Employment Nondiscrimination Act

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: Employment Nondiscrimination Act

    [QUOTE]Slavery is OK according to the bible. [/QUOTE]

    Apparently I'm not as well versed in Bible studies as you are... (not surprising, really.)

    Where in the book do they have that?

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName9. Show UserName9's posts

    Re: Employment Nondiscrimination Act

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

    [QUOTE]

    Thought this was already the law of the land.  So pass it and lets move along.

    [/QUOTE]


    You would think ...

    [/QUOTE]

    Even the Pope is now saying "who am I to judge"

     

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: Employment Nondiscrimination Act

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    [QUOTE]Slavery is OK according to the bible. [/QUOTE]

    Apparently I'm not as well versed in Bible studies as you are... (not surprising, really.)

    Where in the book do they have that?

    [/QUOTE]


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_slavery

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName9. Show UserName9's posts

    Re: Employment Nondiscrimination Act

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    [QUOTE]Slavery is OK according to the bible. [/QUOTE]

    Apparently I'm not as well versed in Bible studies as you are... (not surprising, really.)

    Where in the book do they have that?

    [/QUOTE]

    Keep looking....its in there.  Toward the beginning, I suspect.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: Employment Nondiscrimination Act

    Slavery stands as the single most contested issue in the history of biblical interpretation in the United States. Not only did the nation fracture over slavery, denominations did too. Northern and Southern Baptists, Presbyterians, and Methodists remained divided until well into the twentieth century; in fact, Southern Baptists still represent the nation's largest Protestant denomination. What did slavery mean in the biblical world, and how did biblical authors respond to it?

    Don't let anybody tell you that biblical slavery was somehow less brutal than slavery in the United States. Without exception, biblical societies were slaveholding societies. The Bible engages remarkably diverse cultures -- Ethiopian, Egyptian, Canaanite, Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Greek, and Roman -- but in every one of them some people owned the rights to others. Slaveowners possessed not only the slaves' labor but also their sexual and reproductive capacities. When the Bible refers to female slaves who do not "please" their masters, we're talking about the sexual use of slaves. Likewise when the Bible spells out the conditions for marrying a slave (see Exodus 21:7-11).

    The occupations and experiences of slaves varied greatly. Many performed manual labor in horrid conditions, perhaps living only months after beginning their work. Some highly valued slaves attained wealth and status, a possibility reflected in Genesis' account of Joseph. Perhaps the story of the centurion who highly valued his slave connotes an erotic relationship, likely one-sided (Luke 7:1-10). In all cases the owners' right to use a slave as the owner sees fit, including the right to punish slaves severely, remain unquestioned.

    How did people become slaves? Slavery did not accompany a particular racial status, as it eventually did in the United States, but the Hebrew Bible stipulates preferred treatment for Israelite slaves (see Exodus 21:1-11; 25:39-55; Deuteronomy 15:12-18). Crushing debt forced many into slavery, with some people selling themselves and others selling their children. Military conquest contributed greatly to the slave market as well.

    The Bible does not attempt to hide the presence of slaves. Beware modern translations that use "servant" to cover up slave language. Slaves were ubiquitous in the ancient world. Imagine ancient Rome, where slaves made up between one-third and one-half of the inhabitants -- perhaps half a million people! The Senate once considered requiring slaves to wear identifying marks, but they stopped short in the face of a chilling realization: if slaves could recognize one another, what would prevent them from organizing and pillaging the entire city?

    In the New Testament, Jesus frequently refers to slaves in his parables, the witty stories that marked his most distinctive teaching style. He never addresses slavery as an institution, though unfortunately one of the parables assumes that beating a slave is acceptable (Luke 12:47-48). More controversial is the apostle Paul, often blamed for promoting or condoning slavery. The great African-American theologian Howard Thurman recalled how his illiterate formerly enslaved grandmother would not allow him to read Paul to her. Slave owners, she said, constantly employed Paul's letters to promote docility among the slaves.

