NationStates Jolt Archive

Howsabout we don't have anti-discrimination laws at all?

EDIT: Bloody timewarps. Sorry, Zarakon.

My state was debating anti-bullying legislation a while back, and many people were objecting to the inclusion of sexual orientation and gender identity as things you can't bully based on. Eventually, there was something like a conscience clause allowing private (I.E. Religious) schools to teach their views on homosexuality.

Now what kind of bullshit is this? Seriously, could you imagine the uproar if schools demanded the right to teach their "views" on black people? Or their "views" on woman?

The same thing happens with anti-discrimination laws to. People demand the right to discriminate based on sexual orientation. Yet few people decry these guys as nutjobs. But if these same people demanded the right to discriminate based on race, they'd be called immoral freaks or something along those lines. (No, I'm not saying we should let people discriminate based on race. I'm just saying that it's a double standard.)

....because people would be discriminated against...?

Um...how about not, because it's basically creating a thought crime?

Howsabout we don't have anti-discrimination laws at all?
.

....because people would be discriminated against...?

I think the problem is the scope of the anti-discrimination laws.

My state was debating anti-bullying legislation a while back, and many people were objecting to the inclusion of sexual orientation and gender identity as things you can't bully based on. Eventually, there was something like a conscience clause allowing private (I.E. Religious) schools to teach their views on homosexuality.

Now what kind of bullshit is this? Seriously, could you imagine the uproar if schools demanded the right to teach their "views" on black people? Or their "views" on woman?

The same thing happens with anti-discrimination laws to. People demand the right to discriminate based on sexual orientation. Yet few people decry these guys as nutjobs. But if these same people demanded the right to discriminate based on race, they'd be called immoral freaks or something along those lines. (No, I'm not saying we should let people discriminate based on race. I'm just saying that it's a double standard.)

You have a point, but in reality there are differances between positive discrimination based on gender, whislt there is no such thing as positive discrimination based on race.

Um...how about not, because it's basically creating a thought crime?

Discrimination is an action.

Discrimination is an action.

No, the action is, say, denying someone a job. Discrimination is the thought behind doing so.

You have a point, but in reality there are differances between positive discrimination based on gender, whislt there is no such thing as positive discrimination based on race.

Um, yeah, there is. In the US, a white person is much more likely to be viewed as calm, stable, competent, and non-threatening. An Asian person is much more likely to be viewed as intelligent and hard-working. An African-American person is much more likely to be viewed as cool, talented in music and dance, or athletic. Need I go on?

No, the action is, say, denying someone a job. Discrimination is the thought behind doing so.

Can we wipe out hate crime laws too?

Can we wipe out hate crime laws too?

I certainly hope so.

No, the action is, say, denying someone a job. Discrimination is the thought behind doing so.

Discrimination, the action, is the only thing within the scope of legislation.

Unless there is some way to read minds I don't know about?

Um, yeah, there is. In the US, a white person is much more likely to be viewed as calm, stable, competent, and non-threatening. An Asian person is much more likely to be viewed as intelligent and hard-working. An African-American person is much more likely to be viewed as cool, talented in music and dance, or athletic. Need I go on?

Gay men are seen as having fantastic taste, being really friendly and funny and 'hip'.

The problem is, especially in more democratic and tolerant countries, moral standards amongst the populace is very varied and ambiguous. Morality is largely subjective and is subjected by many different sources such as religion (whether it be christian, muslim, hindu etc), human instinct, human conscience, family, ideology.

It's not like the old days where Europe was largely christian and nothing else, due to the Churches tight hold on the various monarchies of the countries etc. Everyone had a standard moral code laid down by the church.

Nowadays, our democracies have allowed various religions to be practised throughout our countries, each teaching different moral codes. They come into conflict a lot of course. Despite this however, western and eastern government is still ingrained slightly with religious morals and values which are imbedded in our constitutions and founding law. For the West, these religious values are christian, in the middle east and part of central asia, it's Islam.

In conclusion, humanities morality is varied and ambiguous, and somehow we have to try and sort out these moral standpoints and try and create somekind of consensus on non-religious imposed moral standards.

I hope I made some kind of sense.

No, the action is, say, denying someone a job. Discrimination is the thought behind doing so.

So do you not think that creating incentives for folks to relinquish unhealthy mentalities is a compelling interest of the state?

Discrimination, the action, is the only thing within the scope of legislation.

Unless there is some way to read minds I don't know about?

Right, and since we can't read minds, we have no way of knowing the motivation. Simply saying "I'm black/gay/female, etc." and I didn't get the job means there was discrimination involved is bullshit.

I certainly hope so.

I've never understood the reasoning behind them. Why does it matter that you killed someone? He's dead, you killed him, you go to jail or get executed. To me hate crime laws are just a "thought crime" legislation.

I argued against them on a gay message board once, sweet zombie jesus did I catch hell for that...

So do you not think that creating incentives for folks to relinquish unhealthy mentalities is a compelling interest of the state?

I don't think it's the state's job to tell us what to think, good or bad.

I've never understood the reasoning behind them. Why does it matter that you killed someone? He's dead, you killed him, you go to jail or get executed. To me hate crime laws are just a "thought crime" legislation.

I argued against them on a gay message board once, sweet zombie jesus did I catch hell for that...

I have to congratulate you on that. A very courageous act.

So do you not think that creating incentives for folks to relinquish unhealthy mentalities is a compelling interest of the state?

I don't think it's the state's job to tell us what to think, good or bad.

It seems Khadgar just replied for me, HR. I'm in complete agreement with that statement.

But we can look at a pattern of behaviour.

Even if there is a pattern of behaviour, you're still trying to punish thoughts.

It's my right to kill people! Stop taking away my rights! Stop hating freedom!

Right, and since we can't read minds, we have no way of knowing the motivation. Simply saying "I'm black/gay/female, etc." and I didn't get the job means there was discrimination involved is bullshit.

But we can look at a pattern of behaviour.

Very few human rights cases (I'm thinking of Human Rights Commissions in various provinces, and their mandate) have prima facie evidence of outright discrimination. People aren't nice enough to write out on a piece of paper a full confession of their discrimination. The burden of proof is on the complainant, and most cases hinge on patterns, witnesses, and lack of defence on the part of the defendant.

No, it's not enough to say a person is black/gay/female/whatever, and that discrimination is the only reason for whatever they are complaining about. And it's never going to be. So I'm not particularly worried.

I don't think it's the state's job to tell us what to think, good or bad.

I can see how you would eliminate hate crimes based on that. But how would you eliminate anti-discrimination laws based on it?

Sure, as Cluich pointed out, enforcing anti-discrimination laws effectively is just about impossible, and I'll agree with that as a rationale for eliminating them.

But how does punishing discriminatory actions constitute the prosecution of a discriminatory thought crime any more than punishing murderous actions would constitute the prosecution of a murderous thought crime? Are we punishing murderers for mean, nasty thoughts?

Um, yeah, there is. In the US, a white person is much more likely to be viewed as calm, stable, competent, and non-threatening. An Asian person is much more likely to be viewed as intelligent and hard-working. An African-American person is much more likely to be viewed as cool, talented in music and dance, or athletic. Need I go on?

Naaa thats not discrimination that's stereotypeing.

I don't think it's the state's job to tell us what to think, good or bad.

Granted.

But it is in the interest of society as a whole that your pattern of thinking not lead to actions which unduly infringe on the rights of others. It's a balancing act between your right to be a bigot, and the right of others to be free from bigoted actions that infringe upon any number of their individual rights.

I don't think it's the state's job to tell us what to think, good or bad.

Actions lead to thoughts.

The state controls actions, those actions eventually change thoughts.

As long as there was discrimination, there were negative thoughts about minorities. As the actions were changed through laws the thoughts have been changing. The thoughts are not totally changed yet, but the actions aren't totally changed either.

It's like when a couple is having marital problems. One of the first things a councilor will say is treat the other person like you love them. Those actions will eventually lead to love itself.

The same thing happens in the greater social environment. When people live together, work together, school together, etc. a togetherness develops that wouldn't be there without the action.

Naaa thats not discrimination that's stereotypeing.

And discriminatory actions occur based on those stereotypes. Frequently. Stereotypes wouldn't be such a problem if we didn't act on them. They'd just be an amusing mental curiosity.

