• 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!

Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights? [W:85]

Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

  • Total voters
    62
Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

WorldWatcher said:
Believing in liberty, freedom, and smaller government does not mean that the individual endorses bigotry and prejudice.


I can believe in Free Speech, as such I believe that the KKK, Westboro Baptist Church, and others have a right to voice their opinions - that does not mean that I agree with their bigotry and they prejudice.



>>>>
Click to expand...

well put!
 
Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

WorldWatcher said:
Believing in liberty, freedom, and smaller government does not mean that the individual endorses bigotry and prejudice.


I can believe in Free Speech, as such I believe that the KKK, Westboro Baptist Church, and others have a right to voice their opinions - that does not mean that I agree with their bigotry and they prejudice.



>>>>
Click to expand...

But in this case they would endorse actions which allow and facilitate it. So why am I suppose to give two craps about their sanctimonious self proclaimed motivations and beliefs if the actions which result are so henious?
 
Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

ernst barkmann said:
i believe that this statement says exactly what i would say......post 217 by Fletch

But I support the rights of people to do things I myself would not do. That should not be confused with an endorsement of that behavior, by the way. It is just a recognition of their right to behave that way.







anyone who has ever debated you, knows, according to you ...there is no power the federal government has is not part of governments powers.
Click to expand...

So just quote me on that then or be a honorable man and admit you are impotent to present any such evidence. Here was your claim in 214


he believes the federal government has total authority to do as wants....outside of the constitution
Click to expand...

So prove it.
 
Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

ernst barkmann said:
well the contracts i refer to would fo allow state laws, nothing federal . because the federal government has no authority.

they would be easy to read, spelled out contracts, stating the duties of employes, and things they cannot do while employed by me.
Click to expand...


Sorry, not the way it works in the real world.

We have Policy and Procedure Manuals that are continually updated, they are maintained in hard copy by each department and are available online to employees. There is not way to "freeze" them in place for 20-30 years at time. Needs change, laws change, and duties change. We communicate these changes to employees and they are responsible. The "well that's not what it was when I was hired" excuse does not excuse an individual from compliance. Not to mention that a 3 Volume contract which is different for each an every employee (which for my organization is about 5,000 people) would be completely impractical.

ernst barkmann said:
paid, time off, other concerns, and the employee agrees with it or moves on to another job, or the contract is agreed to, then the laws enforces the contract if either party breaks it.
Click to expand...


The law does enforce the contract that says the employees is required to comply with Virginia Law and organization Policy and Procedures. If we implement a new/updated policy or procedure, an individual that doesn't like it is free to tender their resignation. If we implement a new/updated policy or procedure, and an individual violates them, we will normally provide an avenue of remediation to correct a deficiency - if they refuse to comply we have justification for termination for cause.



>>>>>
 
Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

haymarket said:
So just quote me on that then or be a honorable man and admit you are impotent to present any such evidence.
Click to expand...


impotent?..........hmmmm more sexual innuendos.

since most of the people here on this forum know you, i will not have to do this, because they know i am right........"you never met a federal government power you did not like"
 
Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

WorldWatcher said:
Sorry, not the way it works in the real world.

We have Policy and Procedure Manuals that are continually updated, they are maintained in hard copy by each department and are available online to employees. There is not way to "freeze" them in place for 20-30 years at time. Needs change, laws change, and duties change. We communicate these changes to employees and they are responsible. The "well that's not what it was when I was hired" excuse does not excuse an individual from compliance. Not to mention that a 3 Volume contract which is different for each an every employee (which for my organization is about 5,000 people) would be completely impractical.




The law does enforce the contract that says the employees is required to comply with Virginia Law and organization Policy and Procedures. If we implement a new/updated policy or procedure, an individual that doesn't like it is free to tender their resignation. If we implement a new/updated policy or procedure, and an individual violates them, we will normally provide an avenue of remediation to correct a deficiency - if they refuse to comply we have justification for termination for cause.



>>>>>
Click to expand...

i understand that, that is why i would like to see contract law of the founders, bought into our business world, to simplify things, instead of the way things are now, with its confusion
 
Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

haymarket said:
But in this case they would endorse actions which allow and facilitate it. So why am I suppose to give two craps about their sanctimonious self proclaimed motivations and beliefs if the actions which result are so henious?
Click to expand...


Believing that private property owners have a right to their property (including their labor) is not an endorsement of how someone uses that property.


I believe that a Mom & Pop Hot Dog Stand had a right to determine that they should be able to refuse service to customers, that doesn't mean I don't think that refusing service to black people isn't bigoted and discriminatory.


>>>>
 
Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

ernst barkmann said:
i understand that, that is why i would like to see contract law of the founders, bought into our business world, to simplify things, instead of the way things are now, with its confusion
Click to expand...