    However, more recent scholarship suggests that Paul may have resisted -- or at least undermined -- slavery. Many scholars believe Paul did not compose six of the thirteen letters attributed to him in the New Testament. It so happens that the most restrictive passages regarding slaves occur in those six disputed letters (see Ephesians 6:5-8; Colossians 3:22-4:1; Titus 2:9-10), while the remaining seven letters leave open the possibility that Paul sided with slaves. One letter calls the slaveowner Philemon to welcome back a certain Onesimus "no longer as a slave but as more than a slave, a beloved brother ... both in the flesh and in the Lord" (Philemon 1:16). Is Paul calling for Onesimus to be set free, or simply for his master to receive him with love? Likewise, it strains the imagination that two modern translations of 1 Corinthians 7:21 could vary so greatly, but consider this example.

    English Standard VersionNew Revised Standard Version Were you a slave when called? Do not be concerned about it. But if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity. Were you a slave when called? Do not be concerned about it. Even if you can gain your freedom, make use of your present condition now more than ever.


    Does Paul encourage slaves to embrace their captivity or to gain their freedom?

    While we may debate whether Paul encouraged the manumission of Onesimus and other slaves (I think he did) one thing is certain. Some ancient Jews and Christians did resist the practice. The Essenes, likely responsible for our Dead Sea Scrolls, apparently forbade members from owning slaves. The book of Revelation lists slaves among the luxury items that Roman commerce generated by exploiting other societies (18:13). Most touchingly, very ancient documents indicate that some Christians literally sold themselves into slavery to purchase the freedom of others (1 Clement 54:4-5), while some churches collected money to buy slaves' freedom (Ignatius to Polycarp 4:8-10; Shepherd of Hermas 38.10; 50.8).

    There's a simple explanation for nineteenth century debates on slavery and the Bible: the Bible isn't exactly clear on the subject. If anything, the Bible made it easier for slavery's advocates than for its opponents. On the other hand, Robert E. Putnam and David E. Campbell suggest that while religion contributed greatly in the motivation of abolitionists, their adversaries would have promoted slavery with or without religion.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-carey/slavery-and-the-bible_b_880756.html

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Employment Nondiscrimination Act

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:
    [QUOTE]

      .....but obviously you want to take away these religious freedoms, and have no tolerance for those who have a different view....no one is more intolerant than self proclaimed tolerant progressives...   

    [/QUOTE]


    A different view is one thing.  Nobody is forcing the employer to be gay.  But what kind of "freedom" is that anyway?  

    People are free to be bigots in this country, but acting on it is another matter when a person's livelihood is at stake.  

    Why should an employer get to impose their religious beliefs on someone just because they happen to work for them?

    If a boss wants me to pray to his god, and I decline respectfully, could that be a fireable offense?

     [/QUOTE]

    An employer should not get to impose their religious beliefs on someone just because they happen to work with them.


    But if a religious organization as employer wants to hire a person to intellectually further the goals of a religious organization, one of which which is trying to convince people of the validity of their beliefs, isnt it reasonable that the religious organization be able to hire a person who has the same religious beliefs?

    If the Democratic Party hires me to make phone calls on its behalf, and I get hired and decide to get people to vote Republican, can I sue my employer for discrimination for imposing their beliefs against me? 

    There is a freedom of association which is a critical component of the First Amendment!

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: Employment Nondiscrimination Act

     

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    [QUOTE]

    ENDA includes a critical provision that safeguards religious organizations’ constitutional rights and religious freedoms. Specifically, Section 6 of ENDA provides religious organizations, which are broadly defined, with a substantial exemption that allows them to continue to take sexual orientation and gender identity into account when making employment decisions.   .....but obviously you want to take away these religious freedom

    [/QUOTE]

    Would you defend them if they claimed their religious scruples prevent them from hiring black people?

