CP Maverick said:
And when we can't agree on definitions, how can we have a conversation?
I think most of us do agree on definitions. At least "discrimination". It's you that apparently has a different definition for that word. And for "love" I would argue.
Brandon
Life would be so much simpler if we just treated people the way we want to be treated and not put so much faith into fairy tales.
Capt Spaulding said:
Life would be so much simpler if we just treated people the way we want to be treated and not put so much faith into fairy tales.
You mean the "fairy tale" that says to love everyone, including those who persecute you?
rmrufe said:
And I opened this thread thinking the discussion would be about grilled cheese...
It was until a debate started about "bigoted" chicken sandwiches.
Maverick since '99
CP Maverick said:
You mean the "fairy tale" that says to love everyone, including those who persecute you?
That you consider yourself persecuted, and don't consider it discriminatory to deny same sex couples the right to marry speaks volumes, in my opinion.
Brandon
I think you are reading into things well beyond the words actually in front of you.
Maverick since '99
This year MELT has provided my better half and i a fantastic place to grab a beer in A/C with a place to sit in the middle of the park for acceptable prices with a option for a to go drink. That is most awesome ! We kind of plan on regular beer stops and this is great for the middle of the day when you have the energy to go the whole day (or don't have any energy) or for any reason at all. There aren't any real options comparable in the area right ?. We leave a proper tip then back to coasters. We no longer have to plan on going to the outside areas to get the same. Bar area is almost always open for 2-4 ppl., except Saturdays, By the way the food is good also.
CP Maverick said:
So far that's the ONLY issue in this conversation that has varying opinions.
Um, huh? What are those varying opinions?
I still don't see evidence of "inequality" at all.
Gays are discriminated against. Blacks are discriminated against. Latinos are discriminated against. Transgenders are discriminated against. All of which can be backed up by documented statistics.
But you "don't see evidence of 'inequality' at all." Okay. I understand your viewpoint now.
"Equality with conditions" is pretty common in corporate USA... It'd be ignorant to say that "conditions" don't apply to all parts of life. The debate is on WHICH conditions people are okay with and which they are not.
Equality with conditions is pretty common in corporate USA? Really? Most corporations, if only to protect themselves from lawsuits, prefer to follow the law.
Why would it be ignorant to say "conditions" don't apply to all parts of life? Which conditions? Why don't those "conditions" apply to all parts of life?
The forums to determine "WHICH" conditions people are okay with would be Congress, state legislatures and the courts. Corporations such as CFA, who seek to effect social change through their donations, aren't.
I'm a Marxist, of the Groucho sort.
When I refer to discrimination, I am referring to legal discrimination. There is nothing in the law that severs people into different groups as you have implied.
Tangent to that is the border between legal and moral. There are many people who find immorality in things that are legal. This is the current discussion.
Equality with conditions is such a broad description that I have no doubt my idea and your idea are extremely different. Conditions are things like: are you able-bodied enough to have that job? Can you see well enough to drive a car? Are you willing to give up your individual rights to serve as part of the military? Can you pass a drug test? If you don't eat your meat, you can't have any pudding. ...and a million other "conditions" that dictate where you are in life.
Maverick since '99
So there are no laws requiring that blacks be hired as police officers on an equal basis as whites, no laws that require same sex couples be accorded the privileges accorded straight couples?
I agree that there are differences between legal and moral. But, if you choose not to obey the law, if you choose to stand on moral principles, you need to stand on your principles.
I'm a Marxist, of the Groucho sort.
Oh wow I missed it...and we have a popcorn machine at work too, this would have been excellent lol
Maverick, you can have your opinion sure, no wrong part there. I mean hell I've disagreed with both you and Brandon several times in the past, that's fine. The line I think Brandon is trying to draw is this goes past an opinion when the group itself would wish to bar individuals in society from certain civil items (such as marriage as shown above). That's a huge problem, noone should be denied anything because of what they believe. I mean I HATE people who buy a Prius and everything about a Prius, but does that mean if you own one I should have the ability to ban you from a car show (poor example, but I digress).
Businesses should be religiously agnostic, I really don't understand why and when this concept existed that businesses have rights like a normal member of the population in terms of exercising it's rights. I think that's the root of the discussion there is should a business be allowed to maintain and support rights the same as a person should? Should a business be free to select it's customers and only serve certain customers? Should a business have open religious views and pass them on to employees and customers through PR, employee handbooks, etc? That's where I think the discussion moreover is...
Corkscrew, Power Tower, Magnum, & Monster/ Witches Wheel Crew 2011
And (maybe) (hopefully) as my final words on the subject, I agree businesses should be allowed to do what they want, and support whatever causes they feel are important. It's a freedom, and I have no power there. Churches are allowed to do what they want. History, throughout the centuries, is full of examples where people have been more than just a little ostracized for going outside of the church's beliefs. I don't have the power to change that or to stop it. It's their freedom and their every right.
At the same time, I don't have to agree. If a church doesn't welcome me the way I am and won't recognize my marriage that's ok. I won't drop anything on their basket- in fact I won't darken their door. I have plenty other alternatives.
The same goes for my choice in chicken sandwiches. Since Chic-fil-A chooses to spend their corporate money in places that I see, at the very least, inappropriate and ultimately damaging, I will choose not to patronize their establishments in an effort to voice my disapproval. The same goes for places like Hobby Lobby or the bakery owner down the street who refuses to make cakes for certain couples, and all in the name of religion.
I thank God everyday that I live in a time and in a country where I won't be hauled out of my home and hanged, stoned, or burned alive for being who I am. Which, by the way, is happening somewhere. Today.
And, dear PointBuzz friends, I appreciate this forum and respectful discussion. But trust and believe that when given the chance, I will always call anyone out for outright bigotry when I see it. And I don't care if you're a good church-goin family man or a gay dance club owner, no one here, or anywhere else, will ever change my mind on this subject.
RCMAC said:
I will always call anyone out for outright bigotry when I see it.
As we all agree on freedoms being priority, I do want to draw attention to this line. As the last few years have shown, the term "bigot" is typically used by individuals who are objecting to a differing opinion. Unfortunately, those people fail to see the hypocrisy in using such terms. A "bigot" is someone who is intolerant of opposing views, or in other terms, unwilling to accept the existence of opinions of behavior they disagree with. I have, unfortunately, seen much more "bigotry" from the side of "tolerance" because they refuse to accept that there are opinions they disagree with. In fact, I have been called an "intolerant bigot" for stating my disagreement with an opinion on more than one occasion. I have no problem with people holding views outside of my own, and I certainly wouldn't want to infringe on their freedoms, but that doesn't mean I need to be "supportive" of those opinions. Too many people can't disassociate "acceptance" from "encouragement" and see disagreement as an attack. These are very different things.
And I agree that no business should be forced to serve a customer, as it is up to that business whether that decision is worth the risk of losing future customers. Businesses are allowed to impose standards for their employees so why can't they impose standards on the people they work with? Ford did something similar with the latest model of the Ford GT when people needed to apply for the opportunity to purchase the car. Plenty of people with the financial means were denied the opportunity to do business with the company on the basis that they did not meet the requirements. If a business doesn't accept your money, you are more than welcome to spend that money elsewhere. There is always someone who would willingly accept it.
Maverick since '99
CP Maverick said:
...I certainly wouldn't want to infringe on their freedoms, but that doesn't mean I need to be "supportive" of those opinions. Too many people can't disassociate "acceptance" from "encouragement" and see disagreement as an attack. These are very different things.
Yes, they are, and that's the key. Mr. Cathy's opinions are beyond irrelevant to me. It's his and his company's actions toward denying same sex couples the right to marry that is of concern.
And I agree that no business should be forced to serve a customer... Ford did something similar with the latest model of the Ford GT...
Are you suggesting that financial ability is the same as race or sexual orientation? Because... that's not a logical comparison, to put it lightly.
The problem with allowing businesses to serve or not serve certain people comes down to why they're refusing to serve those people. If they don't want to serve someone who's drunk and unruly, sure, that customer can, if they choose, go sober up and return. If, however, they don't want to serve someone based on the color of their skin or their sexual orientation, that's another story. And that can't necessarily be resolved by the marketplace.
Brandon
CP Maverick said
A "bigot" is someone who is intolerant of opposing views, or in other terms, unwilling to accept the existence of opinions of behavior they disagree with....
Yet you believe that homosexuality is just another form of infidelity.
That strikes me as the a definition of someone who is unwilling to accept the opinions of others...
...but that doesn't mean I need to be "supportive" of those opinions.
That you put supportive in quotation marks says a lot about how seriously you take the notion.
Too many people can't disassociate "acceptance" from "encouragement" and see disagreement as an attack.
Yes. They're called Republicans.
And I agree that no business should be forced to serve a customer, as it is up to that business whether that decision is worth the risk of losing future customers. Businesses are allowed to impose standards for their employees so why can't they impose standards on the people they work with?
A business that takes advantage of the many benefits it enjoys by operating in the public space paid for by the general public taxes -- -- roads, sewer systems, fire and police departements -- should reasonably be expected to serve those taxpayers. If they don't want to, they need to close their business.
I'm a Marxist, of the Groucho sort.
I put quotations as a form of emphasis. At least I know you read past the words I use to form a new meaning for yourself.
Also, I didn't say homosexuality was infidelity. I said that infidelity is often the counter argument to same-sex marriage naysayers and that they can both be wrong.
Maverick since '99
You must be logged in to post