You think that in the 1700's employers wrote down every policy they had for the management of their business and a complete list of the duties and each and every employee were required to perform, such contracts were then signed by both the employee and the employer and that "froze" those conditions in place and employers were not allowed to make changes for the entire time an employee was employed?


Please don't be silly.


>>>>
 
Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

ernst barkmann said:
impotent?..........hmmmm more sexual innuendos.

since most of the people here on this forum know you, i will not have to do this, because they know i am right........"you never met a federal government power you did not like"
Click to expand...

You don't retain what people try to teach you do you? When you said this stupid sex comment before I provided the dictionary definition of the word IMPOTENT and how the meaning I am using has nothing at all to do with sex. Oh wait!!!!!!! The word DICTIONARY has the first three letters which might offend you as sexual. Oh my!!!!!

from google search

im·po·tent
ˈimpətnt/
adjective
1.
unable to take effective action; helpless or powerless.
"he was seized with an impotent anger"
synonyms: powerless, ineffective, ineffectual, inadequate, weak, feeble, useless, worthless, futile; More
Click to expand...


And you are still impotent to present any quote from me saying what you claimed.
 
Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

WorldWatcher said:
Believing that private property owners have a right to their property (including their labor) is not an endorsement of how someone uses that property.


I believe that a Mom & Pop Hot Dog Stand had a right to determine that they should be able to refuse service to customers, that doesn't mean I don't think that refusing service to black people isn't bigoted and discriminatory.


>>>>
Click to expand...

Baloney. I really do not give the contents of a public toilet about somebodys self proclaimed holy beliefs and what they claim motivates them. Results are what counts. And by their own admission, what they advocate would result in the ability to be a bigot and racist and discriminate.
 
Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

WorldWatcher said:
You think that in the 1700's employers wrote down every policy they had for the management of their business and a complete list of the duties and each and every employee were required to perform, such contracts were then signed by both the employee and the employer and that "froze" those conditions in place and employers were not allowed to make changes for the entire time an employee was employed?


Please don't be silly.


>>>>
Click to expand...

no.... i mean the are the ideas of the founders...they didn't enact them, because they had no authority as instruments of federal authority.

contracts can anyways be renegotiated.

the founders believed is easy to read laws, contracts, not the complex ones we have today.

"laws that cannot be understood, are not good laws"
 
Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

haymarket said:
You don't retain what people try to teach you do you? When you said this stupid sex comment before I provided the dictionary definition of the word IMPOTENT and how the meaning I am using has nothing at all to do with sex. Oh wait!!!!!!! The word DICTIONARY has the first three letters which might offend you as sexual. Oh my!!!!!

from google search
And you are still impotent to present any quote from me saying what you claimed.
Click to expand...


teach you.......?..i see... your the teacher who said, the constitution was ratified in Sept of 1788 and the bill of rights in march of 1792......
 
Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

ernst barkmann said:
teach you.......?..i see... your the teacher who said, the constitution was ratified in Sept of 1788 and the bill of rights in march of 1792......
Click to expand...

Anybody can copy a date incorrectly and miss by a few months. I made an error. I was corrected. And I owned up and did not make it again. No big deal.

It takes a real sanctimonious know it all fool to intentionally keep making the same mistake about how a word is used time and time again AFTER THEY HAVE BEEN corrected. And that is what you intentionally do with this sexual nonsense. Which tells me tons more about you and the issues you may have than I ever want to know.
 
Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

haymarket said:
So just quote me on that then or be a honorable man and admit you are impotent to present any such evidence. Here was your claim in 214




So prove it.
Click to expand...
To be fair, haymarket, I cant recall you speaking out against any state action with regards to the economy, and cant recall you objecting to a state roll in every conceivable social ill. The problem with your position is that you really have no logical or moral ground to oppose any state action since you have made it clear that the rights we have are gifts from the benevolent state. Which of course means they can take them back should the need arise. That is essentially a blank check on state power. So while there might be some small, insignificant state actions somewhere in the back of your mind you might object to, there cant be any objective justification for it.
 
Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

Fletch said:
To be fair, haymarket, I cant recall you speaking out against any state action with regards to the economy, and cant recall you objecting to a state roll in every conceivable social ill. The problem with your position is that you really have no logical or moral ground to oppose any state action since you have made it clear that the rights we have are gifts from the benevolent state. Which of course means they can take them back should the need arise. That is essentially a blank check on state power. So while there might be some small, insignificant state actions somewhere in the back of your mind you might object to, there cant be any objective justification for it.
Click to expand...

That is essentially...... ( is that how you say it?) BS on your part making it up as you go along without any evidence supplied.

You want to to get in line to accuse me of crap? go for it. Just prove what you allege with verifiable evidence. Otherwise - you know the drill.
 
Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

haymarket said:
Anybody can copy a date incorrectly and miss by a few months. I made an error. I was corrected. And I owned up and did not make it again. No big deal.