    [/QUOTE]


     

    Seriously though, CLC. Answer please. That wasn't tongue in cheek. It's a question that gets directly to the heart of the matter.

    Being attracted to other men is no more a "choice" than growing dark skin; the former is epigenetic and the latter is genetic. The individual has no choice.

    So really, there would be no difference. Do you think that if an organization claims its religion prevents it from hiring black people, it should be able to so discriminate?

     

     

    Why should the first amendment trump American citizens' right not to be discriminated against?

     

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Employment Nondiscrimination Act

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    [QUOTE]

    ENDA includes a critical provision that safeguards religious organizations’ constitutional rights and religious freedoms. Specifically, Section 6 of ENDA provides religious organizations, which are broadly defined, with a substantial exemption that allows them to continue to take sexual orientation and gender identity into account when making employment decisions.   .....but obviously you want to take away these religious freedom

    [/QUOTE]

    Would you defend them if they claimed their religious scruples prevent them from hiring black people?

    [/QUOTE]


     

    Seriously though, CLC. Answer please. That wasn't tongue in cheek. It's a question that gets directly to the heart of the matter.

    Being attracted to other men is no more a "choice" than growing dark skin; the former is epigenetic and the latter is genetic. The individual has no choice.

    So really, there would be no difference. Do you think that if an organization claims its religion prevents it from hiring black people, it should be able to so discriminate?

     [/QUOTE]

    God knows (oh so well) that I cant speak for religious organizations, but there is a difference between being attracted to other men, and the actual choice of acting on that attraction.

    Just as if a pastor is caught having an affair with a woman in his flock. He may be attracted , but making the choice of acting on it is morally wrong according to his faith.  He cant say, it is genetic, so I have to have sex!


    The individual, gay or straight,  does have a choice.

    If a religious organization hires a man who has an admitted attraction to other men, but he believes in the religion, and believes it is immoral to have sex outside of marriage under the tenets of his religion, then he can and should be hired, I would think.

    The general notion of being gay today, however, seems to be pretty much incompatible with traditional religious beliefs. They seem incompatible, because committing homosexual sex conflicts with religious teachings...and traditional religion is mocked by the leftist gay community.

     

     

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: Employment Nondiscrimination Act

    God knows (oh so well) that I cant speak for religious organizations, but there is a difference between being attracted to other men, and the actual choice of acting on that attraction.

    Just as if a pastor is caught having an affair with a woman in his flock. He may be attracted , but making the choice of acting on it is morally wrong according to his faith.  He cant say, it is genetic, so I have to have sex!

     

    If a religious organization hires a man who has an admitted attraction to other men, but he believes in the religion, and believes it is immoral to have sex outside of marriage under the tenets of his religion, then he can and should be hired, I would think.

    The general notion of being gay today, however, seems to be pretty much incompatible with traditional religious beliefs. They seem incompatible, because committing homosexual sex conflicts with religious teachings...and traditional religion is mocked by the leftist gay community.

     

    We are talking about not hiring homosexuals, period, not about whether they "act on it."

    And where being homosexual is no more a choice than being black, focusing on whether they act on it is just plain slimy. Hey, I should be able to refuse to hire blacks. They don't have to be that way. They could get their skin bleached!

    I think it is equal parts absurd and abhorrent to say that invidious discrimination is bad, unless of course the discriminator cites religion as his reason for discriminating.

     

     

     

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Employment Nondiscrimination Act

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:
    [QUOTE]

      .....but obviously you want to take away these religious freedoms, and have no tolerance for those who have a different view....no one is more intolerant than self proclaimed tolerant progressives...   

    [/QUOTE]


    A different view is one thing.  Nobody is forcing the employer to be gay.  But what kind of "freedom" is that anyway?  

    People are free to be bigots in this country, but acting on it is another matter when a person's livelihood is at stake.  

    Why should an employer get to impose their religious beliefs on someone just because they happen to work for them?

    If a boss wants me to pray to his god, and I decline respectfully, could that be a fireable offense?

