with his property, but the worker has that right protected?

Of course the employer can make political statements with his property. What he cannot do is make political statements with the property of others (ie. his employees). In order to make a political statement by disallowing a political statement by an employee outside of her job, the employer is not attempting to make a statement with his own property, but is instead attempting to make a political statement using the employee's property.

actually... no, let's not get into that here.

You're wrong, it's that simple. Allowing a gay couple to marry imposes nothing upon a heterosexual couple. You can't argue against that because it's a fact. If a gay couple wants to get married my life is in no way impeded unless it offends my delicate sensibilities. But I don't have the right to impede their lives and their choices because of my delicate sensibilities. If you could somehow show that gay marriage negatively affects their rights as heterosexuals, you might have a point. But it doesn't.

You have an unappealing tendency to hypocrisy when it's politically convenient for you. This wasn't your opinion on the case where the woman was fired for openly supporting John Kerry.

I suppose it's fortunate then that I couldn't possibly care less what you think about anything, ever. Saves me from being upset that you have a negative opinion of me.

http://www.earnedmedia.org/lc1021.htm
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52549
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52549



This is stifling of free speech! Down with the firing! :mp5:

I have a similar bumper sticker on my car and I would never remove it even it meant losing my job.
If somebody got fired simply for how they decided to decorate their private property, then that's BS.

Frankly, I'd prefer that the homophobes put up as many signs as possible, to advertise their beliefs. It's like how I appreciate when the racists put on their white sheets; I like people to be open and honest about what they are.

So?

If he had a sign on his car that said, "I love Mexicans," or "Gays are great," that would offend people too. My equality sticker from the HRC offends people. Yellow ribbons that say, "Support our troops," offend some people. Bumper stickers that support Bush offend people. Bumper stickers that bash Bush offend people. However, I have a right to put any bumper sticker on my car that isn't illegal, and unless said bumper sticker interferes with my job or implies that the company I work for agrees (which can pretty much only happen if I am a delivery-person), it is none of my employer's business.
Well put.

Pretty much every belief I hold is offensive to somebody. I would hate to live in a world where I'm legally prohibited from offending anybody, because that would mean I'd have to give up my job, my home, my lover, my hobbies, and pretty much everything else that matters to me, because all of them offend somebody for some reason.

All us Christians are trying to do is stop this country from falling apart because of a thing called MORAL DECAY. You see, MORAL DECAY is the one thing that most often destroys nations. 'Nuff said.

Answered by:

Most obviously, the Roman Empire.

You do realize that was after Constantine came to power and forced christianity on the empire (of course the parallel is uncanny...)

All us Christians are trying to do is stop this country from falling apart because of a thing called MORAL DECAY. You see, MORAL DECAY is the one thing that most often destroys nations. 'Nuff said.

Most obviously, the Roman Empire.

You do realize that was after Constantine came to power and forced christianity on the empire (of course the parallel is uncanny...)

I'm always amused when people use the Roman Empire as the great example of a nation destroyed by "moral decay," as if everyone from the Emperor on down was lying around on couches having orgies. The reasons for the decline of the Empire are so complicated and varied ... basically, they encompass all of European history from 27 BC to modern times. Depending on how you count, the Roman Empire lasted almost 1,500 years, not bad for something riddled with "moral decay."

No, it is the same for both the government and private companies. They can't do it. It's discrimination; pure and simple.

If the employee is employed "at will" they may be fired for any reason or no reason at all. At will employees do not have any recourse unless they are contracted. Only someone is who is contracted may be held to the specific ranges of said contract. Most employment in the US is "at will." This person would have to prove conclusively that they were fired solely on their religious beliefs which is harder to do than you think. That's the law whether you and the great Reverand Falwell like it or not. :gundge:

No, it is the same for both the government and private companies. They can't do it. It's discrimination; pure and simple.

If the employee is employed "at will" they may be fired for any reason or no reason at all. At will employees do not have any recourse unless they are contracted. Only someone is who is contracted may be held to the specific ranges of said contract. Most employment in the US is "at will." This person would have to prove conclusively that they were fired solely on their religious beliefs which is harder to do than you think. That's the law whether you and the great Reverand Falwell like it or not. :gundge:

It wasn't originally that way.

Thomas Jefferson was a renowned deist and in no way supporter the idea of a christian nation. As a matter of FACT, he was opposed and demonized by the established religions at the time as anti-religion (anti-christianity). Many preists and preachers spoke out against him. How wouldn't be an important founding father would he? Further, in all of the founding documents of this country there are only three real or imagined references to God, and NONE to christianity. Lastly, please read the Federalist Papers where the issue fo religion and governance are cleared up. The Federalist Papers were meant to expound upon the Constitution and clear up any misconceptions in order for ratification. It clearly deliniates the seperation fo church and state as that's pretty much the primary reason most people immigrated to the "new world." It is you who is trying to rewrite history in your evangelical terms, not me.

However, I have a right to put any bumper sticker on my car that isn't illegal, and unless said bumper sticker interferes with my job or implies that the company I work for agrees (which can pretty much only happen if I am a delivery-person), it is none of my employer's business.

You are absolutely correct....right up until the point where that bumper sticker enters your employer's property. At which point it does become their business.

We are talking about what a person does with his personal property

That was on the property of his employer. Period. End of story. The car entered their property.

You are absolutely correct....right up until the point where that bumper sticker enters your employer's property. At which point it does become their business.

If and only if it is used in the commission of my job.


That was on the property of his employer. Period. End of story. The car entered their property.

Really? So if I have a button in my purse, my employer can fire me? If I happen to be a card-carrying member of the ACLU and the card is in my wallet, my employer can up and fire me?

An employer has absolutely no business with my personal belongings unless those personal belongings are in use or on display while I am working. My car is not on display while I am working - it has nothing to do with my job. It's sitting in the parking lot and could belong to anyone, as far as my employer or anyone else affiliated is concerned.

If and only if it is used in the commission of my job.



Really? So if I have a button in my purse, my employer can fire me? If I happen to be a card-carrying member of the ACLU and the card is in my wallet, my employer can up and fire me?

An employer has absolutely no business with my personal belongings unless those personal belongings are in use or on display while I am working. My car is not on display while I am working - it has nothing to do with my job. It's sitting in the parking lot and could belong to anyone, as far as my employer or anyone else affiliated is concerned.

