Defending the Truth

The examples you give demonstrate your own intolerance!

It would be more accurate to compare blacks who say affirmative action doesn't go far enough.

Or that any criticism of Israel is by definition hateful and "anti-semitic".

If the homosexual community want to be accepted they will never achieve it by assuming that everyone else has it wrong and demanding that the other 95% of society bend to their views.

Homosexual intolerance and intransigence begins with the ignore feature.

No gay person, decent or otherwise, has trouble fathoming it, since we are confronted by that sentiment literally every single day.

But as I said previously, I work with a couple of people who act in ways I find personally morally troublesome. I don't want to associate with them, but I have to, in order to do my work. And I certainly wouldn't want to see them lose their jobs because of it.

I just act professionally with them, get my work done, and choose not to associate with them any more than I have to, to get my job done.

I'd like to think that your racist woman hating Jew despiser could bring himself do the same thing, but clearly, he can't... and that's why we have laws like ENDA.

I don't think anyone should be tolerant of hatred. But there is a big difference between not accepting hatred and expressing hatred yourself.

If someone wants to play semantic games instead of debating the actual issue, let them. I don't play the circular argument game any more.

That's just it, I think if the person owns the business, it's HIS workplace and I don't have a problem with him/her if all he wants to hire is attractive 18 year old hotties. That's his business. In a corporate setting, there are different rules, but those usually have to be in writing anyway since companies have to protect themselves from employees and managers who may not have direct supervision.

That's the way it is in writing, but if a person doesn't want to hire any black people in the first place, it's pretty easy to just not hire any black people or women in the first place.

I think a person who owns a business should be able to decide who he is hiring. If "gay" is on his personal list of people he doesn't want in his company, it's a person's right not to HAVE to hire one in his personal business. Again, a corporate situation is different.

Black people also come across racist attitudes at times. Except we can't turn white. Gay isn't written across a homosexual's forehead.

I understand that you might work with someone who you might not agree with, but if you owed the company, you should have the right to get rid of that person. That is my point. A hyper religious business owner shouldn't be forced to hire someone who is an militant atheist.

Actually though, I'm gonna read this ENDA bill, because I bet this whole exchange is pointless. Like I said in my first post, even the racial and gander rules only apply after a business has a certain number of employees. My ex's dad only hired white men to work for him under those rules. The same probably applies here.

Employment Non-Discrimination Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"The bill exempts small businesses, religious organizations and the military. Religious businesses (such as Christian book stores) are not exempted."
Never mind. Since most larger corporations already have protections built in, I doubt this bill will make much difference. Good luck.

This post began with hatred already. The initial post states, The bigot spin. Immediately dismissing the argument of the free exercise of religion coupled with the right of free association guaranteed within the 1st Amendment. Whether you like it or not it is a legitimate argument.

Congress is seeking to establish for homosexuals, special rights, for according to the SC they are not qualified for civil rights. In order to be a civil right, there must first be an immutable characteristic, then there must be a showing of being economically disadvantaged, politically powerless and have shown a history of discrimination. Unfortunately homosexuals, bisexuals and even transgenders fail to qualify in any one of those categories.

Despite all the arguments to the contrary, no scientific study has ever shown that homosexuality, bisexuality or transgenderism has a genetic inheritance, instead studies have shown that it is environmental, meaning it is a lifestyle choice. Now to combat this idea of lifestyle, advocates are claiming it is an identity characteristic. In other words it makes me who I am. Unfortunately, if this is accepted for homosexuals as a legitimate argument, then it must be accepted by all groups, religious, liberal, conservative, you name it, all go to make up a persons identity.

I have no problem with government applying fair hiring practices on employers, or for that matter, government sponsored business. However, when government tries to force private business to hire those that for personal, religious, or a variety of other reasons, then we have lost a very big part of our liberty.

This bill will be a lawyers dream. While it includes a narrowly tailored exemption for religious institutions, it does not cover other religious businesses. Like one of the other posts mentions, the Christian Book Store, or even better as Al Gore would like, the Boy Scouts.

dmk

All diversity training does for most people is make them even more resentful of people they have a moral disagreement with. You can't force people to embrace other people they are uncomforable with. The only thing businesses can reasonably expect to accomplish is for employees to work together without harassment.

Hey Cyn, I'd hire you anyday over some beautiful, but stuck-up, heterosexual bitch. (not saying that YOU aren't beautiful)