     [/QUOTE]

    An employer should not get to impose their religious beliefs on someone just because they happen to work with them.


    But if a religious organization as employer wants to hire a person to intellectually further the goals of a religious organization, one of which which is trying to convince people of the validity of their beliefs, isnt it reasonable that the religious organization be able to hire a person who has the same religious beliefs?

    If the Democratic Party hires me to make phone calls on its behalf, and I get hired and decide to get people to vote Republican, can I sue my employer for discrimination for imposing their beliefs against me? 

    There is a freedom of association which is a critical component of the First Amendment!

    [/QUOTE]

    I'm not arguing about religious organizations, which are exempt in this case.

    Your example is inaccurate, because it illustrates a performance issue... the person is not doing what they were hired to do.  I can't unilaterally change software code so that consumers get a break and my client loses money.

    Again, we're talking about 'secular' business owners having personal religious objections to gay people...not their activities (which are nobody's business unless they hurt the company or affect the employee's work).

    Please explain this "freedom of association" of which you speak.

    Look, it's not like most employers don't have a lot of leeway to fire or layoff people they don't like or want.  All that ENDA does is say that employers have to have another reason to fire someone other than their sexual orientation.  That's it.  So, what's with all the hoopla?

     

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Employment Nondiscrimination Act

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    The individual, gay or straight,  does have a choice.

    [/QUOTE]


    No. They really don't.

     

    This is key, because it's at the root of many of these debates where the opposition spins out of control.  This is just an excuse for criticizing a person's very identity - those things they were born with that are less products of their environment.  It's fundamentally unfair as it is to criticize on the basis of race or gender.

    (And to be perfectly frank, homosexuality can be even more indelible a characteristic than religion.  Babies don't get to choose under which denomination they're baptized, if at all.)

     

     

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Employment Nondiscrimination Act

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

     

    The individual, gay or straight,  does have a choice.

     

     


    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The individual, gay or straight,  does have a choice.

    No. They really don't.


    This is key, because it's at the root of many of these debates where the opposition spins out of control.  This is just an excuse for criticizing a person's very identity - those things they were born with that are less products of their environment.  It's fundamentally unfair as it is to criticize on the basis of race or gender.

    (And to be perfectly frank, homosexuality can be even more indelible a characteristic than religion.  Babies don't get to choose under which denomination they're baptized, if at all.)"

    This is key all right: what equality meant to Martin Luther King, was,  all people are alike, we are no different, to be treated the same. Race, creed, sexual preference. We need to be treated alike.

    But modern progressivism's basic approach is that some are better than others. If you are of a certain skin color, The Government needs to know, so you get official Government preferences, due to the existence of slavery 150 years ago.
     
    And now, Matty tells us that if you have the gay gene, you are an entirely different human being. An "indelible charateristic", a person's "basic identity". If you are from Planet Gay, your life is predetermined!
     
    Apparently gay people's basic identity is who they sleep with.
    What if a person with the gay gene becomes a great athlete, and is asexual. Is he or she betraying their "basic identity"?  Should they have become an interior decorator, give their "indelible charateristic" is being gay?  


    You stereotype a gay person worst than most homophobes, by claiming how their "indelible characteristic" defines who they are.

     

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: Employment Nondiscrimination Act

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    The individual, gay or straight,  does have a choice.

     

     


    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The individual, gay or straight,  does have a choice.

    No. They really don't.


    This is key, because it's at the root of many of these debates where the opposition spins out of control.  This is just an excuse for criticizing a person's very identity - those things they were born with that are less products of their environment.  It's fundamentally unfair as it is to criticize on the basis of race or gender.

    (And to be perfectly frank, homosexuality can be even more indelible a characteristic than religion.  Babies don't get to choose under which denomination they're baptized, if at all.)"

     

    This is key all right: what equality meant to Martin Luther King, was,  all people are alike, we are no different, to be treated the same. Race, creed, sexual preference. We need to be treated alike.

    But modern progressivism's basic approach is that some are better than others. If you are of a certain skin color, The Government needs to know, so you get official Government preferences, due to the existence of slavery 150 years ago.
     
    And now, Matty tells us that if you have the gay gene, you are an entirely different human being. An "indelible charateristic", a person's "basic identity". If you are from Planet Gay, your life is predetermined!
     
    Apparently gay people's basic identity is who they sleep with.
    What if a person with the gay gene becomes a great athlete, and is asexual. Is he or she betraying their "basic identity"?  Should they have become an interior decorator, give their "indelible charateristic" is being gay?  


    You stereotype a gay person worst than most homophobes, by claiming how their "indelible characteristic" defines who they are.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Hiring straight people and not hiring gay people is treating gay people like straight people?

    How'd you twist yourself into that one?

     

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Employment Nondiscrimination Act

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    The individual, gay or straight,  does have a choice.

     

     


    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The individual, gay or straight,  does have a choice.

    No. They really don't.


    This is key, because it's at the root of many of these debates where the opposition spins out of control.  This is just an excuse for criticizing a person's very identity - those things they were born with that are less products of their environment.  It's fundamentally unfair as it is to criticize on the basis of race or gender.

    (And to be perfectly frank, homosexuality can be even more indelible a characteristic than religion.  Babies don't get to choose under which denomination they're baptized, if at all.)"

    [/QUOTE]

     

    This is key all right: what equality meant to Martin Luther King, was,  all people are alike, we are no different, to be treated the same. Race, creed, sexual preference. We need to be treated alike.

    But modern progressivism's basic approach is that some are better than others. If you are of a certain skin color, The Government needs to know, so you get official Government preferences, due to the existence of slavery 150 years ago.
     
    And now, Matty tells us that if you have the gay gene, you are an entirely different human being. An "indelible charateristic", a person's "basic identity". If you are from Planet Gay, your life is predetermined!
     
    Apparently gay people's basic identity is who they sleep with.
    What if a person with the gay gene becomes a great athlete, and is asexual. Is he or she betraying their "basic identity"?  Should they have become an interior decorator, give their "indelible charateristic" is being gay?  


    You stereotype a gay person worst than most homophobes, by claiming how their "indelible characteristic" defines who they are.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    That's a huge load of dung.  And we were doing so well until you had to spin your argument out of recognition and show your bigoted colors.

    It never has had anything to do with "who they sleep with".

    Then you stereotype gays as "interior decorators" or an alien from another planet.  How...um, clever.

    Then, you try and FAIL to turn basic psychology back on me to call me a homophobe.

    Forgive me for thinking this was your day to be sensible.  My mistake.

    Even on basic equality, you lose...unless you think that an atheist business owner can fire a person just for being religious... or a gay business owner can fire a person for being straight, you don't know which way is up.

    Hate is all you know.  Looks like you're sticking with it, too.

     

     

     

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Employment Nondiscrimination Act

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    The individual, gay or straight,  does have a choice.

     

     


    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The individual, gay or straight,  does have a choice.

    No. They really don't.


    This is key, because it's at the root of many of these debates where the opposition spins out of control.  This is just an excuse for criticizing a person's very identity - those things they were born with that are less products of their environment.  It's fundamentally unfair as it is to criticize on the basis of race or gender.

    (And to be perfectly frank, homosexuality can be even more indelible a characteristic than religion.  Babies don't get to choose under which denomination they're baptized, if at all.)"

     

    This is key all right: what equality meant to Martin Luther King, was,  all people are alike, we are no different, to be treated the same. Race, creed, sexual preference. We need to be treated alike.

    But modern progressivism's basic approach is that some are better than others. If you are of a certain skin color, The Government needs to know, so you get official Government preferences, due to the existence of slavery 150 years ago.
     
    And now, Matty tells us that if you have the gay gene, you are an entirely different human being. An "indelible charateristic", a person's "basic identity". If you are from Planet Gay, your life is predetermined!
     
