[ IMAGES: Images ON turn off | ACCOUNT: User Status is LOCKED why? ]

Off Topic: six months later, do people who voted for Trump still support this guy?
Author Thread
meloshouldgo
Posts: 26565
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 5/3/2014
Member: #5801

10/8/2017  12:34 PM    LAST EDITED: 10/8/2017  12:44 PM
Knickoftime wrote:
meloshouldgo wrote:I didn't rationalize as hominem anything stop putting your words in my mouth. What I said was I post with heavy sarcasm and I poke people. Most people here have the maturity to deal with it and take it for it is. You don't seem to be one of them, yet.

Now you're trying too hard. Anything you justify as your "style of posting" I can too, and likewise accuse you of being too sensitive or immature to handle. I'm the one of us that seems aware of this, however.

Have you stated a single clear cut position of your own? Ok, I guess you said you think Trump is worse than every other candidate that ran for office. Go ahead and back it up.

January 20 through October 8, 2017. The body of work speaks for itself. If you somehow genuinely believe what were witnessing falls within the boundaries of even a basic level of competency, and what's occurring is something we've never experienced before, you are in fact normalizing his performance, and that's the damage. You're helping drag down expectations that will inform future performance expectations.

That's a position, whether you understand what the position is or not.

You can't write one post or answer one question without accusing me of doing something I haven't done. And you are aware of what???? LOL

I asked a simple question about qualifying the one position you were able to articulate, but instead of doing that you have to twist it around and make this about me.

This just shows you really have nothing to add to a conversation, all you do is ridicule others who dare to differ from your POV. Then you get all defensive and snitty when called out on it.

You sound empty, hollow and bitter. Go out there and do something fun for a change, live!!
I am going to watch football, wasting time talking to someone who can't or won't add anything of value to a discussion isn't a good use of a Sunday morning.

We both know what has happened over the last six months, I was asking YOU to articulate YOUR position on why you made YOUR choice. What great damage has been done in this "body of work"?
All you have is you think he is incompetent. I already said I think the same yet I am "in fact normalizing" his action. That's the most disingenuous load of utter horse**** I have read in a while.

Peace out girl scout

I cannot teach anybody anything. I can only try to make them think - Socrates
AUTOADVERT
TPercy
Posts: 28010
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 2/5/2014
Member: #5748

10/8/2017  12:39 PM    LAST EDITED: 10/8/2017  12:41 PM
smackeddog wrote:
TPercy wrote:
smackeddog wrote:
TPercy wrote:
misterearl wrote:Thanks trump

GOP: We are not sexist, racist, homophobic, islamophobic or white supremacists.

Also GOP: Women no birth control, NFL players stop kneeling, LGBTQs buy your wedding cake elsewhere, Muslims stay out and KKK are fine.


This is not okay.

First off, the new mandate isn't sexist by any stretch. It enhances religious freedom by not forcing employers with religious objections to pay for birth control. As a Catholic, I would most definitely agree with this.

By 'enhancing religious freedom' you are directly enhancing the ability of those religious people to use it to discriminate against others. Opposing birth control is beyond moronic and costs many lives globally.

No. No private business should be forced to provide a service to someone if it goes against their religious values. You wouldn't ask a jewish buisness to give out totem poles to nazi's and white supremacists.

This isn't an opposition to birth control. If you want to get birth control, just get it at your pharmacy.

How does birth control cost lives exactly? If anything it saves lives depending on what constitutes "life" to you.

Look at the effect on the Pope's anti birth control agenda in africa, he hampered efforts to tackle the spread of HIV

There is no evidence of this. In fact I would argue that:
1) lack of birth control dosen't increase spread of sexual diseases. Risky sexual behavior does.
2)if you have acess to birth control, who is to say that one might not feel a false sense of safety and engage in more risky behavior?

Nevertheless, Africa isn't the place in question here. The United States is.

The Future is Bright!
TPercy
Posts: 28010
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 2/5/2014
Member: #5748

10/8/2017  12:41 PM
Knickoftime wrote:
TPercy wrote:
misterearl wrote:
TPercy wrote:
misterearl wrote:TPercy - you are playing defense for a madman who threatens nuclear war.

Are you crazy?

Oh stop it. You attacked the republicans and labelled them as sexists, homophobes and basically any other bigot name possible. That has absolutely zero basis in reality and I frankly find it offensive. If you disagree with their policies thats one thing, but there is no need for that kind of labbelling.

Don't listen to me. Listen to Republican Bob Corker


Enlighten me on what Bob Corker said.

Just Google his name.

I already did so before and it was nothing different other than the ongoing fight between him and Trump. I didn't see how this supported his case that the GOP is the party of bigotry to the highest so I assumed he was referencing something else.

The Future is Bright!
Knickoftime
Posts: 24159
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/13/2011
Member: #3370

10/8/2017  1:37 PM
TPercy wrote:
Knickoftime wrote:
TPercy wrote:
misterearl wrote:
TPercy wrote:
misterearl wrote:TPercy - you are playing defense for a madman who threatens nuclear war.

Are you crazy?

Oh stop it. You attacked the republicans and labelled them as sexists, homophobes and basically any other bigot name possible. That has absolutely zero basis in reality and I frankly find it offensive. If you disagree with their policies thats one thing, but there is no need for that kind of labbelling.

Don't listen to me. Listen to Republican Bob Corker


Enlighten me on what Bob Corker said.

Just Google his name.

I already did so before and it was nothing different other than the ongoing fight between him and Trump. I didn't see how this supported his case that the GOP is the party of bigotry to the highest so I assumed he was referencing something else.

Fair enough. You see my questions from a few hours ago?

Knickoftime
Posts: 24159
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/13/2011
Member: #3370

10/8/2017  2:13 PM
meloshouldgo wrote:
Knickoftime wrote:
meloshouldgo wrote:I didn't rationalize as hominem anything stop putting your words in my mouth. What I said was I post with heavy sarcasm and I poke people. Most people here have the maturity to deal with it and take it for it is. You don't seem to be one of them, yet.

Now you're trying too hard. Anything you justify as your "style of posting" I can too, and likewise accuse you of being too sensitive or immature to handle. I'm the one of us that seems aware of this, however.

Have you stated a single clear cut position of your own? Ok, I guess you said you think Trump is worse than every other candidate that ran for office. Go ahead and back it up.

January 20 through October 8, 2017. The body of work speaks for itself. If you somehow genuinely believe what were witnessing falls within the boundaries of even a basic level of competency, and what's occurring is something we've never experienced before, you are in fact normalizing his performance, and that's the damage. You're helping drag down expectations that will inform future performance expectations.

That's a position, whether you understand what the position is or not.

You can't write one post or answer one question without accusing me of doing something I haven't done. And you are aware of what???? LOL

I asked a simple question about qualifying the one position you were able to articulate, but instead of doing that you have to twist it around and make this about me.

This just shows you really have nothing to add to a conversation, all you do is ridicule others who dare to differ from your POV. Then you get all defensive and snitty when called out on it.

You sound empty, hollow and bitter. Go out there and do something fun for a change, live!!

Give a person enough time, and they will reveal themselves.

The irony is, after posting that you came back later to add the below.

I am going to watch football, wasting time talking to someone who can't or won't add anything of value to a discussion isn't a good use of a Sunday morning.

We both know what has happened over the last six months, I was asking YOU to articulate YOUR position on why you made YOUR choice. What great damage has been done in this "body of work"?
All you have is you think he is incompetent. I already said I think the same yet I am "in fact normalizing" his action. That's the most disingenuous load of utter horse**** I have read in a while.

Peace out girl scout

I made my choice for reasons you already know. Trifling with the make-up of the Supreme Court is no small thing and can have ramifications that will last decades. You also already know that like you my political leanings gear towards the left. I voted for the person out of the two people who was going to be elected who most closely approximated my ideological stance, and in that sense the choice wasn't even close. I didn't confuse my choice as a misplaced protest that'll likely have the opposite of the intended effect.

