Ultimate College Softball
Register Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 3 of 24      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   6   Next   »
bhblue

Registered:
Posts: 1,942
Reply with quote  #61 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
...  Can't they just go somewhere else?  It's like saying,  "why don't you just move over to that seat on the bus?  It would be so easy."  This stuff is wrong and it needs to change. 


Are you saying that if I own the bus, I can't tell you where to sit in it?  Absolutely I can - it's my bus.  You don't like it, find another bus. 

This is not wedge between the GOP, Dewey.  It's a wedge between citizens and their private property rights. 
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,390
Reply with quote  #62 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bhblue


Are you saying that if I own the bus, I can't tell you where to sit in it?  Absolutely I can - it's my bus.  


bhblue - If you are dividing it by race or sexual orientation, then expect to get sued.  Buy yourself a restaurant and tell black people they have to sit in a certain section and see what happens.  Where have you have been the last fifty years?
bhblue

Registered:
Posts: 1,942
Reply with quote  #63 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
Quote:
Originally Posted by bhblue


Are you saying that if I own the bus, I can't tell you where to sit in it?  Absolutely I can - it's my bus.  


bhblue - If you are dividing it by race or sexual orientation, then expect to get sued.  Buy yourself a restaurant and tell black people they have to sit in a certain section and see what happens.  Where have you have been the last fifty years?


I've been here for most of them, but not all.

What if I don't give a reason for refusing service?  Am I bound by law to explain myself?

Also, if you will, cite what part of the Constitution addresses discrimination of homosexuals by private citizens.  Or have I failed to answer one of your previous questions, thereby preventing you from answering mine?
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,390
Reply with quote  #64 
bhblue - I'm no lawyer so if you don't supply a reason, you may get away with it.  I suppose a jury makes that call.  Also, I don't know if discrimination against homosexuals is in the Constitution or what Federal laws we may have made regarding this issue.  I know there are some State laws which is why some have lost cases in Oregon and Washington.  There should be a law against discrimination, imo.

Now if you want to answer a question, Lost_1 talked of a girl who won the right to wear a head scarf while working at Abercrombies.  Do you think she should have won?
pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 8,143
Reply with quote  #65 
The Abercrombie example is interesting.  Given that they are all about fashion and appearance, it may be that a head scarf is inconsistent with the image that is vital to their brand.

I would imagine that Hooter's can get away with not hiring fat girls for the very same reason.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,390
Reply with quote  #66 
pabar - Are you saying the girl should have lost her case?  Are you saying the girl shouldn't have the right to wear the scarf on her head?  Please tell us how you would have decided this case.
bhblue

Registered:
Posts: 1,942
Reply with quote  #67 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
Now if you want to answer a question, Lost_1 talked of a girl who won the right to wear a head scarf while working at Abercrombies.  Do you think she should have won?


I haven't heard about someone winning the right to wear a headscarf, just that a young lady who wore one wasn't hired due to that.

From what I've read regarding that case, no, she shouldn't have won.  Appararently Abercrombie was not notified she was Muslim and had to wear the scarf because of that.  How can it be said the decision to not hire her was for religious reasons and not their "look policy"?

Now, I'm not religious.  Should I be able to discriminate (that is in the true meaning - to distinguish) between people in my daily business for whatever reason I choose or no reason at all?  If so, why would my being religious prevent me from doing the same.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,390
Reply with quote  #68 
bhblue - Thanks for correcting me and thanks for your answer.  This case is exactly why we have the "Clinton" law.  Some of these have to be decided case by case with third party rulings and over time precedents will be set.  I can see instances where religious wear is out of order, (policewomen in habits), and cases where denying the wear is an unnecessary infringement, (store clerks wearing a scarf).  These are tough issues that require a third party to decide if it's fair or if it's unnecessarily denying someone their religious freedom.  The Clinton law was passed for these tough cases to be heard.  Cases where a Saudi man won't let women in his restaurant, or on his bus, do not fall into the same category, imo.  The Indiana law is trying to turn each of these type decisions into another drawn out court case.  I hope we don't go down that road.