    Apparently gay people's basic identity is who they sleep with.
    What if a person with the gay gene becomes a great athlete, and is asexual. Is he or she betraying their "basic identity"?  Should they have become an interior decorator, give their "indelible charateristic" is being gay?  


    You stereotype a gay person worst than most homophobes, by claiming how their "indelible characteristic" defines who they are.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    That's a huge load of dung.  And we were doing so well until you had to spin your argument out of recognition and show your bigoted colors.

    It never has had anything to do with "who they sleep with".

    Then you stereotype gays as "interior decorators" or an alien from another planet.  How...um, clever.

    Then, you try and FAIL to turn basic psychology back on me to call me a homophobe.

    Forgive me for thinking this was your day to be sensible.  My mistake.

    Even on basic equality, you lose...unless you think that an atheist business owner can fire a person just for being religious... or a gay business owner can fire a person for being straight, you don't know which way is up.

    Hate is all you know.  Looks like you're sticking with it, too.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    A progressive calling me a "bigot" means I won the argument, thanks. You really had no response other than name calling.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: Employment Nondiscrimination Act

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:
    [

     [/QUOTE]

    An employer should not get to impose their religious beliefs on someone just because they happen to work with them.


    But if a religious organization as employer wants to hire a person to intellectually further the goals of a religious organization, one of which which is trying to convince people of the validity of their beliefs, isnt it reasonable that the religious organization be able to hire a person who has the same religious beliefs?

    If the Democratic Party hires me to make phone calls on its behalf, and I get hired and decide to get people to vote Republican, can I sue my employer for discrimination for imposing their beliefs against me? 

    There is a freedom of association which is a critical component of the First Amendment!

    [/QUOTE]


    Okay..CLC..see your statement above there? I guess you believe that to be true..except when it comes to an employer's religious beliefs telling them they shouldn't provide health insurance that includes contraceptive coverage?

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName9. Show UserName9's posts

    Re: Employment Nondiscrimination Act

    In response to miscricket's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:
    [

     [/QUOTE]

    An employer should not get to impose their religious beliefs on someone just because they happen to work with them.


    But if a religious organization as employer wants to hire a person to intellectually further the goals of a religious organization, one of which which is trying to convince people of the validity of their beliefs, isnt it reasonable that the religious organization be able to hire a person who has the same religious beliefs?

    If the Democratic Party hires me to make phone calls on its behalf, and I get hired and decide to get people to vote Republican, can I sue my employer for discrimination for imposing their beliefs against me? 

    There is a freedom of association which is a critical component of the First Amendment!

    [/QUOTE]


    Okay..CLC..see your statement above there? I guess you believe that to be true..except when it comes to an employer's religious beliefs telling them they shouldn't provide health insurance that includes contraceptive coverage?

    [/QUOTE]


    Don't pick on him.  He's waking up to a Democratic Governor today.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Employment Nondiscrimination Act

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    The individual, gay or straight,  does have a choice.

     

     


    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The individual, gay or straight,  does have a choice.

    No. They really don't.


    This is key, because it's at the root of many of these debates where the opposition spins out of control.  This is just an excuse for criticizing a person's very identity - those things they were born with that are less products of their environment.  It's fundamentally unfair as it is to criticize on the basis of race or gender.

    (And to be perfectly frank, homosexuality can be even more indelible a characteristic than religion.  Babies don't get to choose under which denomination they're baptized, if at all.)"

     

    [/QUOTE]

     

     

    This is key all right: what equality meant to Martin Luther King, was,  all people are alike, we are no different, to be treated the same. Race, creed, sexual preference. We need to be treated alike.

    But modern progressivism's basic approach is that some are better than others. If you are of a certain skin color, The Government needs to know, so you get official Government preferences, due to the existence of slavery 150 years ago.
     
