Trump by name......

Worse - stop typing

 

I will be in Mexico or Russia should you need me then.

 

You have a reason for that?

Why is that?
I don't see that trend in the slightest.

Obviously that's not the case.

That's pretty much the point of the article.
They could use exactly that as a reason, to fire people.

What is the next step?
"After careful consideration, I decided I don't like your red hair! How could you dare to have colored it, when I hired you?! You're fired!"?


As for the rest: Tons of people, who dislike gays don't do that for religious reasons.
Marriage isn't necessarily a religious rite, the registry office makes it a legal thing.

I also think, that yes, it is about special treatment, if people aren't allowed to be married due to being gay.
The fact alone, that it's constantly termed "gay marriage" and not just "marriage" makes a whole false setup.
It's not a "special treatment" for "these people" to be allowed to get married, work and whatnot, it's a "normal treatment", since everybody else is allowed to it.

I have to head for training, otherwise I'd co on and on here...

 

Religious liberties shouldn't extend to infringing on the civil rights of others.

 

Oh, to start with about the quoting, i dont quote each individual thing but i do it in order.

That i do, when they are in cahoots with SJW's i get the feeling they dont truly represent LGBT rights in relation to relastic and fair rights for them but rather have a political agenda that the group themselves want to achieve. I don't keep with with these things though, movements and groups can be hi jacked. I only diasagree with the GROUP ONLY.


Just google SJW's and Feminists, (not all Feminists, some are ok) primarily look for ideology and countering arguments to said ideology and how they act etc.If i link a Sargon of akkad video on it, it will be in spoilers, use it as a starting point and there is very much likely to be langauge in it. It will be bias against them, but its meant to be a starting point to look at. Where do you live as well? As you do look into it, dont specifically watch videos made supporting the group and ideology in question, watch some made by them and there is probbly going to be a response to it. (media in general as well)

The video, contains language and cringe, you have been warned. Do NOT open the spoilers unless you want a Sargon of akkad video.

Spoiler

On the article, i will get back to you after i read the vice one again and the independent one, in the mean time English law Equality Act 2010 Personal view on how i perceive contracts to work is, if its a lawful contract and you break it, you can be fired. Im not the best in contract law, best to ask somone else.


Its their right to dislike them, so long as they dont go and infringe their rights. Vice versa, because they dislike you means you cannot then remove thier rights.

Marriage has religious basing though and the modern law/viewpoint of it in places influenced highly by Chrisitnaity is based on that version of marriage, the cerimony is onyl important relgiously not so much legally though. For exmaple, only being allowed to be married to one partner, largly influcned by Christianity.

Forcing people to have to marry homosexuals is special treatment so is not allowing them to be married. Former is special treatment for Homosexuals latter is for people who dont like them. To elaborate my point, its just the marriage ceremony.

The issue is, its held in some Christian belief and is a valid christian belief to not support homosexuality for what ever reason, you do not have to be a Christian nor go to that churches services if you disagree with said belief.

This is not a endorsement to stomp on anyones rights. Uneeded statmeent. I am open to eliborate more on points if you need it.

Edit: The ideology i can best call myself to what i know past my own ideology is left leaning Cnetrist. i did usr left leaning libertarian and soemtimes use it. My ethical viewpoint anyway, how i think/want things to run rather than what actually works.

 

You are going to have to if you are going to be throwing that word around. Dont get me wrong, i dont care either way, i just want to know the basis to give me a title which is a social stigma at this point.

Edit: I mean i dont care if you call me one because of that argument or not.

 

Based on what? a "feeling"

Ridiculous. How much work have you done with these groups or in your own community

Clearly no experience in what you are talking about YET AGAIN - it's a pattern with you isn't it?

Some? That's SO understanding of you....

This is the misogynist equivalent of "I have black friends"

There is a keyword in that statement - "lawful"

Discrimination on sexual orientation isn't

Your rights end where mine start and when YOUR view impacts MY world then you lose said rights....so yes they can be removed

Marriage within a modern context was primarily designed to secure inheritance and property rights so religion is irrelevant

Every country already has laws in place that forbid practices that are religious in nature - Rastafarian use of marijuana for example - so there is no absolute freedom of religion

Furthermore it guarantees YOUR freedom of religion; you don't to say what others can do in THEIR interpretation of same

It's not "special" it's EQUAL - get a clue

If that belief said "no blacks or pakistanis" would you support it?

If the answer is yes you are endorsing racism and if your answer is no you are a hypocrite

 

What a surprise Rataca100 has strong views on something, his only experience of has been watching YouTube videos of.

Interestingly you my friend are a prime example of why feminism / social justice etc needs to exist.

 

That is always the way. It's irony rich.

 

That is largely irrilivent, i dont like him but like i said before i dont belive he is that bad as to what the media portrays him as. Out of the two, i viewed him as the better one though. Since i can not escape U.S politics.

I don't view forcing every religion to perform their mariage cerimonies for Homosexuals as equal rights if they disagree with it, its preferential treatment at the expense of the freedom of religion. You dont have to partake in that relgion, if you have grievance with that chruch, no longer go to it, if you have grivance with the religion, no longer par take in it. Nobody can stop you leaving a religion if you support freedom of religion (which is lack of too). You do not need a marriage cerimony to get married to somone anymore, so its largly irrelevant for legalities sake and the U.S allows you to get married.

To be clear, the KKK was militant in its belief, it went around killing blacks, immigrants, opposing religions etc. There is no opt out clause, its diffrent from a catholic denying somone a marriage service.

There is no opt out claus if you are a slave, to slavery. You have no rights as a slave. Diffrent to you choosing to be a Catholic and then choosing to remain one as you find out no preists will codnuct a marriage service for you. Applies to above as well.

Your right to effect somoen elses life based on your lack of relgion stops with you also. You should not be able to tell me how to liv emy life based on your lack of religion.

No, that doesnt mean i have to make your cake, sell you what i want or conduct a marriage service for you. All of which you optionally would come to my service and nothing says you have to use my service and cannot go somewhere else. Its (meant to be ) a free market after all.

I do have a viewpoint on if the service is needed for life, like if there is one water company they cannot then refuse you because you are black, supermarkets etc Not a cake shop. (they shoudnt anyway as thats against a buisness model of getting money)


Intolerance cant always helped, there can be and has been intolerance for everything, nothing is exempt from it or free from having it. For example, Christians have some dgeree of intolerance now days and some do to Homosexuals.


Just a general question, is there something in the bible which specfically says black people are inferior to white people? If there is can somoen cite me it? I know where it is written to condem homosexuality. (Not a Christian either, i have some contempt for them)


My assumption is, everyone has equal rights and the country is built on the pemsie that everyone is a freeman unless they infringe on the rights of another. Sake of not arguing about every political point, that is a liberals utopia.

 

If you have a business open to the public, then you shouldn't be able to discriminate.

Businesses don't get free speech protections.

If you are an individual person you have free speech, but if that stops you doing your job, then You shouldn't have that job any more.

If a religion/church etc can't deal with equality, then it certainly shouldn't be supported by the state, and should have to renounce their tax free status.

 

Rattaca, I think you suffer from a broad lack of understanding regarding the topic at hand and are, once again, tilting at windmills. Marriage equality does not mean that every church will have to marry homosexual couples - just as equal rights for Muslims does not mean that a Catholic church will have to marry Muslim couples. It means that under the US legal system they are given the same marriage rights as any heterosexual couple. Legislating that businesses can discriminate against homosexuals, that employers can fire homosexuals, that medical responders don't need to assist homosexual victims, that's not protecting religion, that's just enshrining the protection of hate within our legal system. Insofar as you support that, well, that speaks volumes about you.

 

That's the view of the world you get from watching Son of Akkad videos.

 

I've posted this before somewhere on MAP, but seeing as gay cake is coming up again:

- I’ve changed my mind on the gay cake row. Here’s why | Peter Tatchell

I'm with you on taxing the churches though!

 

They reserve thre right to run it how they want,does the state really have the right to tell a buinses show ti can codncut its operations? something whicht eh owner has worked toward usuing their own funds they have worked for.

Its the job of the consumer to regulate businesses rather than the state, if a consumer doesnt like said buisness no one forces them to use it. There for the buiness in question dies out.

(i will give you a honest response to the previous post if it was a legit one and did write one up.)

Dont under estimate religion, all i ahve to say about the last point. (i do have a opinion on it)

I know that, i said i would not support any law which forces somone to do that. Some of them can and get boycotted because of that. Equality does not mean its legistated like its equality there for it is not equality. i have no issue with equal rights and am not arguing against them.



the second one is so-so devils advocate, you will see in a minuet.

 

So you think that restaurants should be able to have separate dining areas for black people and white people? Just let the market decide if that kind of thing is popular?

 

This is demonstrably false. Businesses are not allowed to discriminate against protected classes, they are required to follow workplace safety regulations, conform to certain environmental laws, and on, and on, and on.

Your message is opaque - my advice would be to take some time typing out your responses and craft them more carefully.

 

I've always been a bit bewildered why religious people, christians in specific in the U.S., think that marriage is a religious thing. The ceremony is a religious thing, and you don't need religion to be married.. I think as far as the state is concerned where religious people get confused, is that the state has a vested interest in the union between a man and a woman for the purpose of children, which in turn prolongs the longevity of the state, provides potential protection (if that child enlists in the military), pay taxes, etc.. There's more to marriage than that though, like assets coming together, people having family so they don't have to depend on the government, etc.. Even with the children angle, there are always plenty of children to adopt. I really just can't see much of an argument beyond homophobia and "othering" people where gay rights are concerned.

I'm not sure I agree entirely on the cake part. I don't think businesses should have the government mandate force under law to persuade people to provide services to somebody they do not want to provide their services to if that business is independent of any type of government assistance. Would I call the person's actions denying the services disgusting? Yes. Would I shop there after learning what they did? No. I think between social media and putting up protest for their actions during working hours in front of their store would probably be enough to bankrupt them for their actions without the government needing to stick their hands in businesses.

I think the "you have to do this" or "you can't do this" should only ever be applied to people who have dealings with the government, which is actually many small businesses and probably all large corporations. You can't take out a small business loan from the U.S. Government without signing papers saying you'll uphold their discrimination and equal opportunity laws. I feel like that's just a step too far. I think public opinion and social media can probably take care of issues like the cake incident, I don't really feel comfortable with the government taking care of it.

I'm not sure I feel the same way as I described when it comes to hiring/firing people though. So I guess my mind is still open to being changed, I'm just cautions about it.

It seems like a tough issue because you're not dealing with clearly identifiable markers like african american's do/did in the past and in current day. You're dealing mostly with personal details you don't need to reveal about yourself (but are generally easy to find out about in today's world with social media). I'm confident after reading the second paragraph everyone that immediately disagreed prepared their, "oh, so what if they did that about african americans in the past, would you want it then?" but honestly I can't see it in the same light. Sexual preference is not ethnicity. You wouldn't even know if somebody is homosexual or heterosexual unless they chose for you to know, or you snooped around in their personal life.

Maybe people just stop being jerks all together for a change?