Finally I voted for the person out of the two people who was going to be elected who could at least approximate not behaving like a severely damaged, utterly self-absorbed human being.

And that's just scratching the surface of what's wrong with Trump.

meloshouldgo
Posts: 26565
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 5/3/2014
Member: #5801

10/8/2017  2:39 PM    LAST EDITED: 10/8/2017  2:40 PM
didn't confuse my choice as a misplaced protest that'll likely have the opposite of the intended effect.

For someone who has no fukking idea of what the intended effect was, it's amusing you have an opinion about it. Your inability to take anything not aligned with your POV without trying to ridicule it shows that you aren't very liberal, tolerant or open minded in your thinking.

You are not left leaning, anymore than the vacant pant suit you voted for. But you are right about Hillary being closely aligned to your way of thinking.

Centrist garbage

I cannot teach anybody anything. I can only try to make them think - Socrates
smackeddog
Posts: 38386
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 3/30/2005
Member: #883
10/8/2017  2:43 PM
TPercy wrote:
smackeddog wrote:
TPercy wrote:
smackeddog wrote:
TPercy wrote:
misterearl wrote:Thanks trump

GOP: We are not sexist, racist, homophobic, islamophobic or white supremacists.

Also GOP: Women no birth control, NFL players stop kneeling, LGBTQs buy your wedding cake elsewhere, Muslims stay out and KKK are fine.


This is not okay.

First off, the new mandate isn't sexist by any stretch. It enhances religious freedom by not forcing employers with religious objections to pay for birth control. As a Catholic, I would most definitely agree with this.

By 'enhancing religious freedom' you are directly enhancing the ability of those religious people to use it to discriminate against others. Opposing birth control is beyond moronic and costs many lives globally.

No. No private business should be forced to provide a service to someone if it goes against their religious values. You wouldn't ask a jewish buisness to give out totem poles to nazi's and white supremacists.

This isn't an opposition to birth control. If you want to get birth control, just get it at your pharmacy.

How does birth control cost lives exactly? If anything it saves lives depending on what constitutes "life" to you.

Look at the effect on the Pope's anti birth control agenda in africa, he hampered efforts to tackle the spread of HIV

There is no evidence of this. In fact I would argue that:
1) lack of birth control dosen't increase spread of sexual diseases. Risky sexual behavior does.
2)if you have acess to birth control, who is to say that one might not feel a false sense of safety and engage in more risky behavior?

Ridiculous- the evidence is in the policy, they blocked moves to supply and promote contraception in Africa, which hampered efforts to reduce the spread of HIV and reduce birth rates. What do you think is more realistic, get people to use contraception or get people to stop having sex?

Where in the bible does it say it's forbidden to supply birth control and let others decide if they should use it? Using religion to discriminate against others and enforce your religion on them under the guise of it being religious freedom.

TPercy
Posts: 28010
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 2/5/2014
Member: #5748

10/8/2017  3:34 PM
smackeddog wrote:
TPercy wrote:
smackeddog wrote:
TPercy wrote:
smackeddog wrote:
TPercy wrote:
misterearl wrote:Thanks trump

GOP: We are not sexist, racist, homophobic, islamophobic or white supremacists.

Also GOP: Women no birth control, NFL players stop kneeling, LGBTQs buy your wedding cake elsewhere, Muslims stay out and KKK are fine.


This is not okay.

First off, the new mandate isn't sexist by any stretch. It enhances religious freedom by not forcing employers with religious objections to pay for birth control. As a Catholic, I would most definitely agree with this.

By 'enhancing religious freedom' you are directly enhancing the ability of those religious people to use it to discriminate against others. Opposing birth control is beyond moronic and costs many lives globally.

No. No private business should be forced to provide a service to someone if it goes against their religious values. You wouldn't ask a jewish buisness to give out totem poles to nazi's and white supremacists.

This isn't an opposition to birth control. If you want to get birth control, just get it at your pharmacy.