It may be in the lot but the whole point of a bumper sticker is display ... it is on display for better or worse

Really? So if I have a button in my purse, my employer can fire me? If I happen to be a card-carrying member of the ACLU and the card is in my wallet, my employer can up and fire me?

Your employer doesn't need a reason in the world to fire you. Your employer can fire you because he doesn't like the color of your shoes, or the cut of your hair, or just because he feels like it. And there's nothing you can do about it.

On the other hand, you can walk off your job tomorrow, and there's nothing your employer can do about it.

At will employment, aint it a bitch?

My car is not on display while I am working

Sure it is, in the company parking lot. If you do not wish it to be on display, park it off of work property and walk in.

It may be in the lot but the whole point of a bumper sticker is display ... it is on display for better or worse

Indeed, but unless this guy is going to put up a "no bumper stickers allowed in my parking lot" sign that applies to everyone that might park there (ie. employees/customers/government inspectors/etc.), he really doesn't have any right to bitch about it.


Your employer doesn't need a reason in the world to fire you.

You may think so, but I disagree. My employer and I have a contract. Either of us needs a reason to break it off.

At will employment, aint it a bitch?

At will employment isn't in existence everywhere, now is it?

Sure it is, in the company parking lot. If you do not wish it to be on display, park it off of work property and walk in.

Irrelevant. It is not involved in my job, and thus is not on display in my job. It does not have any effect on the job that I do or my interactions with customers. As such, it is no more my employer's business than what cards I am currently carrying in my wallet.

snip


You may think so, but I disagree. My employer and I have a contract. Either of us needs a reason to break it off.

snip

That depends on the contract I would suppose?

Seems the employee in question worked in the Cargill Foods HR department. He was spoken to about the sign (painted on the back window of his pickup) and initially covered it up. Then he uncovered it but parked outside the gates. Unfortunately he parked on company property. At that point he was again asked not to display the sign, refused, and was fired. The company felt he couldn't be depended on to enforce their HR policies.

I think the whole thing is a molehill on the way to becoming a mountain. I consider myself over on the left but I do wish some of my political compatriots would think before they act, and in a lot of cases just shut up. They'd be livid if the same thing were done to them, they need a little perspective.

At will employment isn't in existence everywhere, now is it?

It was, apparently, for him

Irrelevant. It is not involved in my job, and thus is not on display in my job. It does not have any effect on the job that I do or my interactions with customers. As such, it is no more my employer's business than what cards I am currently carrying in my wallet.

The employer owns the property. As a property owner that employer has the absolute right to restrict what is brought on to that property.

Let's take the bumper sticker out of the equation all together shall we, and break it down to general concepts.

The employer owns the property.

As the property owner, the employer has the right to restrict whatever that employer wants from entering that property.

The employee brought something on to that property.

The employer/property owner did not want that something on the property.

The employer/property owner asserted its legal right to have the object removed from its property.

The employee refused to comply with the employer/property owner asserting its legal right to regulate what enters its property.

The employee is fired for refusing to comply with the employer/property owner asserting its legal rights.

That's it, end of discussion. Barring a contract to the contrary (which there was apparently not in this case) the owner of a piece of property has the legal right to bar ANYTHING IT WANTS from entering the property. It is of absolutely no concequence what so ever if it impacts your job. It is on the employer's property, the employer has the right to regulate what goes on its property.

I've been here for over 2 years (been deleted for inactivity a dozen times though) and I've seen you say it as many times and never rationalised it.saying what... that both sides shove things down each other's throat? it's true.

You're arguing for the right to not be offended, which is not a recognised right. What set of beliefs are you on about?my beliefs are mine to hold, they are not debatable, nor are they under scrutiny here.

Yes, you did indeed have to accept the law, for example the law that says you can't beat people up.actually, the law does make provisions for beating people up. you are allowed to under certain and specific circumstances. it also depends on where you live.

You're wrong, it's that simple. Allowing a gay couple to marry imposes nothing upon a heterosexual couple. You can't argue against that because it's a fact. If a gay couple wants to get married my life is in no way impeded unless it offends my delicate sensibilities. But I don't have the right to impede their lives and their choices because of my delicate sensibilities. If you could somehow show that gay marriage negatively affects their rights as heterosexuals, you might have a point. But it doesn't.
you're wrong there, It isn't that simple. let's take the veil problem in England.

no harm in wearing a veil or Burhka right?

So how can you tell if the woman in the veil or Burhka, that is buying alcohol from your store, is over 18? she shows you a drivers licence... and since the picture of her on the licence is of her wearing the Burhka, how can you make a positive ID? If she is under 18, you will be breaking the law by selling alcohol to a minor, but if she's over 18, and you refuse to sell her the alcohol, you are discriminating against her religion. force her to remove the Burhka and you are forcing her to break her religious tenant.

some schools of Christian thougth is to fight the sin. Period. and Homosexuality is a sin. thus a law allowing it to happen will appear, in their eyes, as a law supporting Sin... making Sin legal.

That's it, end of discussion. Barring a contract to the contrary (which there was apparently not in this case) the owner of a piece of property has the legal right to bar ANYTHING IT WANTS from entering the property. It is of absolutely no concequence what so ever if it impacts your job. It is on the employer's property, the employer has the right to regulate what goes on its property.

Really? So, if I don't like a particular style car, and a government official shows up to inspect my business in such a car, I can deny him entrance?

If a handicap person shows up in a wheelchair, and I don't like the color of the chair, I can just kick her right on out of my store?

you're wrong there, It isn't that simple. let's take the veil problem in England.

no harm in wearing a veil or Burhka right?

So how can you tell if the woman in the veil or Burhka, that is buying alcohol from your store, is over 18? she shows you a drivers licence... and since the picture of her on the licence is of her wearing the Burhka, how can you make a positive ID? If she is under 18, you will be breaking the law by selling alcohol to a minor, but if she's over 18, and you refuse to sell her the alcohol, you are discriminating against her religion. force her to remove the Burhka and you are forcing her to break her religious tenant.

