• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Court: Christian group can't bar gays [and] get funding

Apparently arguing in favor of having the law changed, according to Tex, is illegal in and of itself. Which means every single Republican who wants to get rid of the health care program is a criminal! Who knew?!!!

As an aside: Anyone notice that the case that is being debated here in the OP is remarkably similar to the issue that the GOP is criticizing Kagan for -- not letting a group that discriminates have access? I guess Kagan's view has just been validated by the highest court in the land. Glad to see she's so wise when it comes to the Constitution.
 
A religious organization shouldn't be receiving government money, to begin with.
 
Let me demonstrate how you are being dishonest. It is actually quite easy. Here is your sentence: "If partial birth abortion is breaking the law in a state that bans it and you believe in it you are advocating breaking the law." Look at the two words I placed in bold. You are using them as synomyms and they are NOT. One can believe in something and NOT advocate it, if we consider advocating to be acting on that belief. This is why your entire argument is nothing but a dishonest attempt to make a point. I can believe in anything that I want. That does NOT equal advocating it. It also does NOT equal acting on it. Murder is illegal in my state. I would like to murder pedophiles. Is my belief/desire illegal, tex? Does that equal advocating the murder of pedophiles? No to both questions. You are playing idiotic sematical games, nothing more, and that is why your argument is being met with such dismissal . Try to use an analogy that both makes sense and is a logical comparison, WITHOUT equivocating by using incorrect words.

Great post. Great clarity.

Tex! Texy-texy-doo, where are you?
 
Its not an appeal to emotion. Its an appeal to logic. You cannot claim to support a law that says you cannot descriminate against people then turn around and do exactly that based on your own personal morality.

The difference is that, at least in some states, queers are a protected group, like "women" or "African-Americans". Legally, I can discriminate against you for any reason I want, unless that discrimination is specifically outlawed. I can refuse to hire you because you don't speak spanish, because the law doesn't say anything about language. I can't, however, refuse to hire you because you're Mexican. The law says it is illegal to refuse to hire someone because of their national origin. There is no law that says I can't discriminate against you because your sexual preference includes minors, while there are laws saying I can't discriminate against you because your sexual preference includes other males of legal age.
 
The difference is that, at least in some states, queers are a protected group, like "women" or "African-Americans". Legally, I can discriminate against you for any reason I want, unless that discrimination is specifically outlawed. I can refuse to hire you because you don't speak spanish, because the law doesn't say anything about language. I can't, however, refuse to hire you because you're Mexican. The law says it is illegal to refuse to hire someone because of their national origin. There is no law that says I can't discriminate against you because your sexual preference includes minors, while there are laws saying I can't discriminate against you because your sexual preference includes other males of legal age.

I think you are being disingenuous. You don't honestly struggle with this, do you?
You are saying that you see discrimination in the job market because people are allowed to stipulate that they want, your example, someone who can speak Spanish. You think that that is the same as saying that they don't want to employ Mexicans. Do you really believe that seeking a new employee with a particular skill or experience is the same as seeking someone with the right skin colour or ethnicity?

And on the sexual orientation issue, well, I thinking you are trolling here a bit. You are saying that protecting LGBT people from discrimination is the same as permitting the sexual abuse of children. Your argument is basically homosexual=paedophile, is it?
 
I think you are being disingenuous. You don't honestly struggle with this, do you?
You have me all wrong here.


You are saying that you see discrimination in the job market because people are allowed to stipulate that they want, your example, someone who can speak Spanish. You think that that is the same as saying that they don't want to employ Mexicans. Do you really believe that seeking a new employee with a particular skill or experience is the same as seeking someone with the right skin colour or ethnicity?
If a Mexican foods market refuses to hire me because I don't speak Spanish, they're technically discriminating against me because of me not speaking Spanish. However, it is a form of discrimination that is completely justifiable and that I would agree with. What I'm saying is that there are justified and unjustified forms of discrimination. Not hiring a Mexican is unjustified discrimination, and the law reflects that. If I refused to hire you because you're Spanish, I could face criminal charges (again, this is a practice I agree with). If I didn't get hired at a Mexican market for not speaking Spanish, no one could blame the store. I'm saying there is acceptable and unacceptable discrimination.

And on the sexual orientation issue, well, I thinking you are trolling here a bit. You are saying that protecting LGBT people from discrimination is the same as permitting the sexual abuse of children. Your argument is basically homosexual=paedophile, is it?

Did you just see "he's talking about gays and pedos, he must be equating them?" No. How did you even get that from what I'm saying? I'm saying it's only illegal to discriminate against someone if they're on a list of protected person groups. The law says it is illegal to discriminate against someone if they're homosexual. However, not all discrimination is illegal and it would be legal to discriminate against someone if they're a pedophile.
 
If a Mexican foods market refuses to hire me because I don't speak Spanish, they're technically discriminating against me because of me not speaking Spanish. However, it is a form of discrimination that is completely justifiable and that I would agree with. What I'm saying is that there are justified and unjustified forms of discrimination. Not hiring a Mexican is unjustified discrimination, and the law reflects that. If I refused to hire you because you're Spanish, I could face criminal charges (again, this is a practice I agree with). If I didn't get hired at a Mexican market for not speaking Spanish, no one could blame the store. I'm saying there is acceptable and unacceptable discrimination.

Uhmm, no. If they didn't hire you because you weren't Mexican, then you'd have something. Would it be discrimination for not hiring you to fly a plane if you didn't know how too? Language is a learned skill, not something you were born with.
 