How does birth control cost lives exactly? If anything it saves lives depending on what constitutes "life" to you.

Look at the effect on the Pope's anti birth control agenda in africa, he hampered efforts to tackle the spread of HIV

There is no evidence of this. In fact I would argue that:
1) lack of birth control dosen't increase spread of sexual diseases. Risky sexual behavior does.
2)if you have acess to birth control, who is to say that one might not feel a false sense of safety and engage in more risky behavior?

Ridiculous- the evidence is in the policy, they blocked moves to supply and promote contraception in Africa, which hampered efforts to reduce the spread of HIV and reduce birth rates. What do you think is more realistic, get people to use contraception or get people to stop having sex?

Where in the bible does it say it's forbidden to supply birth control and let others decide if they should use it? Using religion to discriminate against others and enforce your religion on them under the guise of it being religious freedom.


1) In Uganda, they employed a lot more sex education instead of access to birth controls that ulimately reduced the rates of HIV and AIDS. http://pmj.bmj.com/content/81/960/615

Nevertheless as stated before, this is just a red herring.

2)The fact that you think that Catholics use the bible as their supreme moral code is absolutely wrong.

3) There is ZERO descrimination here. Employers simply have the choice to reject providing conctraception. descrimination is "the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex." what group is getting discriminated against?

The Future is Bright!
Knickoftime
Posts: 24159
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/13/2011
Member: #3370

10/8/2017  3:48 PM
TPercy wrote:3) There is ZERO descrimination here. Employers simply have the choice to reject providing conctraception. descrimination is "the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex." what group is getting discriminated against?

Very specifically, tying contraception into discrimination is a fair point, but seemingly a red herring in of itself. Unless I misunderstand you, you are advocating that discrimination on religious grounds should be protected, right?

"No. No private business should be forced to provide a service to someone if it goes against their religious values."

I'll ask again how far does this policy extend? Do business owners have a right to refuse service to everyone and anyone they choose so long as they claim religious freedom?

smackeddog
Posts: 38386
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 3/30/2005
Member: #883
10/8/2017  4:01 PM
TPercy wrote:
smackeddog wrote:
TPercy wrote:
smackeddog wrote:
TPercy wrote:
smackeddog wrote:
TPercy wrote:
misterearl wrote:Thanks trump

GOP: We are not sexist, racist, homophobic, islamophobic or white supremacists.

Also GOP: Women no birth control, NFL players stop kneeling, LGBTQs buy your wedding cake elsewhere, Muslims stay out and KKK are fine.


This is not okay.

First off, the new mandate isn't sexist by any stretch. It enhances religious freedom by not forcing employers with religious objections to pay for birth control. As a Catholic, I would most definitely agree with this.

By 'enhancing religious freedom' you are directly enhancing the ability of those religious people to use it to discriminate against others. Opposing birth control is beyond moronic and costs many lives globally.

No. No private business should be forced to provide a service to someone if it goes against their religious values. You wouldn't ask a jewish buisness to give out totem poles to nazi's and white supremacists.

This isn't an opposition to birth control. If you want to get birth control, just get it at your pharmacy.

How does birth control cost lives exactly? If anything it saves lives depending on what constitutes "life" to you.

Look at the effect on the Pope's anti birth control agenda in africa, he hampered efforts to tackle the spread of HIV

There is no evidence of this. In fact I would argue that:
1) lack of birth control dosen't increase spread of sexual diseases. Risky sexual behavior does.
2)if you have acess to birth control, who is to say that one might not feel a false sense of safety and engage in more risky behavior?

Ridiculous- the evidence is in the policy, they blocked moves to supply and promote contraception in Africa, which hampered efforts to reduce the spread of HIV and reduce birth rates. What do you think is more realistic, get people to use contraception or get people to stop having sex?

Where in the bible does it say it's forbidden to supply birth control and let others decide if they should use it? Using religion to discriminate against others and enforce your religion on them under the guise of it being religious freedom.