If you cannot make a positive ID, refusal to sell alcohol has nothing at all to do with religion. It would be no different than if a person walked in and they had drastically changed their appearance and you couldn't be sure if the picture on the ID was really theirs.

some schools of Christian thougth is to fight the sin. Period. and Homosexuality is a sin. thus a law allowing it to happen will appear, in their eyes, as a law supporting Sin... making Sin legal.

As soon as those "Christians" start trying to make laws against adultery, usury, working on the Sabbath, divorce, taking the Lord's name in vain, coveting your neighboor's property, worshipping any other God, and any number of other actions mentioned much more prominently in the Bible, this sort of argument will fly. As it is, it is quite clear that this isn't about Christianity, it's about hatred towards those who are different - in this case, specifically, homosexuals.

Really? So, if I don't like a particular style car, and a government official shows up to inspect my business in such a car, I can deny him entrance?

If a handicap person shows up in a wheelchair, and I don't like the color of the chair, I can just kick her right on out of my store?

absolute nonsense. A legal right exists when the legal authority recognizes its existance.

In those instances the legal authority has curtailed that right for those examples (IE making something handicaped accessable).

In instances where the right has not been curtailed, it exists. And the legal authority has not curtailed the employer's right to limit bumper stickers on the employers property. Ergo he has the right.

Nice fallacy you developed there. Obviously if the law doesn't allow for it, it's not a right. However the law allows for this, therefore it is. To try to counteract an example of a perfectly defensable action by showing examples to slightly similar, yet fundamentally different, illegal actions is like me saying I have the right to drink this soda on my desk here and you going "oh really, do you have the right to shoot up heroin as well???"

absolute nonsense. A legal right exists when the legal authority recognizes its existance.

Indeed, but "rights" often deal in "shoulds", and thus legality is not an issue.

If an employer truly should have the right to restrict anything that comes onto his property, including government vehicles and wheelchairs, if he so chooses.

It seems fairly obvious that the law recognizes a limitation in this right. So what sets apart an owner who doesn't like his employee's vehicle from one who doesn't like his customer's vehicle from one who doesn't like an inspector's vehicle?

Obviously if the law doesn't allow for it, it's not a right.

That's obvious, is it? So when the law didn't allow for blacks to be treated as human beings, they didn't have a right to be treated as human beings?

However the law allows for this, therefore it is.

Actually, that's a bit of a murky area.

To try to counteract an example of a perfectly defensable action

Perfectly defensible? Not in the least. Even if it is legal, the action taken by this employer is completely indefensible. It is really no different from firing someone for having a MADD sticker on their own personal vehicle, or even a "My child is an honor student at...." sticker.

by showing examples to slightly similar, yet fundamentally different, illegal actions is like me saying I have the right to drink this soda on my desk here and you going "oh really, do you have the right to shoot up heroin as well???"

Meanwhile, I was simply responding to what you said. What you said would include every action I listed. You didn't say, "As long as the powers that be say it's legal...." In fact, you said that the right was "absolute":

The employer owns the property. As a property owner that employer has the absolute right to restrict what is brought on to that property.

Bold mine.

Of course, by the "whatever is legal" logic, so long as a given state passes a law saying it is illegal to fire an employee for a display on his vehicle, you'll be A-ok with that. And, as long as there isn't a law against it, an employer who fires an employee for marrying a black man - that's A-ok too.

If you cannot make a positive ID, refusal to sell alcohol has nothing at all to do with religion. It would be no different than if a person walked in and they had drastically changed their appearance and you couldn't be sure if the picture on the ID was really theirs.if a person drastically changed their appearance, (more than just dyeing their hair, but full plastic surgury) they do tend to get new ID's.
and that is just one example on the clash between Religious Tolerance and the Legal System.

now, think about all the things you have to do where you have to show Proper ID. VOTING, Getting Credit Cards, Opening A Bank Account, Getting a Job, Buying Large Ticket Items, Using a Credit Card (for some places anyway), Purchasing and Obtaining an Airline Ticket (pre 9/11), writing a Check, Getting a Loan, Renting a place to live... etc...

As soon as those "Christians" start trying to make laws against adultery, usury, working on the Sabbath, divorce, taking the Lord's name in vain, coveting your neighboor's property, worshipping any other God, and any number of other actions mentioned much more prominently in the Bible, this sort of argument will fly. As it is, it is quite clear that this isn't about Christianity, it's about hatred towards those who are different - in this case, specifically, homosexuals.There are laws against Adultry (Polygamy for instance), Profanity (what can or cannot be said in public airwaves), Keeping the Seventh day Holy (Labor laws tend to require people to take two days off here (and the Seventh day is never specified as Saturday or Sunday in the Bible.) and Usury is covered as Thieft. and Christianity isn't the only religion against Homosexuality.

you're wrong there, It isn't that simple. let's take the veil problem in England.

no harm in wearing a veil or Burhka right?

So how can you tell if the woman in the veil or Burhka, that is buying alcohol from your store, is over 18? she shows you a drivers licence... and since the picture of her on the licence is of her wearing the Burhka, how can you make a positive ID? If she is under 18, you will be breaking the law by selling alcohol to a minor, but if she's over 18, and you refuse to sell her the alcohol, you are discriminating against her religion. force her to remove the Burhka and you are forcing her to break her religious tenant.

some schools of Christian thougth is to fight the sin. Period. and Homosexuality is a sin. thus a law allowing it to happen will appear, in their eyes, as a law supporting Sin... making Sin legal.


Most sins are legal as it is. That argument has more holes than a sieve.

if a person drastically changed their appearance, (more than just dyeing their hair, but full plastic surgury) they do tend to get new ID's.

Tend to, yes, but they are not legally required to.

and that is just one example on the clash between Religious Tolerance and the Legal System.

I see no clash.

now, think about all the things you have to do where you have to show Proper ID. VOTING,

And proper ID, in most places, need not be a picture ID.

Getting Credit Cards,

If only you really had to show ID for this. I wish.

[*snip*]

The thing is, none of this is an issue of religious tolerance. If a person *must* show their face for the security of a bank or any other number of things, then they will either do so (within reason - ie. it wouldn't be difficult to get a female bank teller to check, rather than having her do it in a room full of men) or not participate in those activities.

