• 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!

Powerful GOP lobbyist drafts bill to ban gay athletes from playing in the NFL

You opinion is noted and probably consistent with your fellow countrymen and governmental system. Different story here.

Yes, we hate discrimination. Just like a lot of Americans I would assume, something that has nothing to do with what country people come from or a governmental system.
 
Fighting for human rights makes someone an idiot? That's a weird value system that you were raised in.

There is no right to discriminate. It is not a human right to deny someone the opportunity to play in the NFL purely based on his sexual preference. In the NFL are several players with criminal records but who are not barred from playing but there should be a right to discriminate?
 
There is no right to discriminate.

It is one of the foundational human rights. The freedom to choose who you want to associate with in your life. You discriminate against people who you don't want as friends, even if they want to be your friend. You discriminate against shopping in one store because you don't like it for some reason and so you favor another store. You discriminate against a female physician because you prefer to be examined by a male physician. And so on. Freedom to associate CAN ONLY be exercised by discriminating in your choices.
 
People will do things that we find personally detestable, but that doesn't mean they don't have the right to do those actions, nor does it mean the government should act towards those actions.

If the NFL should choose to ban gays from playing in the NFL it should face legal repercussions IMHO. There is no right to discriminate IMO and if private organizations illegally discriminate they should expect the government to stand up for the civil and human rights of those that are discriminated against.
 
It is one of the foundational human rights. The freedom to choose who you want to associate with in your life. You discriminate against people who you don't want as friends, even if they want to be your friend. You discriminate against shopping in one store because you don't like it for some reason and so you favor another store. You discriminate against a female physician because you prefer to be examined by a male physician. And so on. Freedom to associate CAN ONLY be exercised by discriminating in your choices.


He means unjust, ignorant and stupid discrimination that infringes on the rights of others. You do understand that law is a matter of balancing rights, don't you?
 
I'm not sure you know what you're talking about here. We didn't vote for anything. This is a bill legislators in Arizona passed and has yet to be signed into law (the Governor does that in our system).

With the "you voted for it", I was talking about the legislators that claim they it was a mistake and that the governor should veto it. I was stating that those legislators have to live with the choices their made and the negative responses to it and not try to squirrel out under it by asking for a veto.
 
Yes, we hate discrimination. Just like a lot of Americans I would assume, something that has nothing to do with what country people come from or a governmental system.

No, you discrimate differently that's all. Most of your laundry list is agreed to by folks worldwide. Sexual orientation is not one of those items. Plus, it varies widely from country to country what is actually considered discrimination. Also widely varied is the balance of competing rights.
 
Last edited:
He means unjust, ignorant and stupid discrimination that infringes on the rights of others. You do understand that law is a matter of balancing rights, don't you?

Exactly, there is no human right to discriminate. You may feel that being gay is not in accordance with your faith than that is your rights and you may proclaim that. However, denying people their civil and human rights purely based on your religious views someone's human right.
 
With the "you voted for it", I was talking about the legislators that claim they it was a mistake and that the governor should veto it. I was stating that those legislators have to live with the choices their made and the negative responses to it and not try to squirrel out under it by asking for a veto.

Why? That's absurd and for them to do that they wouldn't be doing their job. If they manufacture a flawed product by error and realose it then they need to do their best to keep that from affecting the public. That's just good sense. The product did not match their intent, and they were wise enough to recognise this, and so they stepped up and admitted their error. Couldn't ask for better.
 
Exactly, there is no human right to discriminate.

You gotta start putting "unjustly" before "discriminate", or some people will derail the discussion upon that semantic.
 
He means unjust, ignorant and stupid discrimination that infringes on the rights of others. You do understand that law is a matter of balancing rights, don't you?

What rights are we speaking about again?
 
The right to equal opportunity vs. the right to be a bigot.

The right to equal opportunity is not a human right. It's really just gibberish that must step on peoples rights to exist.
 
No, you discrimate differently that's all. Most of your laundry list is agreed to by folks worldwide. Sexual orientation is not one of those items. Plus, ot varies widely from country to country what is actually considered discrimination. Also widely varied is the balance of competing rights.

I am sorry, but anti-gay discrimination goes against human rights. That some idiot countries like Uganda think they have the right to discriminate against gays (or worse) does not change the fact that they are violating human rights with their horrible actions against gays.
 
There is no right to discriminate. It is not a human right to deny someone the opportunity to play in the NFL purely based on his sexual preference. In the NFL are several players with criminal records but who are not barred from playing but there should be a right to discriminate?

It not a human right to play in the NFL either. Not even a human right to have "the opportunity to play in the NFL". We're not talking human rights here. Quite simply it's one dude's fixation at play here and thus far no one that makes a difference in any party has taken on the legislation.
 
Actually, that is a right. Should I go over it again?

That right is overshadowed by the right to equal opportunity.
 
That right is overshadowed by the right to equal opportunity.

You do realize it is an absurdity to argue that one right voids another, right?
 
Why? That's absurd and for them to do that they wouldn't be doing their job. If they manufacture a flawed product by error and realose it then they need to do their best to keep that from affecting the public. That's just good sense. The product did not match their intent, and they were wise enough to recognise this, and so they stepped up and admitted their error. Couldn't ask for better.

They could repeal their law, they voted for this discriminatory law and now the "you know what" hits the fan they are trying to back peddle and appeal to the judge to veto the law they voted for. That is just stupid. They should have realized that before they voted in favor for that law.
 
He means unjust, ignorant and stupid discrimination that infringes on the rights of others. You do understand that law is a matter of balancing rights, don't you?

There is no right to not being offended, not being rejected, not being liked. There is a right to freedom of association. It is immoral to force associations onto people. Try to make a moral case for the morality of forcing associations onto unwilling people.
 
You do realize it is an absurdity to argue that one right voids another, right?


All law is a balancing of rights against each other. What's absurd is for someone to not understand that.
 
How do you figure that?

Denial of human rights by unjustly, immorally and illegally (IMHO) is not a right that is guaranteed by any law or treaty.
 
Back
Top Bottom