    And now, Matty tells us that if you have the gay gene, you are an entirely different human being. An "indelible charateristic", a person's "basic identity". If you are from Planet Gay, your life is predetermined!
     
    Apparently gay people's basic identity is who they sleep with.
    What if a person with the gay gene becomes a great athlete, and is asexual. Is he or she betraying their "basic identity"?  Should they have become an interior decorator, give their "indelible charateristic" is being gay?  


    You stereotype a gay person worst than most homophobes, by claiming how their "indelible characteristic" defines who they are.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    That's a huge load of dung.  And we were doing so well until you had to spin your argument out of recognition and show your bigoted colors.

    It never has had anything to do with "who they sleep with".

    Then you stereotype gays as "interior decorators" or an alien from another planet.  How...um, clever.

    Then, you try and FAIL to turn basic psychology back on me to call me a homophobe.

    Forgive me for thinking this was your day to be sensible.  My mistake.

    Even on basic equality, you lose...unless you think that an atheist business owner can fire a person just for being religious... or a gay business owner can fire a person for being straight, you don't know which way is up.

    Hate is all you know.  Looks like you're sticking with it, too.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    A progressive calling me a "bigot" means I won the argument, thanks. You really had no response other than name calling.

    [/QUOTE]

    Sorry, but no, you lost when you resorted to tired stereotypes of the gay people you hate so much.

    But thanks for dodging the obvious logic that makes you so uncomfortable and reduces your argument to ashes.

     

     

     

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Employment Nondiscrimination Act

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Slavery stands as the single most contested issue in the history of biblical interpretation in the United States. Not only did the nation fracture over slavery, denominations did too. Northern and Southern Baptists, Presbyterians, and Methodists remained divided until well into the twentieth century; in fact, Southern Baptists still represent the nation's largest Protestant denomination. What did slavery mean in the biblical world, and how did biblical authors respond to it?

    Don't let anybody tell you that biblical slavery was somehow less brutal than slavery in the United States. Without exception, biblical societies were slaveholding societies. The Bible engages remarkably diverse cultures -- Ethiopian, Egyptian, Canaanite, Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Greek, and Roman -- but in every one of them some people owned the rights to others. Slaveowners possessed not only the slaves' labor but also their sexual and reproductive capacities. When the Bible refers to female slaves who do not "please" their masters, we're talking about the sexual use of slaves. Likewise when the Bible spells out the conditions for marrying a slave (see Exodus 21:7-11).

    The occupations and experiences of slaves varied greatly. Many performed manual labor in horrid conditions, perhaps living only months after beginning their work. Some highly valued slaves attained wealth and status, a possibility reflected in Genesis' account of Joseph. Perhaps the story of the centurion who highly valued his slave connotes an erotic relationship, likely one-sided (Luke 7:1-10). In all cases the owners' right to use a slave as the owner sees fit, including the right to punish slaves severely, remain unquestioned.

    How did people become slaves? Slavery did not accompany a particular racial status, as it eventually did in the United States, but the Hebrew Bible stipulates preferred treatment for Israelite slaves (see Exodus 21:1-11; 25:39-55; Deuteronomy 15:12-18). Crushing debt forced many into slavery, with some people selling themselves and others selling their children. Military conquest contributed greatly to the slave market as well.

    The Bible does not attempt to hide the presence of slaves. Beware modern translations that use "servant" to cover up slave language. Slaves were ubiquitous in the ancient world. Imagine ancient Rome, where slaves made up between one-third and one-half of the inhabitants -- perhaps half a million people! The Senate once considered requiring slaves to wear identifying marks, but they stopped short in the face of a chilling realization: if slaves could recognize one another, what would prevent them from organizing and pillaging the entire city?

    In the New Testament, Jesus frequently refers to slaves in his parables, the witty stories that marked his most distinctive teaching style. He never addresses slavery as an institution, though unfortunately one of the parables assumes that beating a slave is acceptable (Luke 12:47-48). More controversial is the apostle Paul, often blamed for promoting or condoning slavery. The great African-American theologian Howard Thurman recalled how his illiterate formerly enslaved grandmother would not allow him to read Paul to her. Slave owners, she said, constantly employed Paul's letters to promote docility among the slaves.

