If they can enforce the ban onto all the sinners listed in their Book instead of arbitrarily selecting lines, they'd have a better case in court.
no it clearly didnt. Everyone truly is intolerant of something or someone. To think that is "silly" is ignorant. surprisingly, people kind of take you for real when you say everyones thought about killing someone wow thats a little extreme (and daming for the poster)
Suffrage is in itself an issue of law. Of course legislation is required to change laws. Right now there are laws prohibiting drugs. Even if everyone in America thought drugs should be legal, that would not make it so unless the law was changed. On the other hand, using racial slurs is not illegal. To stop the use of racial slurs, no legislation is required. We, as individuals can choose not to associate with racists. In the end, those who are tolerent will have an adavntage. We do not need legislation to control what people can say, who people can associate with or not, etc. We should treat everyone the same under the law, and leave the rest, the way people choose to interact with each other, up to individual people, with those people suffering the consequences of their choices. My way may be slower, but it has the advantage of freedom, and allowing people to choose the right path on their own.
Unfortunately everyone doesn't think like that. I think fundamentally, you and blade are on the same page. Pretty lucid post for being stupid! Too bad more influential people don't feel that way.
I agree that using racial slurs should not be illegal. But denying anyone a right or something that others are entitled to based on race, sexual orientation, or whatever else should be legislated. I am steadfastly opposed to limiting speach of racial slurs unless it is used to incite violence.
I think this is a question of what you define as harrasment. I don't recall anything in there as physical assault or badgering someone. Does allowing someone to go around saying that they think homosexuality is evil constitute harrassment? If it was a matter of someone getting violent or following them around yelling at them all the time that is covered by existing laws already and judges are free to impose restraining orders but to legally deny the right of someone to publicly express their opinion, even if it is unsavory, that's going too far. Also in regards to discrimination to a certain extent private organizations and individuals are allowed to discriminate under freedom of association. Its a different matter though when an organization takes public money. Then the state is certainly entitled to decide what sort of organization the money goes too.
I think the baby should be given the freedom to live, not exactly an inconsistant position from that perspective is it, smartass? I don't think the government should be allowed to deny something to someone based on race, but a private citizen should be able to. Those who choose that path should face boycotts, not lawsuits, IMHO.
Freedom to live, what are you talking about? Fetuses are not babies. They can't survive outside the wombs unless they are close to birth. The freedoms of women take priority, sort of speak. Look, I am not advocating abortion. In fact, I loath to see women go extreme to have late term abortions purely out of their selfish motives. But I think your way of freedom seems to take a detour when it comes to women's freedom to abortion.
Right to life trumps right to convienence. That is the last I will say on the subject so as not to further disrupt the thread. If you want to discuss abortion, there have been several threads about it that you can look at, or you can start a new one.
They actually do accept gay priests. Anyway, getting back on topic. The woman the article isn't hot at all. http://club100.yaf.org/pressroom/press.html
I assume you favor that churches, charities, and religious groups that spread this kind of hate should lose their tax free status? I'm not really crazy about organizations spreading this kind of bullcrap while not paying taxes because they're so-called Christians.
In a work environment where t-shirts are generally acceptable, should a worker be allowed to wear a t-shirt saying "n*ggers suck?" That's free speech, right? So is "fags suck." And the right to wear that shirt is basically what this woman is advocating for. She wants to wear the fags suck shirt in an environment where it is clearly not okay to wear the other shirt. And she knows that. Her point is that those shirts ought to be treated differently. And she is apparently deeply offended that the right to wear a fags suck t-shirt to any job she might ever have might be taken away from her. She is not arguing by any stretch of the imagination the right to chant anti-gay slogans at her bigot fest protest. She is arguing against the idea that anti-gay bigotry might eventually be considered to be out of the mainstream, as racist bigotry currently is. In fact, that exact example is used in the article as a cautionary tale. I repeat, no one at all has threatened the right of bigots to be bigots. And the woman in the article isn't even worried about that. She's worried that that right might be marginalized, which it absolutely should be. She's worried that society in general will treat gays as equals and treat anti-gay bigots as fringe. No one -- not a black person or a white person or a brown or a yellow person or a Jew or a Muslim or a Christian or a gay or lesbian -- ought to have to work in a workplace that is hostile toward them simply for being them, or in one where an individual is allowed to be hostile toward them based on their race, gender, religion or sexual orientation. The entire point of this article is that this woman is fighting for the right to dis-include sexual orientation in that list. If you agree that it ought to be left out of that list, let's debate that. But don't act like this is a freedom of speech issue. She's asking that the right to bash on gays be maintained because she's scared they'll get the status of other protected classes and that is explicitly outlined in the article. To turn this into a speech issue is bogus as hell.
If they are Christians, they are coming at this from the wrong angle. But I do have a sincere question - What does freedom of speech cover and what does it not cover? Not just your opinion - legally. And where is the ACLU?
Well said. What we have hear is not someone upset over a loss of free speech, but upset over a very particular anti-discrimination clause. Whereas the KKK would argue they have the right to march and be mad about every non-white thing - she has singled out the current "christian-hate-fest" only. Obstensibly, she doesn't want to be associated with people as non-mainstream as the KKK, but she's asking for the same damn thing and pretending it's different. I'll say it again: "hypocrites".
You have absolutely, positively GOT to be kidding me. All people have a right to be tolerated. This idiot girl shouldn't be issuing an utimatum for a certain group of people to be tolerated. And like SHE isn't using political propaganda. I swear, as a Christian, sometimes I hate Christians. It's terrible, but I can't help it. Jesus was an advocate for human rights, a friend to all. Even if a person does not condone homosexuality certainly does not give them the right to be intolerant or hateful. This is just ridiculous. I am so sick of churches blasting the same hollow mantra from the pulpit, bemoaning homosexuality and abortion while simultaneously neglecting Jesus' greatest teaching - love. Feeding, clothing, helping the poor. Doing everything you can for your neighbor. Sometimes sitting in church I have to scratch my head and force myself to not stand up and leave. If I was ever alone in a room with that girl, man, I'd like to smack her a few times.
And how would you distinguish between those that are spreading "this kind of hate" and those that are not?
If you believe in a religion which considers homosexuality an abomination, yet are forced to set aside those beliefs at work, isn't that creating a hostile work environment towards you?