There are laws against Adultry (Polygamy for instance),

No, there aren't. There are laws against polygamy, but that is an entirely different issue. Adultery involves sex with someone other than your spouse. Polygamy involves having more than one spouse.

Meanwhile, laws against polygamy have little to do with Christianity.

Keeping the Seventh day Holy (Labor laws tend to require people to take two days off here (and the Seventh day is never specified as Saturday or Sunday in the Bible.)

Where do you live that labor laws require two days off?

Meanwhile, this doesn't address the issue of keeping the day holy. It should be equally illegal for me to cut my grass on the Sabbath, or to go out drinking on the Sabbath. Otherwise, it is exceedingly clear that keeping the Sabbath is not a legal requirement.

and Usury is covered as Thieft.

No, it isn't. In fact, usury is written into our law. Our entire economy runs off of it.

and Christianity isn't the only religion against Homosexuality.

Christianity, in my opinion, isn't against homosexuality, but this is irrelevant. You said that Christians think they should make sins illegal, and justify their treatment of homosexuals as second-class citizens because of it. I said that, as soon as they start making *all* sins illegal, that will make sense. I listed a particular list of sins, *none* of which are illegal, at least not in the US. You addressed none of them.

if a person drastically changed their appearance, (more than just dyeing their hair, but full plastic surgury) they do tend to get new ID's.
and that is just one example on the clash between Religious Tolerance and the Legal System.

They're not obliged to, however.


There are laws against Adultry (Polygamy for instance), Profanity (what can or cannot be said in public airwaves), Keeping the Seventh day Holy (Labor laws tend to require people to take two days off here (and the Seventh day is never specified as Saturday or Sunday in the Bible.) and Usury is covered as Thieft. and Christianity isn't the only religion against Homosexuality.

Religion shouldn't make laws in any country. Labour laws require a set amount of free days in a set time frame, that can be 8 days in 4 weeks or 2 days per week, and none of these need to fall on either Saturday or Sunday at all. The fact that you can't say "fuck" on certain channels or before a certain time has f**** all to do with "taking the Lord's name in vain". Theft is regarded as criminal bahviour in almost any society in almost any era since the dawn of humanity, those laws don't have their origins in any religion. Religion just tends to back them up.
IIRC there's some more sins mentioned in the bible, though, right? I seem to recall a certain commandment about not having any other gods besides the Christian one. Would you take that as a basis to argue that all other religions ought to be outlawed? Praying to another god is sin, after all.
And I'm not even going anywhere near the whole cotton and wool and crustaceans business....

Most sins are legal as it is. That argument has more holes than a sieve.

sins that are not harmful to others physically are legal. ;)

I've, personlly, maintained that avoiding sin is a personal obligation. thus a law to bar same sex marriages isn't needed to FIGHT sin.

That doesn't mean I am for Same sex Marriage. I'm just neutral. unless pushed to choose a side.

Of course, by the "whatever is legal" logic, so long as a given state passes a law saying it is illegal to fire an employee for a display on his vehicle, you'll be A-ok with that. And, as long as there isn't a law against it, an employer who fires an employee for marrying a black man - that's A-ok too.

If the legislature votes for laws I am in disagreement with then I of course vote for a different legislature.

Don't assume I'm "A-ok" with whatever the law is. I find some laws defensable, others not. I find this one to be just fine. I might find others not to be. If I find a law I disagree with, I vote for those against it.

sins that are not harmful to others physically are legal. ;)

I've, personlly, maintained that avoiding sin is a personal obligation. thus a law to bar same sex marriages isn't needed to FIGHT sin.

That doesn't mean I am for Same sex Marriage. I'm just neutral. unless pushed to choose a side.

Ok, now you have to explain to me how same sex marriage is physically harmful to anybody. In detail.

really... so you go and try and fire a female employee because she's female. try and fire an employee because of religion, explain your right to fire anyone at your discretion because you are the employer.

IF you have a boss, ask him/her. she'll explain it to you.Though there was also a woman fired for having a Kerry sticker. Other than those reasons covered by discrimination laws (gender, religion, race) your employer can legally fire you for almost any reason.

Tend to, yes, but they are not legally required to. They're not obliged to, however.
however, if the picture ID does not match (to the point where there is reasonable doubt) the person, service can be refused on the grounds of innadiquate ID.

so you cannot be forced to carry ID with a matching picture, but you cannot complain if the number of activities you can do is limited.



I see no clash.



And proper ID, in most places, need not be a picture ID. like? Usually, places not requiring photo ID requires one to be either Social Security card or birth certificate as well as another form is required.



If only you really had to show ID for this. I wish.true, Mail application and on-line application does not require ID, but applying in person at a bank does.

[*snip*]

The thing is, none of this is an issue of religious tolerance. If a person *must* show their face for the security of a bank or any other number of things, then they will either do so (within reason - ie. it wouldn't be difficult to get a female bank teller to check, rather than having her do it in a room full of men) or not participate in those activities. and for some, even removing the veil in the privacy with a female officer is still not done. I've seen people in airports refuse this before 9/11.


No, there aren't. There are laws against polygamy, but that is an entirely different issue. Adultery involves sex with someone other than your spouse. Polygamy involves having more than one spouse.
Meanwhile, laws against polygamy have little to do with Christianity.
Where do you live that labor laws require two days off?
Meanwhile, this doesn't address the issue of keeping the day holy. It should be equally illegal for me to cut my grass on the Sabbath, or to go out drinking on the Sabbath. Otherwise, it is exceedingly clear that keeping the Sabbath is not a legal requirement.
so you do think that if the LAW does not mention it SPECIFICALLY, it's not covered and thus not connected?
Oh and Polygamy is one of the things mentioned in the BIBLE.

No, it isn't. In fact, usury is written into our law. Our entire economy runs off of it.nope, Interest is written into the law, and Interest isn't Usury unless taken to the extreme as overcharging which is a form of Fraud.

