Errr, the 14th Amendment?
I mean that's probably what he thinks, but the 14th amendment of course does not apply to private employers.
Errr, the 14th Amendment?
You cannot be fired for being Black.
LOLOh, I tend to agree with you. I was just pointing out that michael1980 isn't doing his argument any favors by continually insulting the people on the other side of the fence.
But, this is P&N. I suppose I shouldn't expect any kind of civility...
Only to the degree that we are all bigots, and should be. Everyone SHOULD be bigoted against child buggerers, for instance. The question is whether your particular bigotry is reasonable and necessary.I know plenty of Christians that don't believe in the bold text. You're right, belief that homosexual acts are a sin makes you a bigot, regardless of your religion.
I know plenty of Christians that don't believe in the bold text. You're right, belief that homosexual acts are a sin makes you a bigot, regardless of your religion.
LOL
I see no inherent sin in homosexuality other than that inherent in any sex outside of marriage.
LOL
Only to the degree that we are all bigots, and should be. Everyone SHOULD be bigoted against child buggerers, for instance. The question is whether your particular bigotry is reasonable and necessary.
I mean that's probably what he thinks, but the 14th amendment of course does not apply to private employers.
Well it actually does, to some extent. It is the legal justification for the Civil Rights Act of 1967 which prevents discrimination in the workplace and makes segregation and discrimination illegal in a public accommodation. So yes, it does apply to private employers.
Just not in the way that people want here.
Why not? Employment is "at will", right?
Black male employee marries a white woman, their employers can fire them?
There is this little thing called civil rights and discrimination. AE discriminated and retaliated against Phil for his religious beliefs.
That is certainly an irony, that so many people who believe sex outside of marriage is a sin also try to prohibit gay marriage - therefore ensuring that gays can have only sinful sex. This is not a problem for them since they also feel that homosexuality (or sometimes, just homosexual acts) are sins in and of themselves.Given gay marriage rights in many places, how are those two things equivalent?
Problem is, defining it like that allows you to insist that all your bigotry is good and sensible and therefore not bigotry, while others' bigotry is, well, bigotry. It's merely another way of stating that you are perfection and all deviation from your example is wrong.Bigotry is usually defined as some sort of baseless, narrow-minded, or otherwise unsupportable dislike of a group. You would never hear someone say 'you're bigoted against people who punch you in the face' or something like that. It wouldn't make sense.
Good point. The Bill of Rights establishes what government may not do to us, but also to some extent what government must prevent others from doing to us. However, one could argue that although the Bill of Rights justifies certain legal protections, those actual protections (against individuals) come from the actual laws, not directly from the Constitution.Well it actually does, to some extent. It is the legal justification for the Civil Rights Act of 1967 which prevents discrimination in the workplace and makes segregation and discrimination illegal in a public accommodation. So yes, it does apply to private employers.
Just not in the way that people want here.
Problem is, defining it like that allows you to insist that all your bigotry is good and sensible and therefore not bigotry, while others' bigotry is, well, bigotry. It's merely another way of stating that you are perfection and all deviation from your example is wrong.
That's not correct. The aspects of the Civil Rights Act of 1967 that apply to private actors do not derive their authority from the 14th amendment, but from Congress' ability to regulate interstate commerce.
The 14th amendment is in no way binding on any private individual.
People should be free to make political and religious comments without retaliation from government, business or individuals.
Why not? Employment is "at will", right?
Black male employee marries a white woman, their employers can fire them?
There is this little thing called civil rights and discrimination. AE discriminated and retaliated against Phil for his religious beliefs.
Straw man. There is no equivalence between a black man marrying a white woman and a television star using his employment as a bully pulpit to promote views that many people find offensive.
LMAO!
Good to see you back. Seems like forever.
Shit, just looked at your posting history - it HAS been forever! Hope everything is okay.
the pope disagrees with you. millions of Christians disagree. plenty of other religions disagree with you.
But you really know that. but are nothing buy an asshole that labels anyone that doesn't accept homosexuality as a bigot. That's ok, continue using the word until it loses all meaning.
No, it's just the definition of the word as it is commonly used. You're trying to shoehorn this into the same tired tropes you always use. What one person considers bigotry and what another person considers bigotry may not be the same thing.
Again, if you said "I'm bigoted against people who punch me", you would get strange looks. Why? Because that is not how the word is commonly used. You would be considered totally justified in disliking those people, and therefore you would not be bigoted for doing so.
Religion is no excuse for bigotry or discrimination, sorry.
Problem is, defining it like that allows you to insist that all your bigotry is good and sensible and therefore not bigotry, while others' bigotry is, well, bigotry. It's merely another way of stating that you are perfection and all deviation from your example is wrong.
Congrats - and I'm beginning to suspect you are correct.Hey, everything is great. Working my butt off, had a kid (a beautiful daughter ), and just stopped posting online for a long time.
This issue interests me because I am certain we are being played. Follow the money. This is a masterful publicity stunt.
Either we have rights, or we do not have rights.
The equal protection clause in the 14th requires all laws must act equally upon all individuals. That's the Constitutional gas in the CRA's tank.
A good read about the 14th here: http://scholars.law.unlv.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1368&context=nlj
Either we have rights, or we do not have rights.
Please make up your mind.
You are trying to nit-pick that certain rights apply at certain times. You do not give up your rights depending on where you are standing, or who is giving you a pay check.