TA1LGUNN3R wrote:notyou2 wrote:
I know i go to Hooters looking for that hairy chest and bulge of a manly man.
-TG
my girlfriend works @ Hooters.
in the kitchen...
Moderator: Community Team
TA1LGUNN3R wrote:notyou2 wrote:
I know i go to Hooters looking for that hairy chest and bulge of a manly man.
-TG
Duk wrote:Your freedom to work does not translate into a responsibility for anyone to hire you.
mrswdk wrote:Duk wrote:Your freedom to work does not translate into a responsibility for anyone to hire you.
How are you free to do something if people won't let you do it?
Dukasaur wrote:saxitoxin wrote:taking medical advice from this creature; a morbidly obese man who is 100% convinced he willed himself into becoming a woman.
Your obsession with mrswdk is really sad.
ConfederateSS wrote:Just because people are idiots... Doesn't make them wrong.
mrswdk wrote:thegreekdog wrote:http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/07/politics/ ... index.html
The king of conservative media (or whatever) is drudging up old 19th century anti-Catholic stuff. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_Nothingthegreekdog wrote:if you would like to spend your free time caring about 1,000 US Nazis doing completely irrelevant-to-policy things, go ahead dude. Just don't act like it's a big deal.
DirtyDishSoap wrote:thegreekdog wrote:(1) Catholic judge - The woman has consistently maintained both through the questioning and prior that religious preferences should not enter into decisions. As Duk notes, the issue is that she may be anti-abortion. If she is anti-abortion, she should be questioned on that basis, not on her religion.
She should be questioned if she's making her decisions based off of her religious beliefs. It's a conflict of interest between state vs the individual.
Take this for example.
Religious Judge and Same Sex marriage.
Would you not agree that in this case, that the basic right to marry who you choose, regardless of orientation, should be trumped by someone's religious belief? Wouldn't you agree that the judge should be impartial to his or hers religious beliefs in a matter of law?
It's off topic, but it should give you a picture that a religious judge has made decisions in the past based off their religion.
If there is a trend or a patter in the judge that has her religion influence in her decision making, then it should be questioned (but not persecuted).
On the other hand, a win for small business's and their right to refuse service.
https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2017-09-08/justice-department-sides-with-bakery-against-same-sex-coupletbd
I'll read the Wikipedia article later when I have time.
thegreekdog wrote:Why are Democrats and liberals (and libertarians) focusing on Christians/Catholics and not other religions?
notyou2 wrote:Freedom, the right to work, the right to wear earrings, nose rings, tattoos, etc., without being discriminated against. This is a tenant of a free society. You can take the boy out of Bulgaria, but you can't take Bulgaria out of the boy.
tzor wrote:notyou2 wrote:Freedom, the right to work, the right to wear earrings, nose rings, tattoos, etc., without being discriminated against. This is a tenant of a free society. You can take the boy out of Bulgaria, but you can't take Bulgaria out of the boy.
No it's not.
Absolutely no it's not.
There is no "right to work" ... you have to earn it.
If you have metallic piercings, for example, you will never get a job working next to a magnetic particle accelerator.
In a true "free market" society (which, I, realize has never existed on the face of this planet like ever) a person is hired for one thing and for one thing only, the value added his labor provides. If you can do the work, you provide the value add. In some cases, things like tattoos etc can reduce the value added of the labor but in many cases it doesn't. If someone is foolish to lower their bottom line by not hiring the best they can get at the best price then that person will loose out to the other guy who did hire that person. (Unless on the average that person doesn't make the same mistake over and over again.)
Bernie Sanders wrote:Many States especially the RED REPUBLICAN States are "Right to Work"
mrswdk wrote:Update!!So far in this thread a bakery refusing to serve a customer because they are gay has been compared to:
- A business having a dress code for customers
- A religious school teaching religion
- A Yankee fan taunting a Red Sox fan
- A black person refusing to work for the KKK
- A magnet factory refusing to hire someone with lots of piercings
Dukasaur wrote:2dimes wrote:Dukasaur wrote:mrswdk wrote:DirtyDishSoap wrote:What Duk said. To summarrize: They have no obligation to hire anyone because of x reason. Any application/interview doesn't guarantee a job. Its up to the owners discretion of who he hires and who he wants to do business with.
In the US it's illegal to factor someone's ethnicity, sex, age, sexuality etc. into your decision about whether or not to hire them, so actually yes employers do have an obligation to not discriminate against potential employees for those reasons.
You're confusing a legal obligation with a moral obligation. Laws are written to be politically popular. They rarely pass a deep Aristotelian test of being ethically sound.
To summarize my question. In Dukasaur's perfect world, If a gay person has the best qualifications and you are hiring an employee, you must hire them to bake cakes with you all day, yet you can refuse to sell them one?
Your "question" makes no sense.
In a perfect world, people wouldn't have hatreds and prejudices.
Alas, a perfect world eludes us. So ask yourself, "Given that Jack and Jill hate each other, and there's nothing I can do about it, is the lesser of two evils to:
- Let them hang out at different places where they're at least doing no harm to each other; or
- Force Jill against her will to bake a cake for Jack, seething with rage all the while, and pretend that I'm doing something to reduce hatred.
Would be much better than hiring them in a case where.Dukasaur wrote: ...please, f*ck off and go live in Wisconsin or something while you enjoy them.
Dukasaur wrote:If someone has to fight their gag reflex just to survive an interview with you, they're not likely to want to see you on a daily basis.
mrswdk wrote:Well actually, that link DDS posted says that the judge has explicitly stated her religion as the reason she wants to refuse to marry gay couples and up to this day is still trying to win the right to refuse to marry gay couples. She's a public servant asking for permission to refuse to provide her public service to gay people.
It's funny that in your OP about the death of religious freedom in the US, 2 out of the 3 stories concern the right to be a homophobe. Aren't there any better crusades for you to fight?
mrswdk wrote:And also, LOLthegreekdog wrote:Why are Democrats and liberals (and libertarians) focusing on Christians/Catholics and not other religions?
Coming from a guy in a country where the elected head of state declared that all Muslims should be banned from entering the country on the grounds that they are Muslims.
But no it's Catholicism that gets picked on.
Dukasaur wrote:notyou2 wrote:If you work for the government in a hiring capacity, you have absolutely no right to discriminate based on appearance. What about people with a wandering eye? Do you discriminate against them as well? Or perhaps a facial deformity of a large lump on their neck (gout or some word like that)? Do you discriminate against them?
You sir are a hypocrite and confirmed by your own admission.
I don't work for the government. I work for a private company that has government contracts. There's a big difference.
notyou2 wrote:Dukasaur wrote:notyou2 wrote:If you work for the government in a hiring capacity, you have absolutely no right to discriminate based on appearance. What about people with a wandering eye? Do you discriminate against them as well? Or perhaps a facial deformity of a large lump on their neck (gout or some word like that)? Do you discriminate against them?
You sir are a hypocrite and confirmed by your own admission.
I don't work for the government. I work for a private company that has government contracts. There's a big difference.
Ah, the truth comes out. Why didn't you say that earlier?
DoomYoshi wrote:
Riskllama's ideal mate:
riskllama wrote:DoomYoshi wrote:
Riskllama's ideal mate:
she'd have to lose the rope first...
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: No registered users