It takes a real sanctimonious know it all fool to intentionally keep making the same mistake about how a word is used time and time again AFTER THEY HAVE BEEN corrected.
Click to expand...

hay, you know your a big government man, ...you use the general welfare clause to justify any action the federal government takes.

this is another ploy of yours to start an argument, with me......

you look to see where i was posting on the forum, you followed me here, and started posting to me.....to engage me, over anything you can find.
 
Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

shrubnose said:
Who gets hired isn't a problem, it's who doesn't get hired that causes problems.
Click to expand...

Well, if you hire someone based on your discriminating tastes you did not hire someone else. Is it OK to hire someone who is a golfer, and you like golf, over a non-golfer? Would it make any difference if the golfer was the same gender and racial class as you? All other things being equal.
 
Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

haymarket said:
That is essentially...... ( is that how you say it?) BS on your part making it up as you go along without any evidence supplied.

You want to to get in line to accuse me of crap? go for it. Just prove what you allege with verifiable evidence. Otherwise - you know the drill.
Click to expand...
A little touchy tonight aren't we.
 
Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

Eric7216 said:
Well, if you hire someone based on your discriminating tastes you did not hire someone else. Is it OK to hire someone who is a golfer, and you like golf, over a non-golfer?
Would it make any difference if the golfer was the same gender and racial class as you? All other things being equal.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...




If anyone that you don't hire is a member of s protected class and able to do the job, you might have a problem.
 
Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

ernst barkmann said:
hay, you know your a big government man, ...you use the general welfare clause to justify any action the federal government takes.

this is another ploy of yours to start an argument, with me......

you look to see where i was posting on the forum, you followed me here, and started posting to me.....to engage me, over anything you can find.
Click to expand...

Be a honest man and back up your accusations with verifiable evidence and stop the self serving BS.

here is your charge about me in your 214

he believes the federal government has total authority to do as wants....outside of the constitution
Click to expand...

So be an honest man and back it up with verifiable evidence. And quit flattering yourself with your own paranoid fantasies.
 
Last edited:
Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

Fletch said:
A little touchy tonight aren't we.
Click to expand...


Yes - just found out I need 34 feet of work in my basement ripping up the floor and replacing two main pipes - to the tune of just over 6 grand. I guess it could be worse - they were suppose to start finishing that basement this weeks for my man cave that I have waited 30 years for. Oh well.
 
Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

haymarket said:
Yes - just found out I need 34 feet of work in my basement ripping up the floor and replacing two main pipes - to the tune of just over 6 grand. I guess it could be worse - they were suppose to start finishing that basement this weeks for my man cave that I have waited 30 years for. Oh well.
Click to expand...
Sorry to hear that. Maybe you can hit up turtle for a contribution :) My man cave is two 8' x 6' wooden fence panels nailed together in a corner of my unheated garage, covered with a drop cloth. Not real comfortable out there in a winter like this.
 
Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

haymarket said:
Be a honest man and back up your accusations with verifiable evidence and stop the self serving BS.

here is your charge about me in your 214



So be an honest man and back it up with verifiable evidence.
Click to expand...

sure ...i stated to you clearly, that the federal government had no authority in education at all........you stated the general welfare clause gave them that authority.....

again ........i state to you in late may of 1787, members of the constitutional convention proposed federal government education.......HOWEVER the convention rejected it! by vote

since it was rejected by the constitutional convention, that education would not be in the hands of the federal government...it cannot be possible for the federal government today to be involved in it....legally...........you again rejected the founders actions ...their vote... of the convention and still used the welfare clause as your idea of federal government authority.
 
Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

Fletch said:
Sorry to hear that. Maybe you can hit up turtle for a contribution :) My man cave is two 8' x 6' wooden fence panels nailed together in a corner of my unheated garage, covered with a drop cloth. Not real comfortable out there in a winter like this.
Click to expand...

When I was a kid my uncle had a favorite saying...... I cried when I had no shoes until I saw a man who had no feet.

Thanks for bringing me back to reality. :2wave::peace
 
Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

ernst barkmann said:
sure ...i stated to you clearly, that the federal government had no authority in education at all........you stated the general welfare clause gave them that authority.....

again ........i state to you in late may of 1787, members of the constitutional convention proposed federal government education.......HOWEVER the convention rejected it! by vote

since it was rejected by the constitutional convention, that education would not be in the hands of the federal government...it cannot be possible for the federal government today to be involved in it....legally...........you again rejected the founders actions ...their vote... of the convention and still used the welfare clause as your idea of federal government authority.
Click to expand...

I cannot believe how utterly dense that reply is. It sets new records for all things bad.

That IS NOT VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE OF THIS CLAIM FROM YOU

he believes the federal government has total authority to do as wants....outside of the constitution
Click to expand...

It is bad enough and downright sad that I have had to repeatedly teach you the main meaning of the word IMPOTENT as used in my posts. Do I now have to teach you the meaning of TOTAL AUTHORITY.

Quote me damn it ... quote me or apologize.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom