No, you've advocated for the government to allow small business owners and companies to have the right to freely an openly discriminate against homosexuals. We got that.
Chick-fil-A digging themselves a hole
- Thread starter Ar-Pharazon
- Start date
No, you've advocated for the government to allow small business owners and companies to have the right to freely an openly discriminate against homosexuals. We got that.
I guess this effectively and once and for all discredits his long-standing assertions and insistence that he's a Christian, as it does the assertions of all so-called Christians everywhere who dehumanize and discard the entire human being because of nothing more than their gender, skin color, or whom they are attracted to and fall in love with.
If a person's going to call themselves a Christian then by basic, fundamental definition you're supposed to heed the words, teachings and spirit of Jesus Christ, who is not only the founder of the faith but in the eyes of some 2 billion people on this planet the Son of God and the spiritual savior of mankind. If the teachings of someone no less important than the Son of God aren't going to faze you and get you to be a more tolerant, open-hearted and open-minded individual then what's the practical point of even going to church at all? All seems pretty pointless.
This whole situation is a bit like calling yourself a loyal and devoted Trekker who adores the vision of Gene Roddenberry and then repeatedly saying things like: "Well, all that Mr. Spock and warp drive stuff just doesn't apply to me...the Federation, starships and phasers don't do anything for me and, frankly, are a little silly. I know better about what it all means anyways."
Wow, that is some illogical bull...
But it gives us more insight on how chauvinistic and bigoted you are...
Knight Templar
Commodore
So I'm not a Star Trek fan just because I enjoyed less than 100 episodes total... and less than 50 novels?
Non sequitur, much? I have no idea how you got from A to B there. Much like I usually don't when I read one of your posts. Now, where's that ibuprofen?
Knight Templar
Commodore
CE brought it up.
And you completely and utterly missed the main point I was getting at. Just...whoosh. Over your head.
Seriously!
KT, if yer lookin' to have that debate, just go waltz into the Star Trek Movies XI+ thread.
It wasn't over his head - he's just trying to stir things up again.
That's the oldest (and the lamest) excuse in the book.
You seem to be under the impression that "calling names" is somehow worse that actively suppressing people's rights. You are quite mistaken.
Do you not stand by what you said? So why are you bothered?
This is complete bullshit. The counterwheight of freedom is responsibility. You are free to espress your opinion, but on the other hand you are responsible of your opinions. If people find your opinion offensive and repulsive, they have all the right to tell it to your face. Because that's their opinion, right? And they have as much right to it as you. You want to voice your opinion, but you don't want to be criticized for it. You want the freedom, but you don't want the responsibility. Well, as a guy once said, "you reap what you sow". So cut the persecution complex.
Lulz.
I've been really enjoying the debate in this thread, but I've been refraining from making too many comments. But right now I would like to play Devil's Advocate -- or at least, Knight Templar's advocate -- for a second, and I do this as someone who actually does not agree with his stance. However, I think he makes an interesting point about how a person should be allowed to run a business.
On the one hand, I understand the outrage that people feel about discrimination an bigotry towards specific groups of people. "Because they're gay" or "because they're black" are pretty shitty reasons not to hire or serve someone. If I owned a business, those kinds of traits wouldn't even factor into my hiring decisions.
But at the same time, privately-owned businesses are just that -- private. If somebody wants to be discriminatory with their own property, I think it seems hypocritical to tell them they can't. If the owner of a private company only wants to hire white Christian heterosexual males, they should be allowed to do so. If the owner of a company only wants to hire Asian Atheist lesbians, they should be allowed to do that, too, because it's their personal property.
Obviously, if you are open to all types of people, you are probably going to have a much easier time running your business. You'll have a larger pool of people to choose from when hiring, and you won't alienate customers. But if you DO chose to discriminate, I think that should be your right to take that risk, as long as you're not actively going out of your way to do harm to other groups.
If you have two job applicants with equal experience, but one is gay and the other is straight, I think it should be your right to hire the straight person if you think he will better fit in with your personal values. If you choose to deny service to a gay couple (we had a local story a few weeks ago where a banquet hall denied a lesbian couple who wanted to have their wedding reception there), I think you should have the right to do so. After all, all you're doing in that case is alienating people and losing out on profits. Why shouldn't that be your choice as a private business owner?
Everyone is entitled to their bigotry, and as long as you keep it confined to your own private residence or business, I don't think anybody should have the right to stop you.
On the one hand, I understand the outrage that people feel about discrimination an bigotry towards specific groups of people. "Because they're gay" or "because they're black" are pretty shitty reasons not to hire or serve someone. If I owned a business, those kinds of traits wouldn't even factor into my hiring decisions.
But at the same time, privately-owned businesses are just that -- private. If somebody wants to be discriminatory with their own property, I think it seems hypocritical to tell them they can't. If the owner of a private company only wants to hire white Christian heterosexual males, they should be allowed to do so. If the owner of a company only wants to hire Asian Atheist lesbians, they should be allowed to do that, too, because it's their personal property.
Obviously, if you are open to all types of people, you are probably going to have a much easier time running your business. You'll have a larger pool of people to choose from when hiring, and you won't alienate customers. But if you DO chose to discriminate, I think that should be your right to take that risk, as long as you're not actively going out of your way to do harm to other groups.
If you have two job applicants with equal experience, but one is gay and the other is straight, I think it should be your right to hire the straight person if you think he will better fit in with your personal values. If you choose to deny service to a gay couple (we had a local story a few weeks ago where a banquet hall denied a lesbian couple who wanted to have their wedding reception there), I think you should have the right to do so. After all, all you're doing in that case is alienating people and losing out on profits. Why shouldn't that be your choice as a private business owner?
Everyone is entitled to their bigotry, and as long as you keep it confined to your own private residence or business, I don't think anybody should have the right to stop you.
In the Thread Bomb thread, I noticed a church sign and noted that it was from a church in the town next to the one I grew up in. Interested in seeing if (a) I wasn't mistaken about that and (b) if it was a real picture and not a photoshop, I Googled the church and found the Pastor's blog, specifically a post where he was confronted by a woman very upset at his signs. This woman (even the pastor wasn't quite sure who she was) went on trying to "educate" the pastor. His response, which I think you can guess from reading the blog post title, if you care to read the post in my link above, is priceless.
It also shows a pastor who appears to be quite knowledgeable of the Bible, and, as many in this thread are trying to say, argues that the message of Jesus, the Bible, etc. is one of love.
Tying it to this thread, he supports equal rights for homosexuals, said he baptized the adopted baby of a lesbian couple, and mentions he had signs praising the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," celebrating that his church is a Marriage Equality Church, and, of course, even had one that read "It's OK to be Takei."
I think it's a nice reminder that there are some clergymen and churches (and I'm sure there will be more in the future) who preach things like love, acceptance, etc. and really mean it!
It also shows a pastor who appears to be quite knowledgeable of the Bible, and, as many in this thread are trying to say, argues that the message of Jesus, the Bible, etc. is one of love.
Tying it to this thread, he supports equal rights for homosexuals, said he baptized the adopted baby of a lesbian couple, and mentions he had signs praising the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," celebrating that his church is a Marriage Equality Church, and, of course, even had one that read "It's OK to be Takei."
I think it's a nice reminder that there are some clergymen and churches (and I'm sure there will be more in the future) who preach things like love, acceptance, etc. and really mean it!
It's not an interesting point at all.
Obviously, when two candidates have the same qualifications, a business owner is free to hire either of them based on whatever criteria he/she wants. The owner can flip a fucking coin for all it matters, and no one would be aware of "why" the decision was made.
The protection afforded by the EEOC, and the point being made here, is that business owners are NOT allowed to hire an applicant with clearly inferior qualifications over someone else simply because the owner doesn't like something about the more qualified applicant (gender, skin color, age, sexual orientation, or (as in the case of Chick-fil-A) marital status).
That KT disagrees with such protections reveals his true colors.
But KT isn't even being consistent, as he's in favor of Chick-fil-A using money to try to enforce their beliefs on me, which is the very thing he says he's against.
Knight Templar
Commodore
I'm for Chich-fil-A using THEIR MONEY the way they damn well please as long as they aren't hiring people with bombs and sniper rifles.