Even if there is a pattern of behaviour, you're still trying to punish thoughts.
You can't punish thoughts. Even offences that hinge very much on the state of mind (mens rea) of the accused need some sort of action or omission (actus reas) to complete the offence.

The thoughts go to the mens rea, and may or may not inform the offence once the actual action (or omission) is taken.

So you look at a pattern of behaviour. This company only hires white males. That alone does not mean a case for discrimination has been made out. Evidence such as HR records would be essential. Who else was interviewed (if only white males were ever interviewed, then there needs to be some explanation for this on the part of the company), and what were the requirements for actual hiring? Etc etc etc.

You can not make a case on thoughts alone. And no (sane) one is arguing that you should be able to.

You can't punish thoughts. Even offences that hinge very much on the state of mind (mens rea) of the accused need some sort of action or omission (actus reas) to complete the offence.

The thoughts go to the mens rea, and may or may not inform the offence once the actual action (or omission) is taken.

So you look at a pattern of behaviour. This company only hires white males. That alone does not mean a case for discrimination has been made out. Evidence such as HR records would be essential. Who else was interviewed (if only white males were ever interviewed, then there needs to be some explanation for this on the part of the company), and what were the requirements for actual hiring? Etc etc etc.

You can not make a case on thoughts alone. And no (sane) one is arguing that you should be able to.

Okay, let's try looking at it this way. Say I own a business here in the US. I'm a bigoted asswipe. I say to myself, "I don't want no damn naggers or spics (or insert whatever you like here) workin' for my company." So I don't hire any. I'm only shooting myself in the foot by excluding some 20% of the potential workforce.

On the flip side, if I'm the one seeking employment (which I currently am), there is no "right to a job." Thus, the bigot hasn't infringed upon my rights if he choose to deny me a job for whatever reason.

Nobody said you couldnt hate anyone you wanted. You just can't take steps to fuck them over. Seems fairly clear to me.

Yes, with a very narrow viewpoint, it would.

Um...how about not, because it's basically creating a thought crime?

Nobody said you couldnt hate anyone you wanted. You just can't take steps to fuck them over. Seems fairly clear to me.

Yes, with a very narrow viewpoint, it would.

Pure speculation, not backed up by any present-day human rights legislation in either of our countries.

Going any further than said legislation does would most likely be unconstitutional anyway.

Constitutions are good like that.

And discriminatory actions occur based on those stereotypes. Frequently. Stereotypes wouldn't be such a problem if we didn't act on them. They'd just be an amusing mental curiosity.

Granted, but that is not what I said. I said that there is no reason for discrimination based on race, but a case can be made for positive discrimination based on gender.

Granted.

But it is in the interest of society as a whole that your pattern of thinking not lead to actions which unduly infringe on the rights of others. It's a balancing act between your right to be a bigot, and the right of others to be free from bigoted actions that infringe upon any number of their individual rights.

By all means enforce existing laws, but don't make new ones to make special classes of people.

For instance if you're guilty of assault you ought be jailed. It shouldn't matter why you beat the hell out of someone.

Okay, let's try looking at it this way. Say I own a business here in the US. I'm a bigoted asswipe. I say to myself, "I don't want no damn naggers or spics (or insert whatever you like here) workin' for my company." So I don't hire any. I'm only shooting myself in the foot by excluding some 20% of the potential workforce.

On the flip side, if I'm the one seeking employment (which I currently am), there is no "right to a job." Thus, the bigot hasn't infringed upon my rights if he choose to deny me a job for whatever reason.

Alright, so essentially you are arguing that there should be no anti-discrimination policies because the harm done is really only done to the person voluntarily excluding potential candidates. Free market mentality.

Well okay, let's look at it from this angle.

Corporations are responsible to their shareholders. There might be specific contractual obligations above and beyond statute, but in essence, a corporation has the responsibility to operate in the most efficient manner possible in order to benefit the 'owners' (shareholders).

Excluding potential employees without a bona fide reason is inefficient. I'd say that that would be a case for shareholders to make against such practices, even absent any sort of human rights legislation that might threaten the company.

Nobody said you couldnt hate anyone you wanted. You just can't take steps to fuck them over. Seems fairly clear to me.