Christianity, in my opinion, isn't against homosexuality, but this is irrelevant. You said that Christians think they should make sins illegal, and justify their treatment of homosexuals as second-class citizens because of it. I said that, as soon as they start making *all* sins illegal, that will make sense. I listed a particular list of sins, *none* of which are illegal, at least not in the US. You addressed none of them.nope, I've always said SOME forms of Christian Thinking not all.

and please point to where you said "I said that, as soon as they start making *all* sins illegal,"
As soon as those "Christians" start trying to make laws against adultery, usury, working on the Sabbath, divorce, taking the Lord's name in vain, coveting your neighboor's property, worshipping any other God, and any number of other actions mentioned much more prominently in the Bible, this sort of argument will fly. As it is, it is quite clear that this isn't about Christianity, it's about hatred towards those who are different - in this case, specifically, homosexuals.you stated trying to make laws... and include other actions mentioned more prominently in the Bible. now you are changing things to suite your arguments.


Religion shouldn't make laws in any country. Labour laws require a set amount of free days in a set time frame, that can be 8 days in 4 weeks or 2 days per week, and none of these need to fall on either Saturday or Sunday at all. The fact that you can't say "fuck" on certain channels or before a certain time has f**** all to do with "taking the Lord's name in vain". Theft is regarded as criminal bahviour in almost any society in almost any era since the dawn of humanity, those laws don't have their origins in any religion. Religion just tends to back them up.
IIRC there's some more sins mentioned in the bible, though, right? I seem to recall a certain commandment about not having any other gods besides the Christian one. Would you take that as a basis to argue that all other religions ought to be outlawed? Praying to another god is sin, after all.
And I'm not even going anywhere near the whole cotton and wool and crustaceans business....I agree that Religion should not be making laws, to me, Sin is a personal choice, thus making a law only forces one to obey any religous laws. those points where society and religion march side by side, i.e. Murder, Thieft, Fraud, etc... are ok, but when they clash, it should be more to the fact that following any Religion and their laws should be about choice and not forcing them because it's a law.

Ok, now you have to explain to me how same sex marriage is physically harmful to anybody. In detail.why should I? I'm not against Same Sex Marriage on a Religious standpoint. I'm just arguing that both sides (religion and non) are guilty of shoving their values and beliefs down each other's throat.

Though there was also a woman fired for having a Kerry sticker. Other than those reasons covered by discrimination laws (gender, religion, race) your employer can legally fire you for almost any reason.err... please link. if it's the one I think you're referring to, the employer did recind the firing status, however the employee ended up working for Kerry.

and there is legal prescident for suing for "Wrongful termination"

why should I? I'm not against Same Sex Marriage on a Religious standpoint. I'm just arguing that both sides (religion and non) are guilty of shoving their values and beliefs down each other's throat.


See, that's an argument I never fully understood.

My values regarding legislation are basically : Let everybody do what they want, unless they're hurting someone else. Now, I know that some people do find the highly offensive. After all, it means nobody is allowed to tell anybody else how to live their lives, in minute detail...

See, that's an argument I never fully understood.

My values regarding legislation are basically : Let everybody do what they want, unless they're hurting someone else. Now, I know that some people do find the highly offensive. After all, it means nobody is allowed to tell anybody else how to live their lives, in minute detail...in Minute Detail... yes. I agree.

however, society needs to adopt a set of rules that everyone can live by. say, laws against Murder, theift etc...

to me, on same sex marriage, I am of two minds. One, it's a sin, and thus should not be allowed to be legal. However, as a sin, it's a choice, and such as the law does not force anyone to partake in a Same Sex marriage cerimony...

so I really am neutral on this matter. I will neither vote against it nor for it.

now if someone were to pull a Lyric on me again... ;)

the key word is Hurting. is it Physical? Emotional? Mental? Financial?
and who determines the Hurt? that person, others around them? strangers who have no connection with that person?

however, if the picture ID does not match (to the point where there is reasonable doubt) the person, service can be refused on the grounds of innadiquate ID.

so you cannot be forced to carry ID with a matching picture, but you cannot complain if the number of activities you can do is limited.

Precisely!

like? Usually, places not requiring photo ID requires one to be either Social Security card or birth certificate as well as another form is required.

In some places, a social security card an up-to-date utility bill are enough. At least, they were in my state up until very recently.

and for some, even removing the veil in the privacy with a female officer is still not done. I've seen people in airports refuse this before 9/11.

Then, when those people are refused service/travel, they have no room to complain, nor is it related in any way to religious tolerance.

so you do think that if the LAW does not mention it SPECIFICALLY, it's not covered and thus not connected?

If "Christians" really thought that having something legal implied support, then all sins should be made illegal. Adultery is not, in any way, illegal. Two consenting adults can have sex no matter who they are married to without criminal prosecution.

Oh and Polygamy is one of the things mentioned in the BIBLE.

Indeed, but not always in a negative light.

nope, Interest is written into the law, and Interest isn't Usury unless taken to the extreme as overcharging which is a form of Fraud.

Actually, interest is usury. That is the definition of the word. A Christian is not supposed to charge interest at all on a loan - is not supposed to profit off of a loan.

nope, I've always said SOME forms of Christian Thinking not all.

I didn't imply that you thought *all* Christians push for these things. But to say, "I want homosexuality to be illegal because it's a sin," and not to say, "I want usury/adultery/working on the Sabbath/etc. illegal," is the height of hypocrisy.

and please point to where you said "I said that, as soon as they start making *all* sins illegal,"
you stated trying to make laws... and include other actions mentioned more prominently in the Bible. now you are changing things to suite your arguments.

I didn't change anything. I made it very clear what I was saying, and you just quoted it. Pretty much every possible sin in the Bible is mentioned more and more prominently than homosexuality.

I agree that Religion should not be making laws, to me, Sin is a personal choice, thus making a law only forces one to obey any religous laws. those points where society and religion march side by side, i.e. Murder, Thieft, Fraud, etc... are ok, but when they clash, it should be more to the fact that following any Religion and their laws should be about choice and not forcing them because it's a law.

I absolutely agree. However, I could possibly have a tiny bit more respect for those who do try to legislate religion if they would actually do so, instead of picking the most hateful things they can find to try and legislate, but leaving out all the sins they rely upon and/or commit every day.

why should I? I'm not against Same Sex Marriage on a Religious standpoint. I'm just arguing that both sides (religion and non) are guilty of shoving their values and beliefs down each other's throat.

err... please link. if it's the one I think you're referring to, the employer did recind the firing status, however the employee ended up working for Kerry.

and there is legal prescident for suing for "Wrongful termination"

http://atheism.about.com/b/a/112462.htm

http://www.slate.com/id/2106714/

Apparently she was offered her job back, but only because of bad publicity, not because she had any legal standing. The original story I saw said she went to the ACLU for help, and they said there was nothing they could do.