You clearly illustrate why I'm having difficulty getting answers on this case.  One day, Conservatives will say, "it's my business and my people will dress as I tell them".  The next day, they'll complain how people are being denied their religious freedom by being mandated to go without their heads covered.  It's my opinion many on the Right are trapped in this world and don't know how to answer these questions.
pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 8,143
Reply with quote  #69 
There are two issues here.  One is around the RFRA issues and the other is around branding issues.  I can't recall specific cases but I would think that if a business can prove their brand will be damaged, they will win in court.  As to the RFRA, the bus driver should be able to make his religiously-based decision, the customer can then sue, and the bus driver can have his day in court.  That is all the RFRA offers.
bhblue

Registered:
Posts: 1,942
Reply with quote  #70 
Dewey - You'll have to explain how I illustrate your difficulty in getting answers.  My opinions on these issues are not based upon any religious beliefs.  I'm not saying businesses should be allowed to discriminate as an expression of their religious freedom.  I'm saying it based on their private ownership of the business.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,390
Reply with quote  #71 
bhblue - Your willingness to state what you believe your rights are as a business owner while noting it has nothing to do with religion is the illustration I was talking about.  Many of these other Conservatives have a hard time saying "I can tell my employee not to wear that scarf at work" while at the same time being out there suggesting people should have a right to their religious freedoms.  These conflicting impressions apparently keep some here from stating their position on these matters I'm asking about, imo.  I understand their hesitation and I'm hoping the readers are seeing these conflicting positions as well.
pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 8,143
Reply with quote  #72 
Question for anybody who cares to answer.

Several private and public entities have stated that they will encourage a boycott of Indiana in the wake of Governor Pence signing the RFRA law.  Among them are SalesForce, Apple, the state of New York and the District of Columbia.  Where they have not encouraged a boycott, they have been openly critical as is the case with Tim Cook, the gay CEO of Apple.

Does anyone know if these same entities have and dealings, business or otherwise, with the following countries:

Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain

All of these are countries dominated by Islam which has views on gays that are much harsher than anything Indiana has done.  

It makes me wonder why there has been no call to boycott doing business with those nations.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,390
Reply with quote  #73 
Arkansas Governor will not sign bill.


(pabar - I have no idea what the answer to your question is.  Maybe a boycott would get something done in Indiana where it might go nowhere overseas.)
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 19,443
Reply with quote  #74 
Easy pabar, they are hypocrites.  Boycott them all or admit your targeting of Christian businesses.  bhblue, they definitely are not targeting 'your' public business or anyone else's.  They are militantly targeting Christians.  Your business would be fine.
__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 8,143
Reply with quote  #75 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
Arkansas Governor will not sign bill.


(pabar - I have no idea what the answer to your question is.  Maybe a boycott would get something done in Indiana where it might go nowhere overseas.)


An interesting double standard nonetheless.
bhblue

Registered:
Posts: 1,942
Reply with quote  #76 

That list of countries looks like the donor list to Bill and Hill's Clinton Foundation.  Which makes this Twitter comment by her a little, shall we say Joisey, hypocritical:

"Sad this new Indiana law can happen in America today. We shouldn't discriminate against ppl bc of who they love #LGBT http://t.co/mDhpS18oEH— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton)"

As far as the boycott - let them knock themselves out.  I'm sure there are plenty companies and states that will be glad to replace whatever business lost by Indiana.  Much like the Chick-fil-A response a few months ago. 

keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 19,443
Reply with quote  #77 
pabar and bhblue, can you tell me again why the militant leftists were so mad at Chic-fil-A and Hobby Lobby?  Put it out there why they were so mad at those two businesses.  So obvious to see.  They got upset at those two businesses and all others have to pay the price.  Mayors of Boston and Chicago wanted them boycotted.  Why again?  The gay activists like dewy know why.  They want Christians silenced, they don't want to be served there, they want to silence their opposition.  #hypocrites, admit your intentions and quit hiding behind your lover's skirt

Eduardo Cisneros (L) and Luke Montgomery (R) kiss in front of a Chick-fil-A fast-food restaurant in Hollywood on August 3, 2012.


__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 8,143
Reply with quote  #78 
I actually think this is more about removing Christianity from our society than it is about gay rights.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,390
Reply with quote  #79 
pabar - Reminds me to ask bhblue if he agrees with your earlier statement.  Pabar thinks if we decide as a Country to remove "In God We Trust" from our currency, it would be an act of discrimination against Christians.  I'll ask bhblue and anyone else if they agree with pabar?
pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 8,143
Reply with quote  #80 
Allow me to clarify.  It would discriminate against anyone who believes in God.
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 19,443
Reply with quote  #81 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pabar61
I actually think this is more about removing Christianity from our society than it is about gay rights.