    However, more recent scholarship suggests that Paul may have resisted -- or at least undermined -- slavery. Many scholars believe Paul did not compose six of the thirteen letters attributed to him in the New Testament. It so happens that the most restrictive passages regarding slaves occur in those six disputed letters (see Ephesians 6:5-8; Colossians 3:22-4:1; Titus 2:9-10), while the remaining seven letters leave open the possibility that Paul sided with slaves. One letter calls the slaveowner Philemon to welcome back a certain Onesimus "no longer as a slave but as more than a slave, a beloved brother ... both in the flesh and in the Lord" (Philemon 1:16). Is Paul calling for Onesimus to be set free, or simply for his master to receive him with love? Likewise, it strains the imagination that two modern translations of 1 Corinthians 7:21 could vary so greatly, but consider this example.

    English Standard VersionNew Revised Standard Version Were you a slave when called? Do not be concerned about it. But if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity. Were you a slave when called? Do not be concerned about it. Even if you can gain your freedom, make use of your present condition now more than ever.


    Does Paul encourage slaves to embrace their captivity or to gain their freedom?

    While we may debate whether Paul encouraged the manumission of Onesimus and other slaves (I think he did) one thing is certain. Some ancient Jews and Christians did resist the practice. The Essenes, likely responsible for our Dead Sea Scrolls, apparently forbade members from owning slaves. The book of Revelation lists slaves among the luxury items that Roman commerce generated by exploiting other societies (18:13). Most touchingly, very ancient documents indicate that some Christians literally sold themselves into slavery to purchase the freedom of others (1 Clement 54:4-5), while some churches collected money to buy slaves' freedom (Ignatius to Polycarp 4:8-10; Shepherd of Hermas 38.10; 50.8).

    There's a simple explanation for nineteenth century debates on slavery and the Bible: the Bible isn't exactly clear on the subject. If anything, the Bible made it easier for slavery's advocates than for its opponents. On the other hand, Robert E. Putnam and David E. Campbell suggest that while religion contributed greatly in the motivation of abolitionists, their adversaries would have promoted slavery with or without religion.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-carey/slavery-and-the-bible_b_880756.html

    [/QUOTE]

    And if progressivism succeeds, we will become effectly a slave holding society, with the people, and their progressive elite masters.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: Employment Nondiscrimination Act

    In response to skeeter20's comment:


    And if progressivism [confederacy] succeeds, we will become effectly a slave holding society




    -150 odd years.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Employment Nondiscrimination Act

    In response to UserName9's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to miscricket's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:
    [

     [/QUOTE]

    An employer should not get to impose their religious beliefs on someone just because they happen to work with them.


    But if a religious organization as employer wants to hire a person to intellectually further the goals of a religious organization, one of which which is trying to convince people of the validity of their beliefs, isnt it reasonable that the religious organization be able to hire a person who has the same religious beliefs?

    If the Democratic Party hires me to make phone calls on its behalf, and I get hired and decide to get people to vote Republican, can I sue my employer for discrimination for imposing their beliefs against me? 

    There is a freedom of association which is a critical component of the First Amendment!

    [/QUOTE]


    Okay..CLC..see your statement above there? I guess you believe that to be true..except when it comes to an employer's religious beliefs telling them they shouldn't provide health insurance that includes contraceptive coverage?

    [/QUOTE]


    Don't pick on him.  He's waking up to a Democratic Governor today.

    [/QUOTE]

    Ouch! Touche.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Employment Nondiscrimination Act

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    And if progressivism succeeds, we will become effectly a slave holding society, with the people, and their progressive elite masters.

    [/QUOTE]

    A bit histrionic, don't you think...?

     

Share