They can work. But jobs aren't rights. If they were, then jobs MUST BE PROVIDED regardless.
If they can't have a job or welfare then they have no income, I don't see how anyone can survive like that.

Then you must support property rights.
I certainly do because I'm not a communist.

I both do and don't. On the one hand, I realize that there are a lot of people who are stupid, jealous, social engineers, etc. who want to mold reality to their whims. They are the anti-capitalists. On the other, I don't see why people would want to submit to those dictators.
There are a lot of people who are sick of getting the shit end of the stick through no fault of their own.

Yes, it is. All rights are property rights.

How is freedom of speech, for example, a property right?

I suppose it's fortunate then that I couldn't possibly care less what you think about anything, ever. Saves me from being upset that you have a negative opinion of me.
"I don't care what you think" is the best reply you could come up with? If you couldn't respond intelligently to people who disagree with you, then you might as well not enter the thread at all. Discrimination is wrong.

If the employee is employed "at will" they may be fired for any reason or no reason at all. At will employees do not have any recourse unless they are contracted. Only someone is who is contracted may be held to the specific ranges of said contract. Most employment in the US is "at will." This person would have to prove conclusively that they were fired solely on their religious beliefs which is harder to do than you think. That's the law whether you and the great Reverand Falwell like it or not. :gundge:
This ultra-right libertarian rubbish is unrealistic. It's wrong, discriminatory and unproductive to fire people on the basis of race, religion, sexuality, etc. Doesn't your country have unfair dismissal laws?

If somebody got fired simply for how they decided to decorate their private property, then that's BS.

Frankly, I'd prefer that the homophobes put up as many signs as possible, to advertise their beliefs. It's like how I appreciate when the racists put on their white sheets; I like people to be open and honest about what they are.
What I find ironic is that the people who would normally defend worker's rights (like Sdaeriji) from overzealous managers are taking the opposite side now due to their obsession with ridding the world of homophobia. I don't agree with the worker in this case but he shouldn't have been fired.

You are absolutely correct....right up until the point where that bumper sticker enters your employer's property. At which point it does become their business.
Your time temporarily becomes your employer's property when you're at work; your material possessions do not.

saying what... that both sides shove things down each other's throat? it's true.
Legalising same-sex marriage doesn't shove anything down anyone's throat.

my beliefs are mine to hold, they are not debatable, nor are they under scrutiny here.
That's not what I'm talking about, I'm asking about the "set of beliefs" you mentioned in your post.

actually, the law does make provisions for beating people up. you are allowed to under certain and specific circumstances. it also depends on where you live.
You're being anal. Generally speaking, assault is illegal. And you have to obey that.

It may be legal in self-defence, but nobody needs defending from same-sex marriage.

force her to remove the Burhka and you are forcing her to break her religious tenant.
If she's a Muslim buying alcohol she's already breaking a significant religious tenet.

some schools of Christian thougth is to fight the sin. Period. and Homosexuality is a sin. thus a law allowing it to happen will appear, in their eyes, as a law supporting Sin... making Sin legal.
Schools of Christian thought which say that government must do God's work for him have no place running civilised society. God and only God will judge all.

sins that are not harmful to others physically are legal. ;)
The Harm Principle is outside of Christianity. Sins against other people (such as theft) and sins against oneself (such as homosexuality) are both sins.

why should I? I'm not against Same Sex Marriage on a Religious standpoint. I'm just arguing that both sides (religion and non) are guilty of shoving their values and beliefs down each other's throat.

You haven't shown that. All you've shown is that we don't give theocratic Christian groups the right to trample on other people's rights. There are some atheist schools of thought that say religion must be fought and outlawed (e.g. Nazism, Maoism/Leninism). But I don't think that we are "shoving our beliefs down their throats" by allowing religion.

in Minute Detail... yes. I agree.

however, society needs to adopt a set of rules that everyone can live by. say, laws against Murder, theift etc...

to me, on same sex marriage, I am of two minds. One, it's a sin, and thus should not be allowed to be legal. However, as a sin, it's a choice, and such as the law does not force anyone to partake in a Same Sex marriage cerimony...

so I really am neutral on this matter. I will neither vote against it nor for it.

now if someone were to pull a Lyric on me again... ;)

the key word is Hurting. is it Physical? Emotional? Mental? Financial?
and who determines the Hurt? that person, others around them? strangers who have no connection with that person?
I like what Thomas Jefferson said on the subject. I think it should apply to all consensual crimes.
"The legitimate powers
of government extend to such acts
only as are injurious to others.
But it does me no injury
for my neighbor to say
there are twenty gods, or no God.
It neither picks my pocket
nor breaks my leg."

In some places, a social security card an up-to-date utility bill are enough. At least, they were in my state up until very recently. really... usually it's a pay stub, not a utility bill. Utility bills are only needed to show residency.

Then, when those people are refused service/travel, they have no room to complain, nor is it related in any way to religious tolerance. that's right, yet complain they do, and cry Racial Profiling/discrimination, infringement on personal rights etc...

If "Christians" really thought that having something legal implied support, then all sins should be made illegal. Adultery is not, in any way, illegal. Two consenting adults can have sex no matter who they are married to without criminal prosecution. which doesn't answer my question...

Indeed, but not always in a negative light. except where it states to take only one wife...

Actually, interest is usury. That is the definition of the word. A Christian is not supposed to charge interest at all on a loan - is not supposed to profit off of a loan. and 1) it's not required by law to charge interest for a loan.
2) "entirely just and legitimate reasons arise to demand something over and above the amount due on the contract" - such reasons could include the risk of loss, the time value of money in the modern economy, etc. WIKIPEDIA - Usury



I didn't imply that you thought *all* Christians push for these things. But to say, "I want homosexuality to be illegal because it's a sin," and not to say, "I want usury/adultery/working on the Sabbath/etc. illegal," is the height of hypocrisy.And I Haven't Said that I WANTED homosexuality Illegal. I personally, don't charge Interest nor Usury when I lend out money. I don't commit Adultery and I don't work on the seventh day and I couldn't care less if Same Sex Marriage is legal or not. As I stated before, YES, I believe Homosexuality is a Sin, but no where do I state that I am against Same Sex Marriage (which is different than Homosexuality.)