1) In Uganda, they employed a lot more sex education instead of access to birth controls that ulimately reduced the rates of HIV and AIDS. http://pmj.bmj.com/content/81/960/615

Nevertheless as stated before, this is just a red herring.

2)The fact that you think that Catholics use the bible as their supreme moral code is absolutely wrong.

3) There is ZERO descrimination here. Employers simply have the choice to reject providing conctraception. descrimination is "the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex." what group is getting discriminated against?

Sorry, but you cannot seriously be saying opposing contraceptives in Africa actually helps the fight against HIV. Contraceptives is an additional tool along with education, reduce the number of tools and you increase the spread of HIV. Opposing contraceptives in the fight against HIV makes no sense practically or even ethically.

A) what right do they have to deny people contraception? What sort of bizarre moral stance is it where you decide that because you don't believe in using contraception when you have sex, you also cannot even hand someone else some and let them decide for themselves whether to use it?! Does handing someone some contraceptives make you evil?!

B) We all know that gay people are next in line to be on the receiving end of this "religious freedom" policy

smackeddog
Posts: 38386
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 3/30/2005
Member: #883
10/8/2017  4:05 PM
Knickoftime wrote:
TPercy wrote:3) There is ZERO descrimination here. Employers simply have the choice to reject providing conctraception. descrimination is "the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex." what group is getting discriminated against?

Very specifically, tying contraception into discrimination is a fair point, but seemingly a red herring in of itself. Unless I misunderstand you, you are advocating that discrimination on religious grounds should be protected, right?

"No. No private business should be forced to provide a service to someone if it goes against their religious values."

I'll ask again how far does this policy extend? Do business owners have a right to refuse service to everyone and anyone they choose so long as they claim religious freedom?

Exactly- some people think women shouldn't be allowed to drive because of their religious beliefs, so if they worked in car sales would it be okay for them to refuse to sell cars to women? What if you work in a supermarket but don't believe in eating pork, should you be allowed to refuse to sell it to customers?

TPercy
Posts: 28010
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 2/5/2014
Member: #5748

10/8/2017  4:07 PM
Knickoftime wrote:
TPercy wrote:
smackeddog wrote:
TPercy wrote:
misterearl wrote:Thanks trump

GOP: We are not sexist, racist, homophobic, islamophobic or white supremacists.

Also GOP: Women no birth control, NFL players stop kneeling, LGBTQs buy your wedding cake elsewhere, Muslims stay out and KKK are fine.


This is not okay.

First off, the new mandate isn't sexist by any stretch. It enhances religious freedom by not forcing employers with religious objections to pay for birth control. As a Catholic, I would most definitely agree with this.

By 'enhancing religious freedom' you are directly enhancing the ability of those religious people to use it to discriminate against others. Opposing birth control is beyond moronic and costs many lives globally.

No. No private business should be forced to provide a service to someone if it goes against their religious values. You wouldn't ask a jewish buisness to give out totem poles to nazi's and white supremacists.

Does expression of religious freedom come with a blank check? Can you discriminate indiscriminately so long as you find some passage in a religious text that can be interpreted as justifying it?

Found it!

Assuming you are talking about the wedding cake case, if it goes against your official religious doctrine, then you can't be compelled to provide a form of expression as long as it dosen't impede on the rights of others.

The Future is Bright!
TPercy
Posts: 28010
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 2/5/2014
Member: #5748

10/8/2017  4:10 PM
Knickoftime wrote:
TPercy wrote:3) There is ZERO descrimination here. Employers simply have the choice to reject providing conctraception. descrimination is "the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex." what group is getting discriminated against?

Very specifically, tying contraception into discrimination is a fair point, but seemingly a red herring in of itself. Unless I misunderstand you, you are advocating that discrimination on religious grounds should be protected, right?

"No. No private business should be forced to provide a service to someone if it goes against their religious values."

I'll ask again how far does this policy extend? Do business owners have a right to refuse service to everyone and anyone they choose so long as they claim religious freedom?

Yes and free speech. If you don't like the the business just go to the other one down the street.

The Future is Bright!
Knickoftime
Posts: 24159
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/13/2011
Member: #3370

10/8/2017  4:10 PM
meloshouldgo wrote:
didn't confuse my choice as a misplaced protest that'll likely have the opposite of the intended effect.

For someone who has no fukking idea of what the intended effect was, it's amusing you have an opinion about it. Your inability to take anything not aligned with your POV without trying to ridicule it shows that you aren't very liberal, tolerant or open minded in your thinking.

You are not left leaning, anymore than the vacant pant suit you voted for. But you are right about Hillary being closely aligned to your way of thinking.

Centrist garbage

Looks like football ended early today.

The good news is in a few years, empty, belligerent bombast like this won't seem like such a good idea as it does to you now.

And you've made it perfectly clear what the intended effect was.

TPercy
Posts: 28010
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 2/5/2014
Member: #5748

10/8/2017  4:15 PM
smackeddog wrote:
TPercy wrote:
smackeddog wrote:
TPercy wrote:
smackeddog wrote:
TPercy wrote:
smackeddog wrote:
TPercy wrote:
misterearl wrote:Thanks trump

GOP: We are not sexist, racist, homophobic, islamophobic or white supremacists.

Also GOP: Women no birth control, NFL players stop kneeling, LGBTQs buy your wedding cake elsewhere, Muslims stay out and KKK are fine.


This is not okay.

First off, the new mandate isn't sexist by any stretch. It enhances religious freedom by not forcing employers with religious objections to pay for birth control. As a Catholic, I would most definitely agree with this.

By 'enhancing religious freedom' you are directly enhancing the ability of those religious people to use it to discriminate against others. Opposing birth control is beyond moronic and costs many lives globally.

No. No private business should be forced to provide a service to someone if it goes against their religious values. You wouldn't ask a jewish buisness to give out totem poles to nazi's and white supremacists.

This isn't an opposition to birth control. If you want to get birth control, just get it at your pharmacy.

How does birth control cost lives exactly? If anything it saves lives depending on what constitutes "life" to you.

Look at the effect on the Pope's anti birth control agenda in africa, he hampered efforts to tackle the spread of HIV

There is no evidence of this. In fact I would argue that:
1) lack of birth control dosen't increase spread of sexual diseases. Risky sexual behavior does.
2)if you have acess to birth control, who is to say that one might not feel a false sense of safety and engage in more risky behavior?

Ridiculous- the evidence is in the policy, they blocked moves to supply and promote contraception in Africa, which hampered efforts to reduce the spread of HIV and reduce birth rates. What do you think is more realistic, get people to use contraception or get people to stop having sex?

Where in the bible does it say it's forbidden to supply birth control and let others decide if they should use it? Using religion to discriminate against others and enforce your religion on them under the guise of it being religious freedom.


1) In Uganda, they employed a lot more sex education instead of access to birth controls that ulimately reduced the rates of HIV and AIDS. http://pmj.bmj.com/content/81/960/615

Nevertheless as stated before, this is just a red herring.

2)The fact that you think that Catholics use the bible as their supreme moral code is absolutely wrong.

3) There is ZERO descrimination here. Employers simply have the choice to reject providing conctraception. descrimination is "the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex." what group is getting discriminated against?

Sorry, but you cannot seriously be saying opposing contraceptives in Africa actually helps the fight against HIV. Contraceptives is an additional tool along with education, reduce the number of tools and you increase the spread of HIV. Opposing contraceptives in the fight against HIV makes no sense practically or even ethically.

A) what right do they have to deny people contraception? What sort of bizarre moral stance is it where you decide that because you don't believe in using contraception when you have sex, you also cannot even hand someone else some and let them decide for themselves whether to use it?! Does handing someone some contraceptives make you evil?!

B) We all know that gay people are next in line to be on the receiving end of this "religious freedom" policy


Did you even read the evidence I provided? Better sex education was the main role in reducing HIV in Africa.

Providing contraception allows risky sexual behavior which goes against the tenets of Christianity. Nothing bizzare about that. Buisnesses have every right to do it and if their employees don't like it, go to neighboring CVS that would be more than happy to give it to you.

The Future is Bright!
TPercy
Posts: 28010
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 2/5/2014
Member: #5748

10/8/2017  4:17 PM
smackeddog wrote:
Knickoftime wrote:
TPercy wrote:3) There is ZERO descrimination here. Employers simply have the choice to reject providing conctraception. descrimination is "the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex." what group is getting discriminated against?

Very specifically, tying contraception into discrimination is a fair point, but seemingly a red herring in of itself. Unless I misunderstand you, you are advocating that discrimination on religious grounds should be protected, right?

"No. No private business should be forced to provide a service to someone if it goes against their religious values."

I'll ask again how far does this policy extend? Do business owners have a right to refuse service to everyone and anyone they choose so long as they claim religious freedom?

Exactly- some people think women shouldn't be allowed to drive because of their religious beliefs, so if they worked in car sales would it be okay for them to refuse to sell cars to women? What if you work in a supermarket but don't believe in eating pork, should you be allowed to refuse to sell it to customers?

No car company in 2017 is going to start refusing to sell cars to women. If they do, they will definitely go out of business considering how they make up most of the population on the road today.

The Future is Bright!
Knickoftime
Posts: 24159
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/13/2011
Member: #3370

10/8/2017  4:21 PM
TPercy wrote:
Knickoftime wrote:
TPercy wrote:3) There is ZERO descrimination here. Employers simply have the choice to reject providing conctraception. descrimination is "the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex." what group is getting discriminated against?

Very specifically, tying contraception into discrimination is a fair point, but seemingly a red herring in of itself. Unless I misunderstand you, you are advocating that discrimination on religious grounds should be protected, right?

"No. No private business should be forced to provide a service to someone if it goes against their religious values."

I'll ask again how far does this policy extend? Do business owners have a right to refuse service to everyone and anyone they choose so long as they claim religious freedom?

Yes and free speech. If you don't like the the business just go to the other one down the street.

A vast majority of the people in this country identify as religious. Many are based on the premise the observance of any other religion is wrong. We can also find passages in all religious text that can be interpreted to justify pretty much all forms of discrimination.

I shudder to think what a society would look like where you need to shop around find businesses and employers who approve of the color of your skin, your gender, your sexual orientation, your choice of religion, or whether you choose to observe a religion at all.

I think what you advocate may sound more palpable when you take for granted the vast majority people won't do this, so protecting those who would doesn't sound so unreasonable.

But in application what you describe sounds horrifying.

TPercy
Posts: 28010
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 2/5/2014
Member: #5748

10/8/2017  4:27 PM
Knickoftime wrote:
TPercy wrote:
Knickoftime wrote:
TPercy wrote:3) There is ZERO descrimination here. Employers simply have the choice to reject providing conctraception. descrimination is "the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex." what group is getting discriminated against?

Very specifically, tying contraception into discrimination is a fair point, but seemingly a red herring in of itself. Unless I misunderstand you, you are advocating that discrimination on religious grounds should be protected, right?

"No. No private business should be forced to provide a service to someone if it goes against their religious values."

I'll ask again how far does this policy extend? Do business owners have a right to refuse service to everyone and anyone they choose so long as they claim religious freedom?

Yes and free speech. If you don't like the the business just go to the other one down the street.

A vast majority of the people in this country identify as religious. Many are based on the premise the observance of any other religion is wrong. We can also find passages in all religious text that can be interpreted to justify pretty much all forms of discrimination.

I shudder to think what a society would look like where you need to shop around find businesses and employers who approve of the color of your skin, your gender, your sexual orientation, your choice of religion, or whether you choose to observe a religion at all.

I think what you advocate may sound more palpable when you take for granted the vast majority people won't do this, so protecting those who would doesn't sound so unreasonable.

But in application what you describe sounds horrifying.

Not exactly. At the end of the day businesses want to make money. If you decide not to give your services to a particular group of people, you make less money and depending on how bad the PR is, you will get run out of business in a blink of an eye.

The Future is Bright!
Knickoftime
Posts: 24159
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/13/2011
Member: #3370

10/8/2017  4:43 PM
TPercy wrote:
Knickoftime wrote:
TPercy wrote:
Knickoftime wrote:
TPercy wrote:3) There is ZERO descrimination here. Employers simply have the choice to reject providing conctraception. descrimination is "the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex." what group is getting discriminated against?

Very specifically, tying contraception into discrimination is a fair point, but seemingly a red herring in of itself. Unless I misunderstand you, you are advocating that discrimination on religious grounds should be protected, right?

"No. No private business should be forced to provide a service to someone if it goes against their religious values."

I'll ask again how far does this policy extend? Do business owners have a right to refuse service to everyone and anyone they choose so long as they claim religious freedom?

Yes and free speech. If you don't like the the business just go to the other one down the street.

A vast majority of the people in this country identify as religious. Many are based on the premise the observance of any other religion is wrong. We can also find passages in all religious text that can be interpreted to justify pretty much all forms of discrimination.

I shudder to think what a society would look like where you need to shop around find businesses and employers who approve of the color of your skin, your gender, your sexual orientation, your choice of religion, or whether you choose to observe a religion at all.

I think what you advocate may sound more palpable when you take for granted the vast majority people won't do this, so protecting those who would doesn't sound so unreasonable.

But in application what you describe sounds horrifying.

Not exactly. At the end of the day businesses want to make money. If you decide not to give your services to a particular group of people, you make less money and depending on how bad the PR is, you will get run out of business in a blink of an eye.

As I say, what you describe sounds horrific. And businesses could very well survive refusing to service black and/or LGBTQ people given the demographic makeup of this country. And there are places in the country where the PR hit wouldn't be that bad either.

TPercy
Posts: 28010
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 2/5/2014
Member: #5748

10/8/2017  4:56 PM
Knickoftime wrote:
TPercy wrote:
Knickoftime wrote:
TPercy wrote:
Knickoftime wrote:
TPercy wrote:3) There is ZERO descrimination here. Employers simply have the choice to reject providing conctraception. descrimination is "the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex." what group is getting discriminated against?

Very specifically, tying contraception into discrimination is a fair point, but seemingly a red herring in of itself. Unless I misunderstand you, you are advocating that discrimination on religious grounds should be protected, right?

"No. No private business should be forced to provide a service to someone if it goes against their religious values."

I'll ask again how far does this policy extend? Do business owners have a right to refuse service to everyone and anyone they choose so long as they claim religious freedom?

Yes and free speech. If you don't like the the business just go to the other one down the street.

A vast majority of the people in this country identify as religious. Many are based on the premise the observance of any other religion is wrong. We can also find passages in all religious text that can be interpreted to justify pretty much all forms of discrimination.

I shudder to think what a society would look like where you need to shop around find businesses and employers who approve of the color of your skin, your gender, your sexual orientation, your choice of religion, or whether you choose to observe a religion at all.

I think what you advocate may sound more palpable when you take for granted the vast majority people won't do this, so protecting those who would doesn't sound so unreasonable.

But in application what you describe sounds horrifying.

Not exactly. At the end of the day businesses want to make money. If you decide not to give your services to a particular group of people, you make less money and depending on how bad the PR is, you will get run out of business in a blink of an eye.

As I say, what you describe sounds horrific. And businesses could very well survive refusing to service black and/or LGBTQ people given the demographic makeup of this country. And there are places in the country where the PR hit wouldn't be that bad either.

Given that that would mean that signifcant amount of buisnessowners would have to be white supremacist which is very untrue, such a situation can't happen.

The Future is Bright!
Off Topic: six months later, do people who voted for Trump still support this guy?

©2001-2012 ultimateknicks.comm All rights reserved. About Us.
This site is not affiliated with the NY Knicks or the National Basketball Association in any way.
You may visit the official NY Knicks web site by clicking here.

All times (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time.

Terms of Use and Privacy Policy