You're making it an extra crime to have malice prior to fucking someone over, but only for certain reasons. The malice is a given anyway, you're just saying that these particular groups of people are protected and you're even more bad for screwing with them.

A premise I cannot stomach. "All men are created equal", equal rights, equal protections, equal laws. I don't want to be special.

Granted, but that is not what I said. I said that there is no reason for discrimination based on race, but a case can be made for positive discrimination based on gender.

I can easily make a case for positive discrimination based on race, and probably using many (though not all) of the same arguments you would use to make a case for positive discrimination based on gender.

By all means enforce existing laws, but don't make new ones to make special classes of people.

For instance if you're guilty of assault you ought be jailed. It shouldn't matter why you beat the hell out of someone.

Motive is taken into account in regards to specific offences. State of mind absolutely matters. It's the ONLY difference between first degree and second degree murder.

Motive is not a separate crime, it is simply an element of the offence. An element that must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal cases, and on a balance of probabilities (or 'more likely than not' in the US I believe) in civil cases.

'Hate crime' is a misnomer. We are generally not talking about a separate crime based on hate, but rather a constructive offence where 'hate' as motive is part of the state of mind requirement of the offence itself.

I can easily make a case for positive discrimination based on race, and probably using many (though not all) of the same arguments you would use to make a case for positive discrimination based on gender.

Heheh I have no doubt that you can,you seem to be an intelegent chap, but I'll just have to call them bogus.

Still inthe intrest of fairness, and to not disgriminate against bogusness, lets have it then fella?:)

Motive is taken into account in regards to specific offences. State of mind absolutely matters. It's the ONLY difference between first degree and second degree murder.

Motive is not a separate crime, it is simply an element of the offence. An element that must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal cases, and on a balance of probabilities (or 'more likely than not' in the US I believe) in civil cases.

'Hate crime' is a misnomer. We are generally not talking about a separate crime based on hate, but rather a constructive offence where 'hate' as motive is part of the state of mind requirement of the offence itself.

Now ask my opinion of varying degrees of murder.

Now ask my opinion of varying degrees of murder.

Spit it out.

Now ask my opinion of varying degrees of murder.

So Khadgar... You have opinions on varying degrees of murder... Tell us about that!

Heheh I have no doubt that you can,you seem to be an intelegent chap, but I'll just have to call them bogus.

Still inthe intrest of fairness, and to not disgriminate against bogusness, lets have it then fella?:)

Start a new thread about making positive cases for discrimination, and I'll get back to it at least sometime this weekend. (I basically have no free time from now until Saturday, so I'll see you later.)

So Khadgar... You have opinions on varying degrees of murder... Tell us about that!

Murder is murder, the circumstances are generally not relevant, nor is the motive. A person is dead, that's all that matters.

I'm really not a big fan of passing the buck of claiming insanity.

Murder is murder, the circumstances are generally not relevant, nor is the motive. A person is dead, that's all that matters.

I'm really not a big fan of passing the buck of claiming insanity.

How about manslaughter or when a kid is the murderer?

How about manslaughter or when a kid is the murderer?

Are we talking accidental death through random chance or accidental death through extreme stupidity? The circumstances matter, the motivation does not.

How old a kid?

Alright, so essentially you are arguing that there should be no anti-discrimination policies because the harm done is really only done to the person voluntarily excluding potential candidates. Free market mentality.

Well okay, let's look at it from this angle.

Corporations are responsible to their shareholders. There might be specific contractual obligations above and beyond statute, but in essence, a corporation has the responsibility to operate in the most efficient manner possible in order to benefit the 'owners' (shareholders).

Excluding potential employees without a bona fide reason is inefficient. I'd say that that would be a case for shareholders to make against such practices, even absent any sort of human rights legislation that might threaten the company.

In that case, it's the shareholders who should take action, certainly not the state.

Are we talking accidental death through random chance or accidental death through extreme stupidity? The circumstances matter, the motivation does not.

How old a kid?

1. Let's say something like a burglar comes into your home and you knock him out with your fists. The guy then develops a brain haemoraghe later that night in hospital. What woluld that constitute? Should he get a sentence?

2. Let's say 8.

1. Let's say something like a burglar comes into your home and you knock him out with your fists. The guy then develops a brain haemoraghe later that night in hospital. What woluld that constitute? Should he get a sentence?

2. Let's say 8.

1) Self Defense/Defense of Property

2) Lock him up until atleast 21.

1) Self Defense/Defense of Property

2) Lock him up until atleast 21.

What about say, you throw a vase or something in complete frustration out of a window and you hit someone walking by completely by chance and they die?

Also, exactly how old do you think kids should have to be to serve prison sentences such as what you suggested?

What about say, you throw a vase or something in complete frustration out of a window and you hit someone walking by completely by chance and they die?

Also, exactly how old do you think kids should have to be to serve prison sentences such as what you suggested?

1) Negligent Homicide. Lock 'em up.

2) Didn't say prison. Keep him off the street, no one could seriously advocate sending a child to prison.

In that case, it's the shareholders who should take action, certainly not the state.

Yes, I recognise that within the system you're talking about.

But nonetheless, my point was, I believe the outcome would be essentialy the same whether set out in legislation or because of various civil cases on behalf of shareholders.

Either way, the battle would be fought in the courts, and we'd be talking about common-law as opposed to statute.

Not a significant difference really.

Murder is murder, the circumstances are generally not relevant, nor is the motive. A person is dead, that's all that matters.

Manslaughter is not the same as murder. A person is dead, but that is not all that matters. The difference between manslaughter and murder is usually state of mind.

No, the action is, say, denying someone a job. Discrimination is the thought behind doing so.

That's bias. Discrimination is the actual manifestation of bias.

No, it isn't. That's like calling segregation thoughtcrime, which it quite obviously is not.

You miss the difference. If it's state-sponsored segregation (say, in schools, for example), then no, it's not. The sate doesn't have thoughts per se, but individuals do.

Um...how about not, because it's basically creating a thought crime?

No, it isn't. That's like calling segregation thoughtcrime, which it quite obviously is not.

What about say, you throw a vase or something in complete frustration out of a window and you hit someone walking by completely by chance and they die?

Did you throw the vase? Was the person killed? Whether or not you intended an action does not change the consequences.

Did you throw the vase? Was the person killed? Whether or not you intended an action does not change the consequences.

Ahhh but intent is king, in law.

Ahhh but intent is king, in law.

Unfortunately.

Did you throw the vase? Was the person killed? Whether or not you intended an action does not change the consequences.

Should someone who causes the death of another human being by pure accident be treated differently than someone who causes the death of another human being on purpose?

If you say no, what are the implications of treating both situations exactly the same?

Should someone who causes the death of another human being by pure accident be treated differently than someone who causes the death of another human being on purpose?

If you say no, what are the implications of treating both situations exactly the same?

It's an act of murder; Try them for the same crime. If the system, after reviewing the evidence, decides to rule differently for each, that is fine; but to enter the proceedings with the assumption that intent necessarily excludes one from guilt is wrong.

It's an act of murder; Try them for the same crime. If the system, after reviewing the evidence, decides to rule differently for each, that is fine; but to enter the proceedings with the assumption that intent necessarily excludes one from guilt is wrong.

Both manslaughter and murder are homicide. No all homicide is murder.

Intent does not exclude one from guilt. Intent goes to the state of mind of the person who committed the homicide, and informs the offence.

Now I want your personal opinion here. Is killing someone by accident the same as methodically planning out the death of a person because they bumped into you in the parking lot?

Unfortunately.

Why?

Reminds me of the recent fuss over adoption laws in the UK, when Blair wanted to allow gay couples to adopt children, but allow religious institutions to be exempt. Silly, really. If something is going to be banned (discriminating against homosexuals) it should be bad enough to ban everybody from doing it.

Reminds me of the recent fuss over adoption laws in the UK, when Blair wanted to allow gay couples to adopt children, but allow religious institutions to be exempt. Silly, really. If something is going to be banned (discriminating against homosexuals) it should be bad enough to ban everybody from doing it.

Heh I must admit to being quite irratinal and letting my liberal bias show about that very thing when I heard about it.

Whilst stomping around the house and moaning at the wife about it though, she supprised me by bursting out in laughter.

She calmly explained to me that since the Church have never been freinds to the gays, what makes me think that any gay couple would even go to a church run adoption agency to adopt a child?

Heh perspective huh!

I think we should ban members of religious organizations (Other than churches, mosques, synagogues, etc..) from adopting children.

Well, that's bloody brilliant... :rolleyes:

Reminds me of the recent fuss over adoption laws in the UK, when Blair wanted to allow gay couples to adopt children, but allow religious institutions to be exempt. Silly, really. If something is going to be banned (discriminating against homosexuals) it should be bad enough to ban everybody from doing it.

I think we should ban members of religious organizations (Other than churches, mosques, synagogues, etc..) from adopting children.

Both manslaughter and murder are homicide. No all homicide is murder.

Under the legal definition, yes. I am referring to murder in the colloquial, but perhaps it would be more appropriate to refer to it as homocide.

Intent does not exclude one from guilt. Intent goes to the state of mind of the person who committed the homicide, and informs the offence.

Now I want your personal opinion here. Is killing someone by accident the same as methodically planning out the death of a person because they bumped into you in the parking lot?

Yes, it is the same--someone died as a result of your (or my) actions. What matters the means is the ends are the same?

Now this is of course where the due process of law steps in. Human judgment is rife with passion, sympathy either with the victim or the accused. As such, subjective reasoning will consider the evidence and circumstance and make a value judgment--for better or worse, justice is not truly blind in application.

Notice I excluded Churches and similar organizations. I'm talking more about the religious organizations that have less to do with religion and more to do with politics. (National Association of Evangelicals, for example.)


Uh, those are church-based organisations.

Besides, since when do we say no adoption based on religious beliefs? Hmmm...wait...when they're conservatives? "Only people who hold my political views should be allowed to adopt children." Bloody ludicrous.

Well, that's bloody brilliant... :rolleyes:

Notice I excluded Churches and similar organizations. I'm talking more about the religious organizations that have less to do with religion and more to do with politics. (National Association of Evangelicals, for example.)

Why?

Why what? Why is it important to know? It cannot be changed; it is the way things are. It is unfortunate that intent is king in law, because it begets empathy, when justice should be blind.

Why what? Why is it important to know? It cannot be changed; it is the way things are. It is unfortunate that intent is king in law, because it begets empathy, when justice should be blind.


Intent begets empathy? I would have thought that intent begets, motive, which in turn begets guilt or innocence?

Uh, those are church-based organisations.

Besides, since when do we say no adoption based on religious beliefs? Hmmm...wait...when they're conservatives? "Only people who hold my political views should be allowed to adopt children." Bloody ludicrous.

OH MY GOD YOU SUPPORT THE STATE-SPONSORED GENOCIDE OF (INSERT MINORITY HERE)!!!!!


Do you see what happens when we read things into statements that aren't there? The above is what I will not be surprised when you get to.


Before you ask, yes my strategy is always escalation.

Intent begets empathy? I would have thought that intent begets, motive, which in turn begets guilt or innocence?

Empathy in judgment. Guilt or innocence is indeed influenced by intent, which is unfortunate, but inevitable, when it should only be influenced by actions and events.

According to the Church, they do. Which, as you say, is still surprising.

Ahhh yes the Church that great institution who are known for the never ever lying.

:p

Heh I must admit to being quite irratinal and letting my liberal bias show about that very thing when I heard about it.

Whilst stomping around the house and moaning at the wife about it though, she supprised me by bursting out in laughter.

She calmly explained to me that since the Church have never been freinds to the gays, what makes me think that any gay couple would even go to a church run adoption agency to adopt a child?

Heh perspective huh!
According to the Church, they do. Which, as you say, is still surprising.

Religions have the right to act on their beliefs. End of story.

Heh I love it when people post them three little words 'end of story' as it's garenteed that it aint!

OH MY GOD YOU SUPPORT THE STATE-SPONSORED GENOCIDE OF (INSERT MINORITY HERE)!!!!!


Do you see what happens when we read things into statements that aren't there? The above is what I will not be surprised when you get to.


Before you ask, yes my strategy is always retardation.

Fixed for accuracy. :rolleyes:

Religions have the right to act on their beliefs. End of story.

Not when those belief infringe on the rights of others.

Story continued.

Religions have the right to act on their beliefs. End of story.

Some people are not worth my effort.

That was effort? I'd hate to see a lack of effort on your part then.

Well, in the absense of evidence to the contrary, I'll have to go with what they said.


Ahhh fair enough, we all havethe freedom to choose what we belive and don't.
On a personal level I choose to belive stories about the Church hidding peadophiles.

Religion isn't, and shouldn't, be a trump card that can be played to discriminate or continue inacceptable behaviour.

I find it rather amusing -- admittedly, in a sick sorta way -- that many of those who rail against discrimination based on race, gender, and sexual orientation are more than happy to do so based on religion.

Fixed for accuracy. :rolleyes:

I win.

I got you to break your condemnation of blatant personal attacks. That's all I wanted to do.

I'm done with this argument. By all means continue, but don't expect me to respond. Some people are not worth my effort.

Even when those "others" are disgusting excuses for human beings?

Yes. Duh.

What?

Just to clear things up, are you a troll, or someone badly pretending to be a troll?

Puppet is in his/her name...take a guess :D

Not when those belief infringe on the rights of others.

Story continued.

Even when those "others" are disgusting excuses for human beings?

Ahhh yes the Church that great institution who are known for the never ever lying.

:p
Well, in the absense of evidence to the contrary, I'll have to go with what they said.

Religions have the right to act on their beliefs. End of story.
Religion isn't, and shouldn't, be a trump card that can be played to discriminate or continue inacceptable behaviour.

Even when those "others" are disgusting excuses for human beings?
What?

Just to clear things up, are you a troll, or someone badly pretending to be a troll?

My state was debating anti-bullying legislation a while back, and many people were objecting to the inclusion of sexual orientation and gender identity as things you can't bully based on. Eventually, there was something like a conscience clause allowing private (I.E. Religious) schools to teach their views on homosexuality.

Now what kind of bullshit is this? Seriously, could you imagine the uproar if schools demanded the right to teach their "views" on black people? Or their "views" on woman?

The same thing happens with anti-discrimination laws to. People demand the right to discriminate based on sexual orientation. Yet few people decry these guys as nutjobs. But if these same people demanded the right to discriminate based on race, they'd be called immoral freaks or something along those lines. (No, I'm not saying we should let people discriminate based on race. I'm just saying that it's a double standard.)

Wait... In the UK it's illegal to discriminate on, well, pretty much anything nowadays, including sexual orientation. Are you telling me they allow some sorts of discrimination in the USA?

Thank heavens I live in the UK, where we don't have quite so many crazy people.
Stupid homophobic Americans...

You must campaign against this travesty, Zarakon! Show the world that not all Americans are stupid! :D

Ilaer

Are we punishing murderers for mean, nasty thoughts?
If one discriminates in the sense of choosing not to associate with someone else, how are they doing something punishable? We discriminate in this sense all the time.

I think the problem is that there are people who think you can stop being gay. Fpr them it is like if I would install... say FreeDOS as only OS and then insist on no one laughing about it.

Granted.

But it is in the interest of society as a whole that your pattern of thinking not lead to actions which unduly infringe on the rights of others. It's a balancing act between your right to be a bigot, and the right of others to be free from bigoted actions that infringe upon any number of their individual rights.

How does refusal to hire someone, or serve someone, constitute a violation of his rights?

It's my property, not his.

You're making it an extra crime to have malice prior to fucking someone over, but only for certain reasons. The malice is a given anyway, you're just saying that these particular groups of people are protected and you're even more bad for screwing with them.

A premise I cannot stomach. "All men are created equal", equal rights, equal protections, equal laws. I don't want to be special.


I was talking about anti-discrimination laws with reference to laughing boys comments. I have no real idea of this "hate crime" law business or experience of it.

Gay men are seen as having fantastic taste, being really friendly and funny and 'hip'.

Funny.. I dress like a boot camp dropout, and a lot of people think I'm aloof (at best) and have no sense of humour.

So much for even the positive stereotypes ;)

Funny.. I dress like a boot camp dropout, and a lot of people think I'm aloof (at best) and have no sense of humour.

So much for even the positive stereotypes ;)

Noone ever said the stereotypes had to be accurate, lad.