I didn't change anything. I made it very clear what I was saying, and you just quoted it. Pretty much every possible sin in the Bible is mentioned more and more prominently than homosexuality.and again, you change the focus.

I absolutely agree. However, I could possibly have a tiny bit more respect for those who do try to legislate religion if they would actually do so, instead of picking the most hateful things they can find to try and legislate, but leaving out all the sins they rely upon and/or commit every day.looking at what each religion considers a sin, you would end up sitting at home doing nothing... oops, sorry, Slothfulness is a sin. :p

that's why, to me, it's all about the choice. Choosing to sin, to give into temptation.

http://atheism.about.com/b/a/112462.htm

http://www.slate.com/id/2106714/

Apparently she was offered her job back, but only because of bad publicity, not because she had any legal standing. The original story I saw said she went to the ACLU for help, and they said there was nothing they could do.yep. while that's true for the ACLU however, a Civil Lawsuit might work. "Wrongful termination", if you can interprest political viewpoints as a belief... then you have discrimination baised off of Beliefs... as long as the employer was dumb enough to only fire the person on that one incident, and the employee doesn't have a written history of insubordination...

The sticker demonstrates bad character, among other things.

I wouldnt trust someone who couldnt reason out that gay people getting married doesnt 'destroy marriage' to handle my money or be in any way employed by me.

I would also fire, on the spot, anyone with a 'dont let the niggers marry' sticker.

really... usually it's a pay stub, not a utility bill. Utility bills are only needed to show residency.

And voting is generally by district. You have to show residency to vote in a given district. Why on earth would you need a pay stub to vote? You can vote even if you are unemployed

which doesn't answer my question...

What question?

except where it states to take only one wife...

I said "not always."

and 1) it's not required by law to charge interest for a loan.

No, but the government charges interest for loans. Thus, interest is written into our law.

2) "entirely just and legitimate reasons arise to demand something over and above the amount due on the contract" - such reasons could include the risk of loss, the time value of money in the modern economy, etc. WIKIPEDIA - Usury

Is this supposed to be the definition of usury?

The definition is:

Main Entry: usu·ry
Pronunciation: 'yü-zh&-rE, 'yüzh-rE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ries
Etymology: Middle English usurie, from Anglo-French, from Medieval Latin usuria, alteration of Latin usura, from usus, past participle of uti to use
1 archaic : INTEREST
2 : the lending of money with an interest charge for its use; especially : the lending of money at exorbitant interest rates
3 : an unconscionable or exorbitant rate or amount of interest; specifically : interest in excess of a legal rate charged to a borrower for the use of money

It is often used specifically to refer to excess interest rates, but also refers to lending money with *any* interest. Any interest at all represents profit from giving a loan, something Christ told us not to do.

And I Haven't Said that I WANTED homosexuality Illegal. I personally, don't charge Interest nor Usury when I lend out money. I don't commit Adultery and I don't work on the seventh day and I couldn't care less if Same Sex Marriage is legal or not. As I stated before, YES, I believe Homosexuality is a Sin, but no where do I state that I am against Same Sex Marriage (which is different than Homosexuality.)

Good. I never said that you were one of those trying to write it into law. You were, however, defending people by saying that was *their* intention - that, in their minds, having something legal is the same as supporting it, and thus sin must be made illegal. If that is truly their viewpoint, they would be making all of these things illegal, not just a few choice ones that they think won't effect their own sinful lives.

and again, you change the focus.

No, I haven't, despite your attempts several times to do so.

looking at what each religion considers a sin, you would end up sitting at home doing nothing... oops, sorry, Slothfulness is a sin. :p

Who said anything about looking at each religion? My statement was that I could have a slight amount more respect for someone who actually attempted to put their entire religion into law, rather than picking a few hateful portions of it. I didn't say I would actually respect them doing it or allow them to do it, just that at least they wouldn't be complete hypocrites.

The sticker demonstrates bad character, among other things.

I wouldnt trust someone who couldnt reason out that gay people getting married doesnt 'destroy marriage' to handle my money or be in any way employed by me.

I would also fire, on the spot, anyone with a 'dont let the niggers marry' sticker.

I assume, then that you would support the right of an employer to fire anyone who put an equality sticker or "Support the NAACP" sticker or "Race doesn't matter" sticker on their car if it happened to offend him?

Or are you being a tad hypocritical here?

I assume, then that you would support the right of an employer to fire anyone who put an equality sticker or "Support the NAACP" sticker or "Race doesn't matter" sticker on their car if it happened to offend him?

Or are you being a tad hypocritical here?

No, not at all.

Stickers like "dont let the niggers marry" and "dont let the god damned faggots marry" (which is the point of all 'protect marriage' vomit) demonstrate a degenerate character. The NAACP is not an organization devoted to hating and oppressing people, and 'race doesnt matter' does not promote hate or oppression either.

Belief that gay marriage is a 'threat to marriage' is stupid, there are no two ways around that fact.

A person who believs it is giving evidence that he isnt a very competent thinker, and as I wrote in my post, I would neither trust nor employ such a person on those grounds.

Legalising same-sex marriage doesn't shove anything down anyone's throat.actually, it does. it forces those who believe Same Sex Marriage to be a grave sin to accept it into their lives. something you may not understand, but it does infringe on their freedom of Religion.


That's not what I'm talking about, I'm asking about the "set of beliefs" you mentioned in your post.Generally, some Christian Schools of thought revolve around preventing others from sinning (Fight the Sin.) some Christian Schools of thought paint the sinners as black as their sin. (Sinners are weak/evil/etc.) Other Schools of Christian Thought is to help the willing Sinner free themselves from the sin. (Guide/teacher)

I would rather Witness by action and deed. and help those who want help, and not force myself on anyone.


You're being anal. Generally speaking, assault is illegal. And you have to obey that.

It may be legal in self-defence, but nobody needs defending from same-sex marriage.
and most people are anal on both sides of the coin.

and as I said, yes, Some Christians do believe that legalizing Same Sex Marriage will be used as a weapon against them. thus the need to "defend" themselves.


If she's a Muslim buying alcohol she's already breaking a significant religious tenet.and getting a job... Renting a place, getting a drivers licence... etc...


Schools of Christian thought which say that government must do God's work for him have no place running civilised society. God and only God will judge all.and since there can be no Religous Test for anyone Running, you cannot prevent them from getting those posistions by their Religious Beliefs alone.

The Harm Principle is outside of Christianity. Sins against other people (such as theft) and sins against oneself (such as homosexuality) are both sins.if you read that in conjuction to Cabra's response, you will note it's not an argument but a comment.


You haven't shown that. All you've shown is that we don't give theocratic Christian groups the right to trample on other people's rights. There are some atheist schools of thought that say religion must be fought and outlawed (e.g. Nazism, Maoism/Leninism). But I don't think that we are "shoving our beliefs down their throats" by allowing religion.simple, you are discounting one group because of who they are, and not trying to see their side of the argument. In other words, you are not seeing the attacks on them because you are not trying to empathize with them.

I like what Thomas Jefferson said on the subject. I think it should apply to all consensual crimes.
"The legitimate powers
of government extend to such acts
only as are injurious to others.
But it does me no injury
for my neighbor to say
there are twenty gods, or no God.
It neither picks my pocket
nor breaks my leg."but he only mentions Injury on a Financial nature "It Neither Picks my Pocket" or on a Physical nature "Nor breaks my leg." so emotional and mental harm is ok with you?

That man should have been punched in the face but not fired.

actually, it does. it forces those who believe Same Sex Marriage to be a grave sin to accept it into their lives. something you may not understand, but it does infringe on their freedom of Religion.

The acts of others done in their own privacy do not, ever, in any way, alter your ability to practice your religion.

The acts of others done in their own privacy do not, ever, in any way, alter your ability to practice your religion.


yeah I don't get that one either. seems like a real stretch... it's like saying that allowing there to be multiple religions in the US forces Christians to accept satanism into their lives and is against their freedom of religion.

it seems more sensible to say that forcing a Christian idea of what marriage is supposed to be on ALL people in the US or within a particular US state is truely against others freedom of religion (or perhaps freedom from religion, as noone should be forced to live by Christian ideals in a secular nation)

And voting is generally by district. You have to show residency to vote in a given district. Why on earth would you need a pay stub to vote? You can vote even if you are unemployedwell, for voting, we require a Photo ID. Drivers licen etc.

What question?so you do think that if the LAW does not mention it SPECIFICALLY, it's not covered and thus not connected?



I said "not always." but it's still stated, and as a no-no... in the New Testiment.

No, but the government charges interest for loans. Thus, interest is written into our law.

Is this supposed to be the definition of usury?

The definition is:

Main Entry: usu·ry
Pronunciation: 'yü-zh&-rE, 'yüzh-rE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ries
Etymology: Middle English usurie, from Anglo-French, from Medieval Latin usuria, alteration of Latin usura, from usus, past participle of uti to use
1 archaic : INTEREST
2 : the lending of money with an interest charge for its use; especially : the lending of money at exorbitant interest rates
3 : an unconscionable or exorbitant rate or amount of interest; specifically : interest in excess of a legal rate charged to a borrower for the use of money

It is often used specifically to refer to excess interest rates, but also refers to lending money with *any* interest. Any interest at all represents profit from giving a loan, something Christ told us not to do.Funny, all three of your definitions define it as Archaic and especially when it's exhorbitant... and some religions do allow the use of Usury.



Good. I never said that you were one of those trying to write it into law. You were, however, defending people by saying that was *their* intention - that, in their minds, having something legal is the same as supporting it, and thus sin must be made illegal. If that is truly their viewpoint, they would be making all of these things illegal, not just a few choice ones that they think won't effect their own sinful lives.and that it is their views on the matter. thus others are "shoving" and idea/concept that they find just as repugnant as some find the arguments against Same Sex Marriage, "Down their throats" basically, I'm tired of people saying [Religion of the day] is being "Shoved down [my] throat" like they are not doing the same to them. Argue your posistion, ok. try to convince the other, fine. but to sit back and complain about pushing and shoving is just being as hypocritical as those they label.

No, I haven't, despite your attempts several times to do so.whatevers. Null point, so I ask for truce. :p

Who said anything about looking at each religion? My statement was that I could have a slight amount more respect for someone who actually attempted to put their entire religion into law, rather than picking a few hateful portions of it. I didn't say I would actually respect them doing it or allow them to do it, just that at least they wouldn't be complete hypocrites. guess I misunderstood you. I was also assuming all religions represented here [USA] would have a say in legal matters... :p

The acts of others done in their own privacy do not, ever, in any way, alter your ability to practice your religion.
and what is done in the privacy of one's home isn't the point for Same Sex Marriage.

neither is it the Legal status of being Married (since many say Civil Unions won't satisfy them.)

and what is done in the privacy of one's home isn't the point for Same Sex Marriage.

neither is it the Legal status of being Married (since many say Civil Unions won't satisfy them.)



not always true - for many it is a matter of legal status and many have taken advantage of civil unions where available.

others will complain about "civil unions" because they dont want to be separate but equal.

No, there isn't. "V'et zachar lo tishkav" is very clear; "zachar" means male.

The uncertainty is with "mishkevei ishah" (usually translated "as with womankind"; literally referring to the "lyings of womankind.")



You can get a pretty close approximation, and most translations do that fairly well.

I guess the whole sentence is meant to point out that you cannot sleep with a man the same way as with women for obvious anatomical reasons. He needs to turn.

actually, it does. it forces those who believe Same Sex Marriage to be a grave sin to accept it into their lives. something you may not understand, but it does infringe on their freedom of Religion.
*Snip*


but he only mentions Injury on a Financial nature "It Neither Picks my Pocket" or on a Physical nature "Nor breaks my leg." so emotional and mental harm is ok with you?

The constitution does not guarantee the right not to be offended. What if your freedom to not be offended religiously interfers with someone else's religious opinion? That's why there's no such right.

The constitution does not guarantee the right not to be offended. What if your freedom to not be offended religiously interfers with someone else's religious opinion? That's why there's no such right.

I never said it was a right.