Uhmm, no. If they didn't hire you because you weren't Mexican, then you'd have something. Would it be discrimination for not hiring you to fly a plane if you didn't know how too? Language is a learned skill, not something you were born with.

I'm not using discrimination in a negative way here. I'm using it to mean any situation where any single thing is used as a deciding factor. It would be discrimination to not hire me to fly a plane, but it'd be justifiable discrimination.
 
I'm not using discrimination in a negative way here. I'm using it to mean any situation where any single thing is used as a deciding factor. It would be discrimination to not hire me to fly a plane, but it'd be justifiable discrimination.

I understand that, but it's not discrimination to not hire you for something you are not qualified for.
 
I understand that, but it's not discrimination to not hire you for something you are not qualified for.

The point I was trying to make is that there are legal and illegal reasons to not hire someone. It is illegal to not hire someone on basis of any reason on a special legal list. I know that we have that list printed on a poster in our breakroom at work. It's only illegal discrimination if it's one of those reasons, other than that you can discriminate for any reason you want. Let's just forget my speaking spanish example.
 
The point I was trying to make is that there are legal and illegal reasons to not hire someone. It is illegal to not hire someone on basis of any reason on a special legal list. I know that we have that list printed on a poster in our breakroom at work. It's only illegal discrimination if it's one of those reasons, other than that you can discriminate for any reason you want. Let's just forget my speaking spanish example.

Ok, ok. Listen, it's not DISCRIMINATION....legal or illegal, it's just not.
 
Ok, ok. Listen, it's not DISCRIMINATION....legal or illegal, it's just not.

What isn't? I'm referring to not hiring or letting someone join because they're a pedophile. You're saying that's not discrimination? You need more than one sentence so we know what the holy hell you're talking about.
 
What isn't? I'm referring to not hiring or letting someone join because they're a pedophile. You're saying that's not discrimination? You need more than one sentence so we know what the holy hell you're talking about.

Having a legal reason to not hire someone is not discrimination. It's not legal discrimination, it's not illegal discrimination, it's NOT DISCRIMINATION. You are using the word incorrectly.
 
Having a legal reason to not hire someone is not discrimination. It's not legal discrimination, it's not illegal discrimination, it's NOT DISCRIMINATION. You are using the word incorrectly.

Did you not read where I said "drop the not speaking spanish" argument? Can we just move on past that? it's not worth debating. If you want to start arguing over the dictionary definition of "discriminate", we can, but it'd be a side track.
 
Did you not read where I said "drop the not speaking spanish" argument? Can we just move on past that? it's not worth debating. If you want to start arguing over the dictionary definition of "discriminate", we can, but it'd be a side track.

No, what you are not getting is the concept of discrimination. Pedophilia is illegal, not hiring a pedophile because they are a pedophile implies there is some reason that it is known they are a pedophile, in other words, that they are a felon. It is not discrimination to not hire or allow membership based on your criminal background. Being a homosexual is not illegal. Not hiring or admitting someone who is a homosexual because they are a homosexual is discrimination.
 
No, what you are not getting is the concept of discrimination. Pedophilia is illegal, not hiring a pedophile because they are a pedophile implies there is some reason that it is known they are a pedophile, in other words, that they are a felon. It is not discrimination to not hire or allow membership based on your criminal background. Being a homosexual is not illegal. Not hiring or admitting someone who is a homosexual because they are a homosexual is discrimination.

I'm not necessarily referring to someone who is convicted of actually molesting children. Someone who self-identified as a person who is sexually attracted to children may not have actually gone out and raped children, but they might still advocate the legalization of pedophilia. There are many reasons to not hire this person or let them into your club, even if they haven't broken any laws.
 
Having a legal reason to not hire someone is not discrimination. It's not legal discrimination, it's not illegal discrimination, it's NOT DISCRIMINATION. You are using the word incorrectly.

Actually, it is "discrimination" in the perfect definition. They have legal discriminating qualifications but they are not guilty of illegal discrimination.
 
Court: Christian group can't bar gays, get funding - Politics - msnbc.com



Seems like a reasonable decision to me. The first amendment protects your right to discriminate but it does not protect your right to receive public funding or recognition to enable your discrimination. (the Christian group in question excluded homosexuals)

5-4 decision, with the expected conservative/liberal split and Kennedy siding with the liberals on this one. That four supreme court justices think the first amendment protects your right to public funding of discrimination is fairly disturbing.

On the plus side, this gives some hope to the folks waiting on overturn of California's Prop 8, as it shows that Kennedy wont automatically side against homosexuality. Overturning Prop 8 is a much bigger decision, though, so how he ends up in the inevitable Supreme Court case remains to be seen.

Sounds right to me. While the government must allow private discrimination, it can not support it.

I guess this group is just going to have to choose between a free hand out or their principals.
 
Actually, it is "discrimination" in the perfect definition. They have legal discriminating qualifications but they are not guilty of illegal discrimination.

You make it sound like they've comitted a crime.

The group is going to be allowed to do whatever it wants. No one is going to prizon over this.
 
You make it sound like they've comitted a crime.

The group is going to be allowed to do whatever it wants. No one is going to prizon over this.

That's precisely what I said. They've committed no crime in the makeout hobo's example of making "fluent in Spanish" a discriminating qualification. They did not commit any illegal discrimination; any qualification requirement is a discrimination in its truest definition. When I decide to paint my walls blue instead of green, I made a choice based on my discriminating taste.

The Makeout Hobo was 100% accurate in what he said.
 
The Makeout Hobo was 100% accurate in what he said.

Sign one of the end of times: check.

Next comes the sea turning to blood, ulcers opening in the ground, the seals of divinity bursting....
 
Back
Top Bottom