Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 73 (8962 total)
129 online now:
Coragyps, jar, RAZD, ringo (4 members, 125 visitors)
Newest Member: Samuel567
Post Volume: Total: 871,048 Year: 2,796/23,288 Month: 987/1,809 Week: 106/313 Day: 23/39 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Case against Kim Davis dismissed
vimesey
Member
Posts: 1052
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 16 of 103 (790414)
08-30-2016 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Faith
08-30-2016 8:46 AM


Gays are not a race, they aren't really even a legitimate class at all that deserves any concession from society.

Really ? So if a company decided to sack all gay employees, because they're gay, those people should not be entitled to protection, based on anti-discrimination laws ?

Edited by vimesey, : No reason given.


Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Faith, posted 08-30-2016 8:46 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Faith, posted 08-30-2016 9:03 AM vimesey has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 34709
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 17 of 103 (790416)
08-30-2016 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by vimesey
08-30-2016 8:56 AM


Gays should be treated like everybody else, not like a special class. They should not be fired for being gay unless they are being obnoxious about it, but they should not be protected on anti-discrimination grounds, just on the ground that there is no just cause to fire them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by vimesey, posted 08-30-2016 8:56 AM vimesey has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by 1.61803, posted 08-30-2016 9:56 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 19 by vimesey, posted 08-30-2016 10:01 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 71 by ramoss, posted 08-31-2016 11:01 AM Faith has responded

  
1.61803
Member
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


(2)
Message 18 of 103 (790423)
08-30-2016 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Faith
08-30-2016 9:03 AM


Faith writes:

They should not be fired for being gay unless they are being obnoxious about it,...

Oh!!! Opposed to being merely objectionable "about it.?"
Or detestably loathsome?

Nothing worse than a obnoxious/objectionable gay fouling up the place eh?*sarcasm

Edited by 1.61803, : *sarcasm


"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Faith, posted 08-30-2016 9:03 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 1052
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 19 of 103 (790425)
08-30-2016 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Faith
08-30-2016 9:03 AM


I wasn't clear enough with my example.

Let's assume a company legitimately identifies it needs to cut its workforce by 10%, for redundancy reasons. Let's assume that 10% of the workforce self-identity as gay.

The company can legitimately sack 10% of its employees. Is it allowed to choose just the gay ones ?


Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Faith, posted 08-30-2016 9:03 AM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by 1.61803, posted 08-30-2016 10:03 AM vimesey has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 20 of 103 (790426)
08-30-2016 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Faith
08-30-2016 8:23 AM


Sounds good but it's really just a form of tyranny that denies freedom of belief to those you disagree with, because there is no way to have freedom of opinion if you are forbidden to act on it.

For example, when gay people had the opinion that they should be able to get married, but they were forbidden to act on this opinion ... yes, I recall how you denounced that as a "form of tyranny".

Wait, no, that wasn't you, was it. I must be thinking of someone else.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Faith, posted 08-30-2016 8:23 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Faith, posted 08-30-2016 10:19 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
1.61803
Member
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 21 of 103 (790427)
08-30-2016 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by vimesey
08-30-2016 10:01 AM


Right....only if they are being obnoxious.

"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by vimesey, posted 08-30-2016 10:01 AM vimesey has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by jar, posted 08-30-2016 10:16 AM 1.61803 has responded
 Message 24 by Faith, posted 08-30-2016 10:25 AM 1.61803 has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 32167
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 22 of 103 (790428)
08-30-2016 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by 1.61803
08-30-2016 10:03 AM


what about bring your child to work day?
Can gays bring their son or daughter to work?

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by 1.61803, posted 08-30-2016 10:03 AM 1.61803 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by 1.61803, posted 08-30-2016 3:47 PM jar has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 34709
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 23 of 103 (790429)
08-30-2016 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Dr Adequate
08-30-2016 10:03 AM


Ah yes, now it's ANY opinion, right? Just any old opinion has a right if my opinion has a right. If someone thinks people should marry dogs that should be treated as an opinion to be respected. An opinion that has rights, that should be protected by law so that it can be acted upon. Of course. The opinion that men who are attracted to boys should be allowed to act on it is gaining favor in some quarters. Obviously since it's somebody's opinion it should be respected.

So now we have to argue about the grounds for treatin an opinion as worthy of protection, as having rights. There are no doubt many things that could be said. But all this nonsense wears me out. I'm just too tired. Go ahead, ruin the world, it's coming to that very soon anyay.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-30-2016 10:03 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by jar, posted 08-30-2016 10:33 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 32 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-30-2016 11:18 AM Faith has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 34709
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 24 of 103 (790430)
08-30-2016 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by 1.61803
08-30-2016 10:03 AM


Do you want an employee that acts in an obnoxious manner? And of course I mean something REALLY obnoxious, not just ordinary gay mannerisms. Shouldn't you have a right to protect the public image of your business? Not to mention the morale of your employees if it's REALLY obnoxious.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by 1.61803, posted 08-30-2016 10:03 AM 1.61803 has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 32167
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 25 of 103 (790431)
08-30-2016 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Faith
08-30-2016 10:19 AM


false and misleading comparisons as well as misrepresentation
Faith writes:

Ah yes, now it's ANY opinion, right? Just any old opinion has a right if my opinion has a right. If someone thinks people should marry dogs that should be treated as an opinion to be respected. An opinion that has rights, that should be protected by law so that it can be acted upon. Of course. The opinion that men who are attracted to boys should be allowed to act on it is gaining favor in some quarters. Obviously since it's somebody's opinion it should be respected.

No one said all opinions should be respected. Some opinions deserve no more than ridicule.

Faith writes:

So now we have to argue about the grounds for treatin an opinion as worthy of protection, as having rights.

Exactly. We need to discuss the grounds for treating an opinion as worthy of protection.

For example let's look at YOUR post.

Faith writes:

If someone thinks people should marry dogs that should be treated as an opinion to be respected.

Unless someone can come up this a valid reason people should not marry dogs, certainly it should be respected.

Faith writes:

The opinion that men who are attracted to boys should be allowed to act on it is gaining favor in some quarters.

It certainly should and has been discussed and society decided there was a vested interest in not allowing minors to make decisions related to sexuality and to prohibit coercion by adults.

See Faith, that is the way it works.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Faith, posted 08-30-2016 10:19 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 7043
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


(2)
Message 26 of 103 (790432)
08-30-2016 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Faith
08-30-2016 1:23 AM


The lawsuit was dismissed because the issue had become moot. Changes in laws were the cause of the dismissal, not that the original suits did not have merit.

Kim Davis did not win.
http://www.lgbtqnation.com/...lly-judge-dismisses-cases-moot


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Faith, posted 08-30-2016 1:23 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Faith, posted 08-30-2016 10:52 AM Theodoric has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 34709
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 27 of 103 (790435)
08-30-2016 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Theodoric
08-30-2016 10:37 AM


She won in the sense that the other laws eliminated the requirement that she sign a marriage license against her conscience; also in the sense that the ACLU's demand that she pay for legal expenses was rejected.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Theodoric, posted 08-30-2016 10:37 AM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Theodoric, posted 08-30-2016 10:54 AM Faith has responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 7043
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 28 of 103 (790436)
08-30-2016 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Faith
08-30-2016 10:52 AM


Gay marriage is the law of the land.

She lost.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Faith, posted 08-30-2016 10:52 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Faith, posted 08-30-2016 11:00 AM Theodoric has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 34709
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 29 of 103 (790437)
08-30-2016 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Theodoric
08-30-2016 10:54 AM


Ah yes, an illegal law of the land, imposed on the nation without any action of the legislature, just autocratic judicial tyranny as usual. You're right though, it is treated as the law of the land however criminally it was imposed on us, and a way was found for Davis to be off its hook for now. You're right about that. Too bad.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Theodoric, posted 08-30-2016 10:54 AM Theodoric has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Genomicus, posted 08-30-2016 11:08 AM Faith has responded
 Message 31 by jar, posted 08-30-2016 11:16 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Genomicus
Member (Idle past 358 days)
Posts: 852
Joined: 02-15-2012


(1)
Message 30 of 103 (790438)
08-30-2016 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Faith
08-30-2016 11:00 AM


Ah yes, an illegal law of the land, imposed on the nation without any action of the legislature, just autocratic judicial tyranny as usual.

Feel the same way about the Emancipation Proclamation?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Faith, posted 08-30-2016 11:00 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Faith, posted 08-30-2016 11:28 AM Genomicus has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020