Now you're catching on, it's a movement, it's an agenda.  Some/many are brave enough to admit it, some deny and lie as you see with dewy and his girly sidekick, dietwatereddown coke.  The militant queers [they still use that word for themselves] have an agenda and the straight coalition that supports them are for gay rights, just not the militarism. musoftballfan would admit it if he's reading.  Those straight, gay-supporters are only riding the coattails of the militant gay agenda, easier to deny the real intentions of the movement.

__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 19,443
Reply with quote  #82 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
pabar - Reminds me to ask bhblue if he agrees with your earlier statement.  Pabar thinks if we decide as a Country to remove "In God We Trust" from our currency, it would be an act of discrimination against Christians.  I'll ask bhblue and anyone else if they agree with pabar?


oh goody goody, sitting on the edge of my seat.  Hurry, pop the question, so giddy with excitement

__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
bhblue

Registered:
Posts: 1,942
Reply with quote  #83 
kir - Whatever the reason, it didn't work.  In fact it may have helped their business.  I think a business, or state in the case of Indiana, should cave on their beliefs based on the threat of a boycott from a small segment of society - a loud and obnoxious small segment, but a small segment just the same.

pabar - I see what you're saying, but can't make the same leap.  I believe a Muslim owned business did the same, the outrage would be the same.  If a non-religious business owner did it, they would be called homophobes, just not religious homophobes.  I don't think Christianity is going anywhere.
EarlyGrayce

Registered:
Posts: 3,037
Reply with quote  #84 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bhblue
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
...  Can't they just go somewhere else?  It's like saying,  "why don't you just move over to that seat on the bus?  It would be so easy."  This stuff is wrong and it needs to change. 


Are you saying that if I own the bus, I can't tell you where to sit in it?  Absolutely I can - it's my bus.  You don't like it, find another bus. 

This is not wedge between the GOP, Dewey.  It's a wedge between citizens and their private property rights. 


Exactly right.

__________________
"Global weakness is provocative."
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 19,443
Reply with quote  #85 
I know it didn't work but my point was their reasoning.  if you state their reasoning, you will see their agenda.  Someone must be able to answer, come on musoftballfan, I know you are reading.
__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,390
Reply with quote  #86 
I think spazsdad said removal of "God" from our currency would be better described as a secular movement.  There I would agree.  I just can't see it as being discriminatory against anyone.
bhblue

Registered:
Posts: 1,942
Reply with quote  #87 
Dewey - I don't think it's discrimination against Christians or anyone who believes in god anymore than I think it's an affront to secular society that it's on their in the first place.  Words on my money, the Ten Commandments at my courthouse, "under God" in my pledge, etc don't bother me in the least as a non-religious person.  Nor does prayer at sporting events.  They're just words that mean nothing to me.  How can I be offended by their inclusion or exclusion?  Symbolism in general is extremely overrated IMO.

kir - I think they want all opposing voices silenced, not just Christians.  I'm not prepared to allow the Christians to claim victimization just yet. 
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,390
Reply with quote  #88 
bhblue - I'm with you.  I could care less as well.  I just know if we allow any steps towards separation of Church and State, or any secular movements, to be identified as discrimination, we need a new definition of discrimination.  Again, thanks for chiming in.
JoiseyGuy

Registered:
Posts: 24,434
Reply with quote  #89 
Dewey - Me too.  If we can overlook the pomp and dogma and think about the value of the ideas and values set, then I think we can reach accord about how each of us pursues the nature of "good" and "evil".  
__________________
"Freethinkers are those who are willing to use their minds without prejudice and without fearing to understand things that clash with their own customs, privileges, or beliefs. This state of mind is not common, but it is essential for right thinking. Where it is absent discussion is apt to become worse than useless." Leo Tolstoy

"Do not try to teach pigs to sing. It will frustrate you and infuriate the pigs who will unite in anger against you, and you will never achieve singing your song". Dr. Petersen
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 19,443
Reply with quote  #90 
blue, please interpret
__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation: