|
On June 08 2012 10:24 Uncultured wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2012 10:20 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On June 08 2012 10:17 oldgregg wrote:On June 08 2012 10:10 Uncultured wrote:On June 08 2012 10:00 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On June 08 2012 09:39 AmorFatiAbyss wrote:On June 08 2012 09:19 oldgregg wrote:On June 08 2012 08:31 Savio wrote:On June 08 2012 08:25 oldgregg wrote:On June 08 2012 08:15 Savio wrote:
[quote]
Are all heterosexual men predators? I said I would feel the same either way.
That's why I said it seems pretty simple. Assuming that neither heterosexuality or homosexuality is associated with more "predatorness" or more pedophilia, I would feel the SAME sending my daughter with heterosexual men as I would sending my son with homosexual men. Well according to you yes. You don't have a very high opinion of men do you? I'm a psychiatrist so I deal with people who had the worst done to them. Puts a person on guard after a while. So you admit you're being abit paranoid then? Human rights shouldn't be violated because of paranoia It's a human right to be allowed into a club? Let's not over do it here. It's a national right the child has when the institution is federally funded (even partially) so perhaps you should end the condescending tone and research the topic. Why does federal funding suddenly mean open to everyone? There are other organizations that discriminate against whatever they choose (say, drug testing for jobs) and still receive federal funding. A lot of people tend to argue that because they're paying for it they don't want their money funding bigotry. Well, news flash guys, you don't get to choose where your tax money goes. It can go anywhere and everywhere. It is often spent on things you will be against, whether it be economical, political, or social. If you have a problem with your money funding something that doesn't align with your views petition to have that funding removed, don't petition to change an organizations values. And before you go spouting off about national rights and other people doing the research how about you point out which right that is exactly? It's not a question of who is funding it, it's question of whether an organization's right to discriminate against gay people is more important than the gay person's right to join that organization It is exactly that question, when an organization is publicly funded it has to abide by standards based on equality because equal people pay for it... If you create a private group (privately funded) you can ban anyone on any grounds, if it is publicly funded then no, you must adhere to general civil rights. Obviously since it is federally funded, the organization has zero right to make any claims on civil issues regarding homosexuality/ethnic/race... If it was private, then yes they have every right to do what they want with their time alone. On June 08 2012 10:19 Uncultured wrote:On June 08 2012 10:17 oldgregg wrote:On June 08 2012 10:10 Uncultured wrote:On June 08 2012 10:00 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On June 08 2012 09:39 AmorFatiAbyss wrote:On June 08 2012 09:19 oldgregg wrote:On June 08 2012 08:31 Savio wrote:On June 08 2012 08:25 oldgregg wrote:
[quote]
Well according to you yes. You don't have a very high opinion of men do you? I'm a psychiatrist so I deal with people who had the worst done to them. Puts a person on guard after a while. So you admit you're being abit paranoid then? Human rights shouldn't be violated because of paranoia It's a human right to be allowed into a club? Let's not over do it here. It's a national right the child has when the institution is federally funded (even partially) so perhaps you should end the condescending tone and research the topic. Why does federal funding suddenly mean open to everyone? There are other organizations that discriminate against whatever they choose (say, drug testing for jobs) and still receive federal funding. A lot of people tend to argue that because they're paying for it they don't want their money funding bigotry. Well, news flash guys, you don't get to choose where your tax money goes. It can go anywhere and everywhere. It is often spent on things you will be against, whether it be economical, political, or social. If you have a problem with your money funding something that doesn't align with your views petition to have that funding removed, don't petition to change an organizations values. And before you go spouting off about national rights and other people doing the research how about you point out which right that is exactly? It's not a question of who is funding it, it's question of whether an organization's right to discriminate against gay people is more important than the gay person's right to join that organization Why should you have the right to join an organization that you don't agree with, just because you pay for it through taxes? How is that not putting unnecessary burden on the organization? Either they forsake their values(however misguided and bigoted they are) and let someone in who doesn't share their opinions. Or they lose face for standing by their values and not letting someone in who doesn't share their opinions. stated above, if they want medieval values, they can support themselves through fundraising and not through federal budgeting. Seems like when it's paid by the people, it should be for the people not for specific people who choose to be bigots. That sounds great and is very idealistic, but it isn't how it works in reality. Federally funded construction companies wont hire overweight people. Federally funded corporations wont hire unqualified workers. Just because it's federally funded doesn't mean they can't discriminate by their own standards.
All of your examples make absolute no sense, construction companies won't hire fat people because they simply can't work the job appropriately (if you are speaking about lifting/building) but to improve upon that notion, I've seen hundreds if not thousands of fat construction workers... Define fat a little better, a 250 lbs white collar 5'9 man is fat in my books.
So you're argument is, gay's are not qualified to camp and have fun... Sorry, please tell me where they lack the qualifications for that. I totally agree unqualified workers shouldn't be hired. So tell everyone why gay people are unfit to take on the hardships of boy scouts.
adding, is it because being gay is against the holy scripture? Tell that to the priests, maybe we should ban priests from boy scouts to because they've been in situations where they rape alter boys. Also, ban any man with big strong hands, he may just simply strangle a kid whos helpless. Let's ban anyone who is a liability, ban everyone!
|
On June 08 2012 10:24 Uncultured wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2012 10:20 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On June 08 2012 10:17 oldgregg wrote:On June 08 2012 10:10 Uncultured wrote:On June 08 2012 10:00 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On June 08 2012 09:39 AmorFatiAbyss wrote:On June 08 2012 09:19 oldgregg wrote:On June 08 2012 08:31 Savio wrote:On June 08 2012 08:25 oldgregg wrote:On June 08 2012 08:15 Savio wrote:
[quote]
Are all heterosexual men predators? I said I would feel the same either way.
That's why I said it seems pretty simple. Assuming that neither heterosexuality or homosexuality is associated with more "predatorness" or more pedophilia, I would feel the SAME sending my daughter with heterosexual men as I would sending my son with homosexual men. Well according to you yes. You don't have a very high opinion of men do you? I'm a psychiatrist so I deal with people who had the worst done to them. Puts a person on guard after a while. So you admit you're being abit paranoid then? Human rights shouldn't be violated because of paranoia It's a human right to be allowed into a club? Let's not over do it here. It's a national right the child has when the institution is federally funded (even partially) so perhaps you should end the condescending tone and research the topic. Why does federal funding suddenly mean open to everyone? There are other organizations that discriminate against whatever they choose (say, drug testing for jobs) and still receive federal funding. A lot of people tend to argue that because they're paying for it they don't want their money funding bigotry. Well, news flash guys, you don't get to choose where your tax money goes. It can go anywhere and everywhere. It is often spent on things you will be against, whether it be economical, political, or social. If you have a problem with your money funding something that doesn't align with your views petition to have that funding removed, don't petition to change an organizations values. And before you go spouting off about national rights and other people doing the research how about you point out which right that is exactly? It's not a question of who is funding it, it's question of whether an organization's right to discriminate against gay people is more important than the gay person's right to join that organization It is exactly that question, when an organization is publicly funded it has to abide by standards based on equality because equal people pay for it... If you create a private group (privately funded) you can ban anyone on any grounds, if it is publicly funded then no, you must adhere to general civil rights. Obviously since it is federally funded, the organization has zero right to make any claims on civil issues regarding homosexuality/ethnic/race... If it was private, then yes they have every right to do what they want with their time alone. On June 08 2012 10:19 Uncultured wrote:On June 08 2012 10:17 oldgregg wrote:On June 08 2012 10:10 Uncultured wrote:On June 08 2012 10:00 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On June 08 2012 09:39 AmorFatiAbyss wrote:On June 08 2012 09:19 oldgregg wrote:On June 08 2012 08:31 Savio wrote:On June 08 2012 08:25 oldgregg wrote:
[quote]
Well according to you yes. You don't have a very high opinion of men do you? I'm a psychiatrist so I deal with people who had the worst done to them. Puts a person on guard after a while. So you admit you're being abit paranoid then? Human rights shouldn't be violated because of paranoia It's a human right to be allowed into a club? Let's not over do it here. It's a national right the child has when the institution is federally funded (even partially) so perhaps you should end the condescending tone and research the topic. Why does federal funding suddenly mean open to everyone? There are other organizations that discriminate against whatever they choose (say, drug testing for jobs) and still receive federal funding. A lot of people tend to argue that because they're paying for it they don't want their money funding bigotry. Well, news flash guys, you don't get to choose where your tax money goes. It can go anywhere and everywhere. It is often spent on things you will be against, whether it be economical, political, or social. If you have a problem with your money funding something that doesn't align with your views petition to have that funding removed, don't petition to change an organizations values. And before you go spouting off about national rights and other people doing the research how about you point out which right that is exactly? It's not a question of who is funding it, it's question of whether an organization's right to discriminate against gay people is more important than the gay person's right to join that organization Why should you have the right to join an organization that you don't agree with, just because you pay for it through taxes? How is that not putting unnecessary burden on the organization? Either they forsake their values(however misguided and bigoted they are) and let someone in who doesn't share their opinions. Or they lose face for standing by their values and not letting someone in who doesn't share their opinions. stated above, if they want medieval values, they can support themselves through fundraising and not through federal budgeting. Seems like when it's paid by the people, it should be for the people not for specific people who choose to be bigots. That sounds great and is very idealistic, but it isn't how it works in reality. Federally funded construction companies wont hire overweight people. Federally funded corporations wont hire unqualified workers. Just because it's federally funded doesn't mean they can't discriminate by their own standards.
Unqualified and overweight in certain areas is not discrimination, if ur not qualified you cannot do the job properly if ur overweight in construction industry it might hurt your health or you may not be able to do the job. Discriminating because someone is gay which has no bearing on ability or qualifications is discrimation and if government pays that company and they discriminate then in essence they support it.
|
On June 08 2012 10:27 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
All of your examples make absolute no sense, construction companies won't hire fat people because they simply can't work the job appropriately (if you are speaking about lifting/building) but to improve upon that notion, I've seen hundreds if not thousands of fat construction workers... Define fat a little better, a 250 lbs white collar 5'9 man is fat in my books.
So you're argument is, gay's are not qualified to camp and have fun... Sorry, please tell me where they lack the qualifications for that. I totally agree unqualified workers shouldn't be hired. So tell everyone why gay people are unfit to take on the hardships of boy scouts.
adding, is it because being gay is against the holy scripture? Tell that to the priests, maybe we should ban priests from boy scouts to because they've been in situations where they rape alter boys. Also, ban any man with big strong hands, he may just simply strangle a kid whos helpless. Let's ban anyone who is a liability, ban everyone!
I didn't say gays aren't qualified for anything. Quit putting words in my mouth. I said the company decides what to discriminate against. And unless you can find me a Federal law that states employers or clubs must hire/invite everyone, than your entire argument is based on idealistic hopes and dreams that just don't fit into the real world.
And lol at the non-sequitur ended. Way to go way off the deep end buddy.
|
On June 08 2012 10:30 Uncultured wrote:
I didn't say gays aren't qualified for anything. Quit putting words in my mouth. I said the company decides what to discriminate against. And unless you can find me a Federal law that states employers or clubs must hire/invite everyone, than your entire argument is based on idealistic hopes and dreams that just don't fit into the real world.
They don't have to hire/invite everyone but their hiring system shouldn't discrimate against people who can do the job/activity whatever but who are gay. I do not think its an idealistic hope to think that the world shouldn't be homophobic.
|
On June 08 2012 10:24 Uncultured wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2012 10:20 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On June 08 2012 10:17 oldgregg wrote:On June 08 2012 10:10 Uncultured wrote:On June 08 2012 10:00 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On June 08 2012 09:39 AmorFatiAbyss wrote:On June 08 2012 09:19 oldgregg wrote:On June 08 2012 08:31 Savio wrote:On June 08 2012 08:25 oldgregg wrote:On June 08 2012 08:15 Savio wrote:
[quote]
Are all heterosexual men predators? I said I would feel the same either way.
That's why I said it seems pretty simple. Assuming that neither heterosexuality or homosexuality is associated with more "predatorness" or more pedophilia, I would feel the SAME sending my daughter with heterosexual men as I would sending my son with homosexual men. Well according to you yes. You don't have a very high opinion of men do you? I'm a psychiatrist so I deal with people who had the worst done to them. Puts a person on guard after a while. So you admit you're being abit paranoid then? Human rights shouldn't be violated because of paranoia It's a human right to be allowed into a club? Let's not over do it here. It's a national right the child has when the institution is federally funded (even partially) so perhaps you should end the condescending tone and research the topic. Why does federal funding suddenly mean open to everyone? There are other organizations that discriminate against whatever they choose (say, drug testing for jobs) and still receive federal funding. A lot of people tend to argue that because they're paying for it they don't want their money funding bigotry. Well, news flash guys, you don't get to choose where your tax money goes. It can go anywhere and everywhere. It is often spent on things you will be against, whether it be economical, political, or social. If you have a problem with your money funding something that doesn't align with your views petition to have that funding removed, don't petition to change an organizations values. And before you go spouting off about national rights and other people doing the research how about you point out which right that is exactly? It's not a question of who is funding it, it's question of whether an organization's right to discriminate against gay people is more important than the gay person's right to join that organization It is exactly that question, when an organization is publicly funded it has to abide by standards based on equality because equal people pay for it... If you create a private group (privately funded) you can ban anyone on any grounds, if it is publicly funded then no, you must adhere to general civil rights. Obviously since it is federally funded, the organization has zero right to make any claims on civil issues regarding homosexuality/ethnic/race... If it was private, then yes they have every right to do what they want with their time alone. On June 08 2012 10:19 Uncultured wrote:On June 08 2012 10:17 oldgregg wrote:On June 08 2012 10:10 Uncultured wrote:On June 08 2012 10:00 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On June 08 2012 09:39 AmorFatiAbyss wrote:On June 08 2012 09:19 oldgregg wrote:On June 08 2012 08:31 Savio wrote:On June 08 2012 08:25 oldgregg wrote:
[quote]
Well according to you yes. You don't have a very high opinion of men do you? I'm a psychiatrist so I deal with people who had the worst done to them. Puts a person on guard after a while. So you admit you're being abit paranoid then? Human rights shouldn't be violated because of paranoia It's a human right to be allowed into a club? Let's not over do it here. It's a national right the child has when the institution is federally funded (even partially) so perhaps you should end the condescending tone and research the topic. Why does federal funding suddenly mean open to everyone? There are other organizations that discriminate against whatever they choose (say, drug testing for jobs) and still receive federal funding. A lot of people tend to argue that because they're paying for it they don't want their money funding bigotry. Well, news flash guys, you don't get to choose where your tax money goes. It can go anywhere and everywhere. It is often spent on things you will be against, whether it be economical, political, or social. If you have a problem with your money funding something that doesn't align with your views petition to have that funding removed, don't petition to change an organizations values. And before you go spouting off about national rights and other people doing the research how about you point out which right that is exactly? It's not a question of who is funding it, it's question of whether an organization's right to discriminate against gay people is more important than the gay person's right to join that organization Why should you have the right to join an organization that you don't agree with, just because you pay for it through taxes? How is that not putting unnecessary burden on the organization? Either they forsake their values(however misguided and bigoted they are) and let someone in who doesn't share their opinions. Or they lose face for standing by their values and not letting someone in who doesn't share their opinions. stated above, if they want medieval values, they can support themselves through fundraising and not through federal budgeting. Seems like when it's paid by the people, it should be for the people not for specific people who choose to be bigots. That sounds great and is very idealistic, but it isn't how it works in reality. Federally funded construction companies wont hire overweight people. Federally funded corporations wont hire unqualified workers. Just because it's federally funded doesn't mean they can't discriminate by their own standards.
Those discriminations seem like they have an actual reason for them. What reason, other than bigotry, do the scouts have for not allowing gay people in?
|
On June 08 2012 10:29 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2012 10:24 Uncultured wrote:On June 08 2012 10:20 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On June 08 2012 10:17 oldgregg wrote:On June 08 2012 10:10 Uncultured wrote:On June 08 2012 10:00 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On June 08 2012 09:39 AmorFatiAbyss wrote:On June 08 2012 09:19 oldgregg wrote:On June 08 2012 08:31 Savio wrote:On June 08 2012 08:25 oldgregg wrote:
[quote]
Well according to you yes. You don't have a very high opinion of men do you? I'm a psychiatrist so I deal with people who had the worst done to them. Puts a person on guard after a while. So you admit you're being abit paranoid then? Human rights shouldn't be violated because of paranoia It's a human right to be allowed into a club? Let's not over do it here. It's a national right the child has when the institution is federally funded (even partially) so perhaps you should end the condescending tone and research the topic. Why does federal funding suddenly mean open to everyone? There are other organizations that discriminate against whatever they choose (say, drug testing for jobs) and still receive federal funding. A lot of people tend to argue that because they're paying for it they don't want their money funding bigotry. Well, news flash guys, you don't get to choose where your tax money goes. It can go anywhere and everywhere. It is often spent on things you will be against, whether it be economical, political, or social. If you have a problem with your money funding something that doesn't align with your views petition to have that funding removed, don't petition to change an organizations values. And before you go spouting off about national rights and other people doing the research how about you point out which right that is exactly? It's not a question of who is funding it, it's question of whether an organization's right to discriminate against gay people is more important than the gay person's right to join that organization It is exactly that question, when an organization is publicly funded it has to abide by standards based on equality because equal people pay for it... If you create a private group (privately funded) you can ban anyone on any grounds, if it is publicly funded then no, you must adhere to general civil rights. Obviously since it is federally funded, the organization has zero right to make any claims on civil issues regarding homosexuality/ethnic/race... If it was private, then yes they have every right to do what they want with their time alone. On June 08 2012 10:19 Uncultured wrote:On June 08 2012 10:17 oldgregg wrote:On June 08 2012 10:10 Uncultured wrote:On June 08 2012 10:00 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On June 08 2012 09:39 AmorFatiAbyss wrote:On June 08 2012 09:19 oldgregg wrote:On June 08 2012 08:31 Savio wrote:
[quote]
I'm a psychiatrist so I deal with people who had the worst done to them. Puts a person on guard after a while. So you admit you're being abit paranoid then? Human rights shouldn't be violated because of paranoia It's a human right to be allowed into a club? Let's not over do it here. It's a national right the child has when the institution is federally funded (even partially) so perhaps you should end the condescending tone and research the topic. Why does federal funding suddenly mean open to everyone? There are other organizations that discriminate against whatever they choose (say, drug testing for jobs) and still receive federal funding. A lot of people tend to argue that because they're paying for it they don't want their money funding bigotry. Well, news flash guys, you don't get to choose where your tax money goes. It can go anywhere and everywhere. It is often spent on things you will be against, whether it be economical, political, or social. If you have a problem with your money funding something that doesn't align with your views petition to have that funding removed, don't petition to change an organizations values. And before you go spouting off about national rights and other people doing the research how about you point out which right that is exactly? It's not a question of who is funding it, it's question of whether an organization's right to discriminate against gay people is more important than the gay person's right to join that organization Why should you have the right to join an organization that you don't agree with, just because you pay for it through taxes? How is that not putting unnecessary burden on the organization? Either they forsake their values(however misguided and bigoted they are) and let someone in who doesn't share their opinions. Or they lose face for standing by their values and not letting someone in who doesn't share their opinions. stated above, if they want medieval values, they can support themselves through fundraising and not through federal budgeting. Seems like when it's paid by the people, it should be for the people not for specific people who choose to be bigots. That sounds great and is very idealistic, but it isn't how it works in reality. Federally funded construction companies wont hire overweight people. Federally funded corporations wont hire unqualified workers. Just because it's federally funded doesn't mean they can't discriminate by their own standards. Unqualified and overweight in certain areas is not discrimination, if ur not qualified you cannot do the job properly if ur overweight in construction industry it might hurt your health or you may not be able to do the job. Discriminating because someone is gay which has no bearing on ability or qualifications is discrimation and if government pays that company and they discriminate then in essence they support it.
Discrimination's definition isn't as narrow as you're painting it to be. Take the earlier medicinal drugs argument. Or how 'bout a new one. Many companies discriminate employers based on the criminal record. Something that has no bearing on qualifications or ability. Yet it's still done. Because an employer/company/organization is allowed to make their own rules, even while federally funded.
|
On June 08 2012 10:34 oldgregg wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2012 10:24 Uncultured wrote:On June 08 2012 10:20 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On June 08 2012 10:17 oldgregg wrote:On June 08 2012 10:10 Uncultured wrote:On June 08 2012 10:00 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On June 08 2012 09:39 AmorFatiAbyss wrote:On June 08 2012 09:19 oldgregg wrote:On June 08 2012 08:31 Savio wrote:On June 08 2012 08:25 oldgregg wrote:
[quote]
Well according to you yes. You don't have a very high opinion of men do you? I'm a psychiatrist so I deal with people who had the worst done to them. Puts a person on guard after a while. So you admit you're being abit paranoid then? Human rights shouldn't be violated because of paranoia It's a human right to be allowed into a club? Let's not over do it here. It's a national right the child has when the institution is federally funded (even partially) so perhaps you should end the condescending tone and research the topic. Why does federal funding suddenly mean open to everyone? There are other organizations that discriminate against whatever they choose (say, drug testing for jobs) and still receive federal funding. A lot of people tend to argue that because they're paying for it they don't want their money funding bigotry. Well, news flash guys, you don't get to choose where your tax money goes. It can go anywhere and everywhere. It is often spent on things you will be against, whether it be economical, political, or social. If you have a problem with your money funding something that doesn't align with your views petition to have that funding removed, don't petition to change an organizations values. And before you go spouting off about national rights and other people doing the research how about you point out which right that is exactly? It's not a question of who is funding it, it's question of whether an organization's right to discriminate against gay people is more important than the gay person's right to join that organization It is exactly that question, when an organization is publicly funded it has to abide by standards based on equality because equal people pay for it... If you create a private group (privately funded) you can ban anyone on any grounds, if it is publicly funded then no, you must adhere to general civil rights. Obviously since it is federally funded, the organization has zero right to make any claims on civil issues regarding homosexuality/ethnic/race... If it was private, then yes they have every right to do what they want with their time alone. On June 08 2012 10:19 Uncultured wrote:On June 08 2012 10:17 oldgregg wrote:On June 08 2012 10:10 Uncultured wrote:On June 08 2012 10:00 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On June 08 2012 09:39 AmorFatiAbyss wrote:On June 08 2012 09:19 oldgregg wrote:On June 08 2012 08:31 Savio wrote:
[quote]
I'm a psychiatrist so I deal with people who had the worst done to them. Puts a person on guard after a while. So you admit you're being abit paranoid then? Human rights shouldn't be violated because of paranoia It's a human right to be allowed into a club? Let's not over do it here. It's a national right the child has when the institution is federally funded (even partially) so perhaps you should end the condescending tone and research the topic. Why does federal funding suddenly mean open to everyone? There are other organizations that discriminate against whatever they choose (say, drug testing for jobs) and still receive federal funding. A lot of people tend to argue that because they're paying for it they don't want their money funding bigotry. Well, news flash guys, you don't get to choose where your tax money goes. It can go anywhere and everywhere. It is often spent on things you will be against, whether it be economical, political, or social. If you have a problem with your money funding something that doesn't align with your views petition to have that funding removed, don't petition to change an organizations values. And before you go spouting off about national rights and other people doing the research how about you point out which right that is exactly? It's not a question of who is funding it, it's question of whether an organization's right to discriminate against gay people is more important than the gay person's right to join that organization Why should you have the right to join an organization that you don't agree with, just because you pay for it through taxes? How is that not putting unnecessary burden on the organization? Either they forsake their values(however misguided and bigoted they are) and let someone in who doesn't share their opinions. Or they lose face for standing by their values and not letting someone in who doesn't share their opinions. stated above, if they want medieval values, they can support themselves through fundraising and not through federal budgeting. Seems like when it's paid by the people, it should be for the people not for specific people who choose to be bigots. That sounds great and is very idealistic, but it isn't how it works in reality. Federally funded construction companies wont hire overweight people. Federally funded corporations wont hire unqualified workers. Just because it's federally funded doesn't mean they can't discriminate by their own standards. Those discriminations seem like they have an actual reason for them. What reason, other than bigotry, do the scouts have for not allowing gay people in?
The reasoning doesn't matter at all. The company decides the qualifications for something. The closest you can get is Federal stipulations that will revoke funding if certain qualifications aren't met. This can possibly force a company into changing its rules. But you can't force a company to change its practices simply because it is already funded.
Once again, vote where your money goes, not what the companies practices' that it goes to are.
|
On June 08 2012 10:38 Uncultured wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2012 10:34 oldgregg wrote:On June 08 2012 10:24 Uncultured wrote:On June 08 2012 10:20 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On June 08 2012 10:17 oldgregg wrote:On June 08 2012 10:10 Uncultured wrote:On June 08 2012 10:00 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On June 08 2012 09:39 AmorFatiAbyss wrote:On June 08 2012 09:19 oldgregg wrote:On June 08 2012 08:31 Savio wrote:
[quote]
I'm a psychiatrist so I deal with people who had the worst done to them. Puts a person on guard after a while. So you admit you're being abit paranoid then? Human rights shouldn't be violated because of paranoia It's a human right to be allowed into a club? Let's not over do it here. It's a national right the child has when the institution is federally funded (even partially) so perhaps you should end the condescending tone and research the topic. Why does federal funding suddenly mean open to everyone? There are other organizations that discriminate against whatever they choose (say, drug testing for jobs) and still receive federal funding. A lot of people tend to argue that because they're paying for it they don't want their money funding bigotry. Well, news flash guys, you don't get to choose where your tax money goes. It can go anywhere and everywhere. It is often spent on things you will be against, whether it be economical, political, or social. If you have a problem with your money funding something that doesn't align with your views petition to have that funding removed, don't petition to change an organizations values. And before you go spouting off about national rights and other people doing the research how about you point out which right that is exactly? It's not a question of who is funding it, it's question of whether an organization's right to discriminate against gay people is more important than the gay person's right to join that organization It is exactly that question, when an organization is publicly funded it has to abide by standards based on equality because equal people pay for it... If you create a private group (privately funded) you can ban anyone on any grounds, if it is publicly funded then no, you must adhere to general civil rights. Obviously since it is federally funded, the organization has zero right to make any claims on civil issues regarding homosexuality/ethnic/race... If it was private, then yes they have every right to do what they want with their time alone. On June 08 2012 10:19 Uncultured wrote:On June 08 2012 10:17 oldgregg wrote:On June 08 2012 10:10 Uncultured wrote:On June 08 2012 10:00 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On June 08 2012 09:39 AmorFatiAbyss wrote:On June 08 2012 09:19 oldgregg wrote:
[quote]
So you admit you're being abit paranoid then? Human rights shouldn't be violated because of paranoia
It's a human right to be allowed into a club? Let's not over do it here. It's a national right the child has when the institution is federally funded (even partially) so perhaps you should end the condescending tone and research the topic. Why does federal funding suddenly mean open to everyone? There are other organizations that discriminate against whatever they choose (say, drug testing for jobs) and still receive federal funding. A lot of people tend to argue that because they're paying for it they don't want their money funding bigotry. Well, news flash guys, you don't get to choose where your tax money goes. It can go anywhere and everywhere. It is often spent on things you will be against, whether it be economical, political, or social. If you have a problem with your money funding something that doesn't align with your views petition to have that funding removed, don't petition to change an organizations values. And before you go spouting off about national rights and other people doing the research how about you point out which right that is exactly? It's not a question of who is funding it, it's question of whether an organization's right to discriminate against gay people is more important than the gay person's right to join that organization Why should you have the right to join an organization that you don't agree with, just because you pay for it through taxes? How is that not putting unnecessary burden on the organization? Either they forsake their values(however misguided and bigoted they are) and let someone in who doesn't share their opinions. Or they lose face for standing by their values and not letting someone in who doesn't share their opinions. stated above, if they want medieval values, they can support themselves through fundraising and not through federal budgeting. Seems like when it's paid by the people, it should be for the people not for specific people who choose to be bigots. That sounds great and is very idealistic, but it isn't how it works in reality. Federally funded construction companies wont hire overweight people. Federally funded corporations wont hire unqualified workers. Just because it's federally funded doesn't mean they can't discriminate by their own standards. Those discriminations seem like they have an actual reason for them. What reason, other than bigotry, do the scouts have for not allowing gay people in? The reasoning doesn't matter at all. The company decides the qualifications for something. The closest you can get is Federal stipulations that will revoke funding if certain qualifications aren't met. This can possibly force a company into changing its rules. But you can't force a company to change its practices simply because it is already funded. Once again, vote where your money goes, not what the companies practices that it goes to are.
well yes the reasoning does matter. can you imagine what would happen if federally owned construction companies starting not hiring gay people? there would be an uproar and the company would rightly have to back down. if you think that the scouts and federally owned companies are so similar then how can you not see that that is what is happening right now to the scouts? people are outraged and the scouts should rightly back down.
and as to your last sentence, that is just your opinion. I think we should have some say over what companies can and can't do.
|
anyone else think uncultured is just speaking in circles making absolutely no relevant points? Maybe we all should just generally ignore him, anyone who thinks gays are unqualified to go camping/sing songs/have fun is pretty idiotic if you ask me, you won't get far in an argument with him.
No one has once said that they must hire everyone, but they must accept applicants who are qualified without gender/sexual/race discriminatory practices... Do you check your calender? most of these civil laws were passed 30 years ago, the one on gays was in the 90's...
The only reason anyone here is making the qualified argument, is because you chose the "would a construction company hire a fat man, no he's unqualified" which makes your argument that companies shouldnt (or groups) hire unqualified people, so gays then must be unqualified.
Let's all be bigots for a second, take on the role of the "uncultured" individual and be a bigot towards him and continue discussing how this could be possible.
|
On June 08 2012 10:48 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
anyone else think uncultured is just speaking in circles making absolutely no relevant points? Maybe we all should just generally ignore him, anyone who thinks gays are unqualified to go camping/sing songs/have fun is pretty idiotic if you ask me, you won't get far in an argument with him.
No one has once said that they must hire everyone, but they must accept applicants who are qualified without gender/sexual/race discriminatory practices... Do you check your calender? most of these civil laws were passed 30 years ago, the one on gays was in the 90's...
The only reason anyone here is making the qualified argument, is because you chose the "would a construction company hire a fat man, no he's unqualified" which makes your argument that companies shouldnt (or groups) hire unqualified people, so gays then must be unqualified.
Let's all be bigots for a second, take on the role of the "uncultured" individual and be a bigot towards him and continue discussing how this could be possible.
Ok agreed  I'm done feeding trolls for one day
|
hmm
next they would have to allow atheists
could be interesting
|
On June 08 2012 10:48 oldgregg wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2012 10:38 Uncultured wrote:On June 08 2012 10:34 oldgregg wrote:On June 08 2012 10:24 Uncultured wrote:On June 08 2012 10:20 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On June 08 2012 10:17 oldgregg wrote:On June 08 2012 10:10 Uncultured wrote:On June 08 2012 10:00 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On June 08 2012 09:39 AmorFatiAbyss wrote:On June 08 2012 09:19 oldgregg wrote:
[quote]
So you admit you're being abit paranoid then? Human rights shouldn't be violated because of paranoia
It's a human right to be allowed into a club? Let's not over do it here. It's a national right the child has when the institution is federally funded (even partially) so perhaps you should end the condescending tone and research the topic. Why does federal funding suddenly mean open to everyone? There are other organizations that discriminate against whatever they choose (say, drug testing for jobs) and still receive federal funding. A lot of people tend to argue that because they're paying for it they don't want their money funding bigotry. Well, news flash guys, you don't get to choose where your tax money goes. It can go anywhere and everywhere. It is often spent on things you will be against, whether it be economical, political, or social. If you have a problem with your money funding something that doesn't align with your views petition to have that funding removed, don't petition to change an organizations values. And before you go spouting off about national rights and other people doing the research how about you point out which right that is exactly? It's not a question of who is funding it, it's question of whether an organization's right to discriminate against gay people is more important than the gay person's right to join that organization It is exactly that question, when an organization is publicly funded it has to abide by standards based on equality because equal people pay for it... If you create a private group (privately funded) you can ban anyone on any grounds, if it is publicly funded then no, you must adhere to general civil rights. Obviously since it is federally funded, the organization has zero right to make any claims on civil issues regarding homosexuality/ethnic/race... If it was private, then yes they have every right to do what they want with their time alone. On June 08 2012 10:19 Uncultured wrote:On June 08 2012 10:17 oldgregg wrote:On June 08 2012 10:10 Uncultured wrote:On June 08 2012 10:00 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On June 08 2012 09:39 AmorFatiAbyss wrote:
[quote]
It's a human right to be allowed into a club? Let's not over do it here. It's a national right the child has when the institution is federally funded (even partially) so perhaps you should end the condescending tone and research the topic. Why does federal funding suddenly mean open to everyone? There are other organizations that discriminate against whatever they choose (say, drug testing for jobs) and still receive federal funding. A lot of people tend to argue that because they're paying for it they don't want their money funding bigotry. Well, news flash guys, you don't get to choose where your tax money goes. It can go anywhere and everywhere. It is often spent on things you will be against, whether it be economical, political, or social. If you have a problem with your money funding something that doesn't align with your views petition to have that funding removed, don't petition to change an organizations values. And before you go spouting off about national rights and other people doing the research how about you point out which right that is exactly? It's not a question of who is funding it, it's question of whether an organization's right to discriminate against gay people is more important than the gay person's right to join that organization Why should you have the right to join an organization that you don't agree with, just because you pay for it through taxes? How is that not putting unnecessary burden on the organization? Either they forsake their values(however misguided and bigoted they are) and let someone in who doesn't share their opinions. Or they lose face for standing by their values and not letting someone in who doesn't share their opinions. stated above, if they want medieval values, they can support themselves through fundraising and not through federal budgeting. Seems like when it's paid by the people, it should be for the people not for specific people who choose to be bigots. That sounds great and is very idealistic, but it isn't how it works in reality. Federally funded construction companies wont hire overweight people. Federally funded corporations wont hire unqualified workers. Just because it's federally funded doesn't mean they can't discriminate by their own standards. Those discriminations seem like they have an actual reason for them. What reason, other than bigotry, do the scouts have for not allowing gay people in? The reasoning doesn't matter at all. The company decides the qualifications for something. The closest you can get is Federal stipulations that will revoke funding if certain qualifications aren't met. This can possibly force a company into changing its rules. But you can't force a company to change its practices simply because it is already funded. Once again, vote where your money goes, not what the companies practices that it goes to are. well yes the reasoning does matter. can you imagine what would happen if federally owned construction companies starting not hiring gay people? there would be an uproar and the company would rightly have to back down. if you think that the scouts and federally owned companies are so similar then how can you not see that that is what is happening right now to the scouts? people are outraged and the scouts should rightly back down. and as to your last sentence, that is just your opinion. I think we should have some say over what companies can and can't do.
It doesn't matter in the eyes of the law. Whether it does in your, or my opinion. That's my point here.
That's the thing. It's not my opinion, it's how it currently works. I didn't say it's how it should work. You have a say by voting where your money goes. If someone is threatening to pull money if you don't allow gays, then it is up to you, the company, whether or not they change their rules, or give up funding.
You don't get to make the rules simply because you pay a bit of money, that's backwards from how it should(and currently does) work. Everyone in the world would have so many conflicting opinions that anything federally funded would have no regulations on hiring whatsoever, or too many. Or they would constantly be in flux because of differing opinions.
|
On June 08 2012 10:53 oldgregg wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2012 10:48 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
anyone else think uncultured is just speaking in circles making absolutely no relevant points? Maybe we all should just generally ignore him, anyone who thinks gays are unqualified to go camping/sing songs/have fun is pretty idiotic if you ask me, you won't get far in an argument with him.
No one has once said that they must hire everyone, but they must accept applicants who are qualified without gender/sexual/race discriminatory practices... Do you check your calender? most of these civil laws were passed 30 years ago, the one on gays was in the 90's...
The only reason anyone here is making the qualified argument, is because you chose the "would a construction company hire a fat man, no he's unqualified" which makes your argument that companies shouldnt (or groups) hire unqualified people, so gays then must be unqualified.
Let's all be bigots for a second, take on the role of the "uncultured" individual and be a bigot towards him and continue discussing how this could be possible. Ok agreed I'm done feeding trolls for one day
Clearly you don't know what trolling is. How am I speaking in circles? I'm simply describing how the current system works, and why it works that way. Your only arguments against them so far is "well that's not right". Well, the law doesn't give a shit about what's right, sorry.
|
On June 08 2012 10:36 Uncultured wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2012 10:29 Zaros wrote:On June 08 2012 10:24 Uncultured wrote:On June 08 2012 10:20 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On June 08 2012 10:17 oldgregg wrote:On June 08 2012 10:10 Uncultured wrote:On June 08 2012 10:00 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On June 08 2012 09:39 AmorFatiAbyss wrote:On June 08 2012 09:19 oldgregg wrote:On June 08 2012 08:31 Savio wrote:
[quote]
I'm a psychiatrist so I deal with people who had the worst done to them. Puts a person on guard after a while. So you admit you're being abit paranoid then? Human rights shouldn't be violated because of paranoia It's a human right to be allowed into a club? Let's not over do it here. It's a national right the child has when the institution is federally funded (even partially) so perhaps you should end the condescending tone and research the topic. Why does federal funding suddenly mean open to everyone? There are other organizations that discriminate against whatever they choose (say, drug testing for jobs) and still receive federal funding. A lot of people tend to argue that because they're paying for it they don't want their money funding bigotry. Well, news flash guys, you don't get to choose where your tax money goes. It can go anywhere and everywhere. It is often spent on things you will be against, whether it be economical, political, or social. If you have a problem with your money funding something that doesn't align with your views petition to have that funding removed, don't petition to change an organizations values. And before you go spouting off about national rights and other people doing the research how about you point out which right that is exactly? It's not a question of who is funding it, it's question of whether an organization's right to discriminate against gay people is more important than the gay person's right to join that organization It is exactly that question, when an organization is publicly funded it has to abide by standards based on equality because equal people pay for it... If you create a private group (privately funded) you can ban anyone on any grounds, if it is publicly funded then no, you must adhere to general civil rights. Obviously since it is federally funded, the organization has zero right to make any claims on civil issues regarding homosexuality/ethnic/race... If it was private, then yes they have every right to do what they want with their time alone. On June 08 2012 10:19 Uncultured wrote:On June 08 2012 10:17 oldgregg wrote:On June 08 2012 10:10 Uncultured wrote:On June 08 2012 10:00 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On June 08 2012 09:39 AmorFatiAbyss wrote:On June 08 2012 09:19 oldgregg wrote:
[quote]
So you admit you're being abit paranoid then? Human rights shouldn't be violated because of paranoia
It's a human right to be allowed into a club? Let's not over do it here. It's a national right the child has when the institution is federally funded (even partially) so perhaps you should end the condescending tone and research the topic. Why does federal funding suddenly mean open to everyone? There are other organizations that discriminate against whatever they choose (say, drug testing for jobs) and still receive federal funding. A lot of people tend to argue that because they're paying for it they don't want their money funding bigotry. Well, news flash guys, you don't get to choose where your tax money goes. It can go anywhere and everywhere. It is often spent on things you will be against, whether it be economical, political, or social. If you have a problem with your money funding something that doesn't align with your views petition to have that funding removed, don't petition to change an organizations values. And before you go spouting off about national rights and other people doing the research how about you point out which right that is exactly? It's not a question of who is funding it, it's question of whether an organization's right to discriminate against gay people is more important than the gay person's right to join that organization Why should you have the right to join an organization that you don't agree with, just because you pay for it through taxes? How is that not putting unnecessary burden on the organization? Either they forsake their values(however misguided and bigoted they are) and let someone in who doesn't share their opinions. Or they lose face for standing by their values and not letting someone in who doesn't share their opinions. stated above, if they want medieval values, they can support themselves through fundraising and not through federal budgeting. Seems like when it's paid by the people, it should be for the people not for specific people who choose to be bigots. That sounds great and is very idealistic, but it isn't how it works in reality. Federally funded construction companies wont hire overweight people. Federally funded corporations wont hire unqualified workers. Just because it's federally funded doesn't mean they can't discriminate by their own standards. Unqualified and overweight in certain areas is not discrimination, if ur not qualified you cannot do the job properly if ur overweight in construction industry it might hurt your health or you may not be able to do the job. Discriminating because someone is gay which has no bearing on ability or qualifications is discrimation and if government pays that company and they discriminate then in essence they support it. Discrimination's definition isn't as narrow as you're painting it to be. Take the earlier medicinal drugs argument. Or how 'bout a new one. Many companies discriminate employers based on the criminal record. Something that has no bearing on qualifications or ability. Yet it's still done. Because an employer/company/organization is allowed to make their own rules, even while federally funded.
Why are you still even arguing this, just admit you're wrong and stop fishing. Wow. You are trying to win an argument on semantics about what discrimination is when no one cares. There is a reason that people on medicinal drugs are not allowed to do a job, because they are not qualified to do a job---I know people on things such as strong painkillers, they shouldn't be trusted to do very much. There is a reason that construction workers cannot be overweight, because they will not be qualified for the job. My uncle and cousin work in the construction field, this is true. Many companies will not allow a criminal in their field because it is a position of trust and you have shown yourself to be untrustworthy in the eyes of the law---I am a pre-med student that volunteers at hospitals, I know the reason they won't hire certain criminals.
However, companies are NOT allowed to discriminate on things irrelevant to the job such as race, gender (unless being a female makes them unqualified for it, for example a job that requires a lot of heavy lifting), etc. Sexual orientation is the same, discrimination based solely on an irrelevant factor. That's called equal opportunity employing, if you have filled out a job application you know what that is. Companies that are not equal opportunity employers will have federal funds withheld, can be sued, legal action brought against them, etc. This is the real world, not your ridiculous examples.
Your argument is just ridiculous. Stop.
|
On June 08 2012 10:57 Heavenlee wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2012 10:36 Uncultured wrote:On June 08 2012 10:29 Zaros wrote:On June 08 2012 10:24 Uncultured wrote:On June 08 2012 10:20 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On June 08 2012 10:17 oldgregg wrote:On June 08 2012 10:10 Uncultured wrote:On June 08 2012 10:00 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On June 08 2012 09:39 AmorFatiAbyss wrote:On June 08 2012 09:19 oldgregg wrote:
[quote]
So you admit you're being abit paranoid then? Human rights shouldn't be violated because of paranoia
It's a human right to be allowed into a club? Let's not over do it here. It's a national right the child has when the institution is federally funded (even partially) so perhaps you should end the condescending tone and research the topic. Why does federal funding suddenly mean open to everyone? There are other organizations that discriminate against whatever they choose (say, drug testing for jobs) and still receive federal funding. A lot of people tend to argue that because they're paying for it they don't want their money funding bigotry. Well, news flash guys, you don't get to choose where your tax money goes. It can go anywhere and everywhere. It is often spent on things you will be against, whether it be economical, political, or social. If you have a problem with your money funding something that doesn't align with your views petition to have that funding removed, don't petition to change an organizations values. And before you go spouting off about national rights and other people doing the research how about you point out which right that is exactly? It's not a question of who is funding it, it's question of whether an organization's right to discriminate against gay people is more important than the gay person's right to join that organization It is exactly that question, when an organization is publicly funded it has to abide by standards based on equality because equal people pay for it... If you create a private group (privately funded) you can ban anyone on any grounds, if it is publicly funded then no, you must adhere to general civil rights. Obviously since it is federally funded, the organization has zero right to make any claims on civil issues regarding homosexuality/ethnic/race... If it was private, then yes they have every right to do what they want with their time alone. On June 08 2012 10:19 Uncultured wrote:On June 08 2012 10:17 oldgregg wrote:On June 08 2012 10:10 Uncultured wrote:On June 08 2012 10:00 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On June 08 2012 09:39 AmorFatiAbyss wrote:
[quote]
It's a human right to be allowed into a club? Let's not over do it here. It's a national right the child has when the institution is federally funded (even partially) so perhaps you should end the condescending tone and research the topic. Why does federal funding suddenly mean open to everyone? There are other organizations that discriminate against whatever they choose (say, drug testing for jobs) and still receive federal funding. A lot of people tend to argue that because they're paying for it they don't want their money funding bigotry. Well, news flash guys, you don't get to choose where your tax money goes. It can go anywhere and everywhere. It is often spent on things you will be against, whether it be economical, political, or social. If you have a problem with your money funding something that doesn't align with your views petition to have that funding removed, don't petition to change an organizations values. And before you go spouting off about national rights and other people doing the research how about you point out which right that is exactly? It's not a question of who is funding it, it's question of whether an organization's right to discriminate against gay people is more important than the gay person's right to join that organization Why should you have the right to join an organization that you don't agree with, just because you pay for it through taxes? How is that not putting unnecessary burden on the organization? Either they forsake their values(however misguided and bigoted they are) and let someone in who doesn't share their opinions. Or they lose face for standing by their values and not letting someone in who doesn't share their opinions. stated above, if they want medieval values, they can support themselves through fundraising and not through federal budgeting. Seems like when it's paid by the people, it should be for the people not for specific people who choose to be bigots. That sounds great and is very idealistic, but it isn't how it works in reality. Federally funded construction companies wont hire overweight people. Federally funded corporations wont hire unqualified workers. Just because it's federally funded doesn't mean they can't discriminate by their own standards. Unqualified and overweight in certain areas is not discrimination, if ur not qualified you cannot do the job properly if ur overweight in construction industry it might hurt your health or you may not be able to do the job. Discriminating because someone is gay which has no bearing on ability or qualifications is discrimation and if government pays that company and they discriminate then in essence they support it. Discrimination's definition isn't as narrow as you're painting it to be. Take the earlier medicinal drugs argument. Or how 'bout a new one. Many companies discriminate employers based on the criminal record. Something that has no bearing on qualifications or ability. Yet it's still done. Because an employer/company/organization is allowed to make their own rules, even while federally funded. Why are you still even arguing this, just admit you're wrong and stop fishing. Wow. You are trying to win an argument on semantics about what discrimination is when no one cares. There is a reason that people on medicinal drugs are not allowed to do a job, because they are not qualified to do a job---I know people on things such as strong painkillers, they shouldn't be trusted to do very much. There is a reason that construction workers cannot be overweight, because they will not be qualified for the job. My uncle and cousin work in the construction field, this is true. Many companies will not allow a criminal in their field because it is a position of trust and you have shown yourself to be untrustworthy in the eyes of the law---I am a pre-med student that volunteers at hospitals, I know the reason they won't hire certain criminals. However, companies are NOT allowed to discriminate on things irrelevant to the job such as race, gender (unless being a female makes them unqualified for it, for example a job that requires a lot of heavy lifting), etc. That's called equal opportunity employing, if you have filled out a job application you know what that is. Your argument is just ridiculous. Stop.
You can be perfectly qualified for certain work while on certain drugs. But you seem to be missing the point entirely. A company is allowed to, by law, discriminate based on certain things. Ther are stipulations against this when money is being paid. But that is not an example of what is happening for the scouts. There's no money being lost because of discrimination.
There's been no laws passed forcing the scouts to accepts gays. Otherwise they already would have and this argument would have never happened. If you don't like your money funding a company that doesn't hold your views, you can vote to have federal funding removed.
|
On June 08 2012 11:01 Uncultured wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2012 10:57 Heavenlee wrote:On June 08 2012 10:36 Uncultured wrote:On June 08 2012 10:29 Zaros wrote:On June 08 2012 10:24 Uncultured wrote:On June 08 2012 10:20 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On June 08 2012 10:17 oldgregg wrote:On June 08 2012 10:10 Uncultured wrote:On June 08 2012 10:00 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On June 08 2012 09:39 AmorFatiAbyss wrote:
[quote]
It's a human right to be allowed into a club? Let's not over do it here. It's a national right the child has when the institution is federally funded (even partially) so perhaps you should end the condescending tone and research the topic. Why does federal funding suddenly mean open to everyone? There are other organizations that discriminate against whatever they choose (say, drug testing for jobs) and still receive federal funding. A lot of people tend to argue that because they're paying for it they don't want their money funding bigotry. Well, news flash guys, you don't get to choose where your tax money goes. It can go anywhere and everywhere. It is often spent on things you will be against, whether it be economical, political, or social. If you have a problem with your money funding something that doesn't align with your views petition to have that funding removed, don't petition to change an organizations values. And before you go spouting off about national rights and other people doing the research how about you point out which right that is exactly? It's not a question of who is funding it, it's question of whether an organization's right to discriminate against gay people is more important than the gay person's right to join that organization It is exactly that question, when an organization is publicly funded it has to abide by standards based on equality because equal people pay for it... If you create a private group (privately funded) you can ban anyone on any grounds, if it is publicly funded then no, you must adhere to general civil rights. Obviously since it is federally funded, the organization has zero right to make any claims on civil issues regarding homosexuality/ethnic/race... If it was private, then yes they have every right to do what they want with their time alone. On June 08 2012 10:19 Uncultured wrote:On June 08 2012 10:17 oldgregg wrote:On June 08 2012 10:10 Uncultured wrote:On June 08 2012 10:00 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
[quote]
It's a national right the child has when the institution is federally funded (even partially) so perhaps you should end the condescending tone and research the topic. Why does federal funding suddenly mean open to everyone? There are other organizations that discriminate against whatever they choose (say, drug testing for jobs) and still receive federal funding. A lot of people tend to argue that because they're paying for it they don't want their money funding bigotry. Well, news flash guys, you don't get to choose where your tax money goes. It can go anywhere and everywhere. It is often spent on things you will be against, whether it be economical, political, or social. If you have a problem with your money funding something that doesn't align with your views petition to have that funding removed, don't petition to change an organizations values. And before you go spouting off about national rights and other people doing the research how about you point out which right that is exactly? It's not a question of who is funding it, it's question of whether an organization's right to discriminate against gay people is more important than the gay person's right to join that organization Why should you have the right to join an organization that you don't agree with, just because you pay for it through taxes? How is that not putting unnecessary burden on the organization? Either they forsake their values(however misguided and bigoted they are) and let someone in who doesn't share their opinions. Or they lose face for standing by their values and not letting someone in who doesn't share their opinions. stated above, if they want medieval values, they can support themselves through fundraising and not through federal budgeting. Seems like when it's paid by the people, it should be for the people not for specific people who choose to be bigots. That sounds great and is very idealistic, but it isn't how it works in reality. Federally funded construction companies wont hire overweight people. Federally funded corporations wont hire unqualified workers. Just because it's federally funded doesn't mean they can't discriminate by their own standards. Unqualified and overweight in certain areas is not discrimination, if ur not qualified you cannot do the job properly if ur overweight in construction industry it might hurt your health or you may not be able to do the job. Discriminating because someone is gay which has no bearing on ability or qualifications is discrimation and if government pays that company and they discriminate then in essence they support it. Discrimination's definition isn't as narrow as you're painting it to be. Take the earlier medicinal drugs argument. Or how 'bout a new one. Many companies discriminate employers based on the criminal record. Something that has no bearing on qualifications or ability. Yet it's still done. Because an employer/company/organization is allowed to make their own rules, even while federally funded. Why are you still even arguing this, just admit you're wrong and stop fishing. Wow. You are trying to win an argument on semantics about what discrimination is when no one cares. There is a reason that people on medicinal drugs are not allowed to do a job, because they are not qualified to do a job---I know people on things such as strong painkillers, they shouldn't be trusted to do very much. There is a reason that construction workers cannot be overweight, because they will not be qualified for the job. My uncle and cousin work in the construction field, this is true. Many companies will not allow a criminal in their field because it is a position of trust and you have shown yourself to be untrustworthy in the eyes of the law---I am a pre-med student that volunteers at hospitals, I know the reason they won't hire certain criminals. However, companies are NOT allowed to discriminate on things irrelevant to the job such as race, gender (unless being a female makes them unqualified for it, for example a job that requires a lot of heavy lifting), etc. That's called equal opportunity employing, if you have filled out a job application you know what that is. Your argument is just ridiculous. Stop. Had little of value to say (paraphrased)
Yeah I agree, it is ridiculous.
The comment (further above) on atheists being able to join if this happens would be interesting, particularly on the basis of how christians will act... Will the be self centered and discriminate (well read above comments and you may find your answer, but I dislike generalizing based on a few misplaced ideals) or will they be accepting. If anything, it should be an opportunity for christians to try and do what they do best, spread faith. Nothing is saying they can't practice their faith.
|
I'd just like to point out once again, that it's not my opinion that things should be this way. But that doesn't stop it from being so. I'm all for gays being allowed into the scouts. I am not, however, for forcing an organization to change its values, simply because it's federally funded. If you don't want an organization that holds certain values to be federally funded, than adress that issue itself. Dont' try to force the organization to bend to your will.
Federal law tends to agree with this opinion. Otherwise there would be regulations in place for federally funded organizations to have to let everyone in, no matter what. If there was such a law, then we wouldn't be having a conversation, because you all would be getting your way.
|
On June 08 2012 11:01 Uncultured wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2012 10:57 Heavenlee wrote:On June 08 2012 10:36 Uncultured wrote:On June 08 2012 10:29 Zaros wrote:On June 08 2012 10:24 Uncultured wrote:On June 08 2012 10:20 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On June 08 2012 10:17 oldgregg wrote:On June 08 2012 10:10 Uncultured wrote:On June 08 2012 10:00 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On June 08 2012 09:39 AmorFatiAbyss wrote:
[quote]
It's a human right to be allowed into a club? Let's not over do it here. It's a national right the child has when the institution is federally funded (even partially) so perhaps you should end the condescending tone and research the topic. Why does federal funding suddenly mean open to everyone? There are other organizations that discriminate against whatever they choose (say, drug testing for jobs) and still receive federal funding. A lot of people tend to argue that because they're paying for it they don't want their money funding bigotry. Well, news flash guys, you don't get to choose where your tax money goes. It can go anywhere and everywhere. It is often spent on things you will be against, whether it be economical, political, or social. If you have a problem with your money funding something that doesn't align with your views petition to have that funding removed, don't petition to change an organizations values. And before you go spouting off about national rights and other people doing the research how about you point out which right that is exactly? It's not a question of who is funding it, it's question of whether an organization's right to discriminate against gay people is more important than the gay person's right to join that organization It is exactly that question, when an organization is publicly funded it has to abide by standards based on equality because equal people pay for it... If you create a private group (privately funded) you can ban anyone on any grounds, if it is publicly funded then no, you must adhere to general civil rights. Obviously since it is federally funded, the organization has zero right to make any claims on civil issues regarding homosexuality/ethnic/race... If it was private, then yes they have every right to do what they want with their time alone. On June 08 2012 10:19 Uncultured wrote:On June 08 2012 10:17 oldgregg wrote:On June 08 2012 10:10 Uncultured wrote:On June 08 2012 10:00 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
[quote]
It's a national right the child has when the institution is federally funded (even partially) so perhaps you should end the condescending tone and research the topic. Why does federal funding suddenly mean open to everyone? There are other organizations that discriminate against whatever they choose (say, drug testing for jobs) and still receive federal funding. A lot of people tend to argue that because they're paying for it they don't want their money funding bigotry. Well, news flash guys, you don't get to choose where your tax money goes. It can go anywhere and everywhere. It is often spent on things you will be against, whether it be economical, political, or social. If you have a problem with your money funding something that doesn't align with your views petition to have that funding removed, don't petition to change an organizations values. And before you go spouting off about national rights and other people doing the research how about you point out which right that is exactly? It's not a question of who is funding it, it's question of whether an organization's right to discriminate against gay people is more important than the gay person's right to join that organization Why should you have the right to join an organization that you don't agree with, just because you pay for it through taxes? How is that not putting unnecessary burden on the organization? Either they forsake their values(however misguided and bigoted they are) and let someone in who doesn't share their opinions. Or they lose face for standing by their values and not letting someone in who doesn't share their opinions. stated above, if they want medieval values, they can support themselves through fundraising and not through federal budgeting. Seems like when it's paid by the people, it should be for the people not for specific people who choose to be bigots. That sounds great and is very idealistic, but it isn't how it works in reality. Federally funded construction companies wont hire overweight people. Federally funded corporations wont hire unqualified workers. Just because it's federally funded doesn't mean they can't discriminate by their own standards. Unqualified and overweight in certain areas is not discrimination, if ur not qualified you cannot do the job properly if ur overweight in construction industry it might hurt your health or you may not be able to do the job. Discriminating because someone is gay which has no bearing on ability or qualifications is discrimation and if government pays that company and they discriminate then in essence they support it. Discrimination's definition isn't as narrow as you're painting it to be. Take the earlier medicinal drugs argument. Or how 'bout a new one. Many companies discriminate employers based on the criminal record. Something that has no bearing on qualifications or ability. Yet it's still done. Because an employer/company/organization is allowed to make their own rules, even while federally funded. Why are you still even arguing this, just admit you're wrong and stop fishing. Wow. You are trying to win an argument on semantics about what discrimination is when no one cares. There is a reason that people on medicinal drugs are not allowed to do a job, because they are not qualified to do a job---I know people on things such as strong painkillers, they shouldn't be trusted to do very much. There is a reason that construction workers cannot be overweight, because they will not be qualified for the job. My uncle and cousin work in the construction field, this is true. Many companies will not allow a criminal in their field because it is a position of trust and you have shown yourself to be untrustworthy in the eyes of the law---I am a pre-med student that volunteers at hospitals, I know the reason they won't hire certain criminals. However, companies are NOT allowed to discriminate on things irrelevant to the job such as race, gender (unless being a female makes them unqualified for it, for example a job that requires a lot of heavy lifting), etc. That's called equal opportunity employing, if you have filled out a job application you know what that is. Your argument is just ridiculous. Stop. You can be perfectly qualified for certain work while on certain drugs. I notice no one has touched my criminal record example yet. Because it's a clear example of the exact discrimination we're talking about. I don't see how I'm wrong when all I'm doing is describing how the current system works... There's been no laws passed forcing the scouts to accepts gays. Otherwise they already would have and this argument would have never happened. If you don't like your money funding a company that doesn't hold your views, you can vote to have federal funding removed.
Did you even read what I said? Do you have any idea what you're talking about? Yes, you can be perfectly qualified for certain work on certain drugs, and in that case you can not be discriminated against by your employer without the potential to sue. Give me a single example of a place that will not hire you for an irrelevant medical drug you're on. I'm in the medical field, volunteer at a hospital, and have not seen it or heard about it a single time in my life.
I did touch your criminal record example, you are not allowed to have certain jobs because you have broken the law and shown yourself to not be responsible. Often times it doesn't even matter if it's a victimless crime, and that can be expunged from your record in many states anyway. If you have committed a felony or a crime with a victim, then you have shown that you should not be in a professional field where you are a trusted person in a position of power. A person with a past assault and battery charge cannot be trusted as an EMT. A person with past drug abuse problems should not be trusted as a doctor. These are legitimate reasons to "discriminate".
Also you apparently have no idea how the legislature process works if you think you can umm...vote to have federal funding removed from certain organizations?
|
On June 08 2012 11:09 Heavenlee wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2012 11:01 Uncultured wrote:On June 08 2012 10:57 Heavenlee wrote:On June 08 2012 10:36 Uncultured wrote:On June 08 2012 10:29 Zaros wrote:On June 08 2012 10:24 Uncultured wrote:On June 08 2012 10:20 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On June 08 2012 10:17 oldgregg wrote:On June 08 2012 10:10 Uncultured wrote:On June 08 2012 10:00 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
[quote]
It's a national right the child has when the institution is federally funded (even partially) so perhaps you should end the condescending tone and research the topic. Why does federal funding suddenly mean open to everyone? There are other organizations that discriminate against whatever they choose (say, drug testing for jobs) and still receive federal funding. A lot of people tend to argue that because they're paying for it they don't want their money funding bigotry. Well, news flash guys, you don't get to choose where your tax money goes. It can go anywhere and everywhere. It is often spent on things you will be against, whether it be economical, political, or social. If you have a problem with your money funding something that doesn't align with your views petition to have that funding removed, don't petition to change an organizations values. And before you go spouting off about national rights and other people doing the research how about you point out which right that is exactly? It's not a question of who is funding it, it's question of whether an organization's right to discriminate against gay people is more important than the gay person's right to join that organization It is exactly that question, when an organization is publicly funded it has to abide by standards based on equality because equal people pay for it... If you create a private group (privately funded) you can ban anyone on any grounds, if it is publicly funded then no, you must adhere to general civil rights. Obviously since it is federally funded, the organization has zero right to make any claims on civil issues regarding homosexuality/ethnic/race... If it was private, then yes they have every right to do what they want with their time alone. On June 08 2012 10:19 Uncultured wrote:On June 08 2012 10:17 oldgregg wrote:On June 08 2012 10:10 Uncultured wrote:
[quote]
Why does federal funding suddenly mean open to everyone? There are other organizations that discriminate against whatever they choose (say, drug testing for jobs) and still receive federal funding. A lot of people tend to argue that because they're paying for it they don't want their money funding bigotry. Well, news flash guys, you don't get to choose where your tax money goes. It can go anywhere and everywhere. It is often spent on things you will be against, whether it be economical, political, or social.
If you have a problem with your money funding something that doesn't align with your views petition to have that funding removed, don't petition to change an organizations values.
And before you go spouting off about national rights and other people doing the research how about you point out which right that is exactly? It's not a question of who is funding it, it's question of whether an organization's right to discriminate against gay people is more important than the gay person's right to join that organization Why should you have the right to join an organization that you don't agree with, just because you pay for it through taxes? How is that not putting unnecessary burden on the organization? Either they forsake their values(however misguided and bigoted they are) and let someone in who doesn't share their opinions. Or they lose face for standing by their values and not letting someone in who doesn't share their opinions. stated above, if they want medieval values, they can support themselves through fundraising and not through federal budgeting. Seems like when it's paid by the people, it should be for the people not for specific people who choose to be bigots. That sounds great and is very idealistic, but it isn't how it works in reality. Federally funded construction companies wont hire overweight people. Federally funded corporations wont hire unqualified workers. Just because it's federally funded doesn't mean they can't discriminate by their own standards. Unqualified and overweight in certain areas is not discrimination, if ur not qualified you cannot do the job properly if ur overweight in construction industry it might hurt your health or you may not be able to do the job. Discriminating because someone is gay which has no bearing on ability or qualifications is discrimation and if government pays that company and they discriminate then in essence they support it. Discrimination's definition isn't as narrow as you're painting it to be. Take the earlier medicinal drugs argument. Or how 'bout a new one. Many companies discriminate employers based on the criminal record. Something that has no bearing on qualifications or ability. Yet it's still done. Because an employer/company/organization is allowed to make their own rules, even while federally funded. Why are you still even arguing this, just admit you're wrong and stop fishing. Wow. You are trying to win an argument on semantics about what discrimination is when no one cares. There is a reason that people on medicinal drugs are not allowed to do a job, because they are not qualified to do a job---I know people on things such as strong painkillers, they shouldn't be trusted to do very much. There is a reason that construction workers cannot be overweight, because they will not be qualified for the job. My uncle and cousin work in the construction field, this is true. Many companies will not allow a criminal in their field because it is a position of trust and you have shown yourself to be untrustworthy in the eyes of the law---I am a pre-med student that volunteers at hospitals, I know the reason they won't hire certain criminals. However, companies are NOT allowed to discriminate on things irrelevant to the job such as race, gender (unless being a female makes them unqualified for it, for example a job that requires a lot of heavy lifting), etc. That's called equal opportunity employing, if you have filled out a job application you know what that is. Your argument is just ridiculous. Stop. You can be perfectly qualified for certain work while on certain drugs. I notice no one has touched my criminal record example yet. Because it's a clear example of the exact discrimination we're talking about. I don't see how I'm wrong when all I'm doing is describing how the current system works... There's been no laws passed forcing the scouts to accepts gays. Otherwise they already would have and this argument would have never happened. If you don't like your money funding a company that doesn't hold your views, you can vote to have federal funding removed. Did you even read what I said? Do you have any idea what you're talking about? Yes, you can be perfectly qualified for certain work on certain drugs, and in that case you can not be discriminated against by your employer without the potential to sue. Give me a single example of a place that will not hire you for an irrelevant medical drug you're on. I'm in the medical field, volunteer at a hospital, and have not seen it or heard about it a single time in my life. I did touch your criminal record example, you are not allowed to have certain jobs because you have broken the law and shown yourself to not be responsible. Often times it doesn't even matter if it's a victimless crime, and that can be expunged from your record in many states anyway. If you have committed a felony or a crime with a victim, then you have shown that you should not be in a professional field where you are a trusted person in a position of power. A person with a past assault and battery charge cannot be trusted as an EMT. A person with past drug abuse problems should not be trusted as a doctor. These are legitimate reasons to "discriminate". Also you apparently have no idea how the legislature process works if you think you can umm...vote to have federal funding removed from certain organizations?
You vote in representatives who decide where the federal money goes. Same thing.
|
On June 08 2012 11:11 Uncultured wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2012 11:09 Heavenlee wrote:On June 08 2012 11:01 Uncultured wrote:On June 08 2012 10:57 Heavenlee wrote:On June 08 2012 10:36 Uncultured wrote:On June 08 2012 10:29 Zaros wrote:On June 08 2012 10:24 Uncultured wrote:On June 08 2012 10:20 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On June 08 2012 10:17 oldgregg wrote:On June 08 2012 10:10 Uncultured wrote:
[quote]
Why does federal funding suddenly mean open to everyone? There are other organizations that discriminate against whatever they choose (say, drug testing for jobs) and still receive federal funding. A lot of people tend to argue that because they're paying for it they don't want their money funding bigotry. Well, news flash guys, you don't get to choose where your tax money goes. It can go anywhere and everywhere. It is often spent on things you will be against, whether it be economical, political, or social.
If you have a problem with your money funding something that doesn't align with your views petition to have that funding removed, don't petition to change an organizations values.
And before you go spouting off about national rights and other people doing the research how about you point out which right that is exactly? It's not a question of who is funding it, it's question of whether an organization's right to discriminate against gay people is more important than the gay person's right to join that organization It is exactly that question, when an organization is publicly funded it has to abide by standards based on equality because equal people pay for it... If you create a private group (privately funded) you can ban anyone on any grounds, if it is publicly funded then no, you must adhere to general civil rights. Obviously since it is federally funded, the organization has zero right to make any claims on civil issues regarding homosexuality/ethnic/race... If it was private, then yes they have every right to do what they want with their time alone. On June 08 2012 10:19 Uncultured wrote:On June 08 2012 10:17 oldgregg wrote:
[quote]
It's not a question of who is funding it, it's question of whether an organization's right to discriminate against gay people is more important than the gay person's right to join that organization Why should you have the right to join an organization that you don't agree with, just because you pay for it through taxes? How is that not putting unnecessary burden on the organization? Either they forsake their values(however misguided and bigoted they are) and let someone in who doesn't share their opinions. Or they lose face for standing by their values and not letting someone in who doesn't share their opinions. stated above, if they want medieval values, they can support themselves through fundraising and not through federal budgeting. Seems like when it's paid by the people, it should be for the people not for specific people who choose to be bigots. That sounds great and is very idealistic, but it isn't how it works in reality. Federally funded construction companies wont hire overweight people. Federally funded corporations wont hire unqualified workers. Just because it's federally funded doesn't mean they can't discriminate by their own standards. Unqualified and overweight in certain areas is not discrimination, if ur not qualified you cannot do the job properly if ur overweight in construction industry it might hurt your health or you may not be able to do the job. Discriminating because someone is gay which has no bearing on ability or qualifications is discrimation and if government pays that company and they discriminate then in essence they support it. Discrimination's definition isn't as narrow as you're painting it to be. Take the earlier medicinal drugs argument. Or how 'bout a new one. Many companies discriminate employers based on the criminal record. Something that has no bearing on qualifications or ability. Yet it's still done. Because an employer/company/organization is allowed to make their own rules, even while federally funded. Why are you still even arguing this, just admit you're wrong and stop fishing. Wow. You are trying to win an argument on semantics about what discrimination is when no one cares. There is a reason that people on medicinal drugs are not allowed to do a job, because they are not qualified to do a job---I know people on things such as strong painkillers, they shouldn't be trusted to do very much. There is a reason that construction workers cannot be overweight, because they will not be qualified for the job. My uncle and cousin work in the construction field, this is true. Many companies will not allow a criminal in their field because it is a position of trust and you have shown yourself to be untrustworthy in the eyes of the law---I am a pre-med student that volunteers at hospitals, I know the reason they won't hire certain criminals. However, companies are NOT allowed to discriminate on things irrelevant to the job such as race, gender (unless being a female makes them unqualified for it, for example a job that requires a lot of heavy lifting), etc. That's called equal opportunity employing, if you have filled out a job application you know what that is. Your argument is just ridiculous. Stop. You can be perfectly qualified for certain work while on certain drugs. I notice no one has touched my criminal record example yet. Because it's a clear example of the exact discrimination we're talking about. I don't see how I'm wrong when all I'm doing is describing how the current system works... There's been no laws passed forcing the scouts to accepts gays. Otherwise they already would have and this argument would have never happened. If you don't like your money funding a company that doesn't hold your views, you can vote to have federal funding removed. Did you even read what I said? Do you have any idea what you're talking about? Yes, you can be perfectly qualified for certain work on certain drugs, and in that case you can not be discriminated against by your employer without the potential to sue. Give me a single example of a place that will not hire you for an irrelevant medical drug you're on. I'm in the medical field, volunteer at a hospital, and have not seen it or heard about it a single time in my life. I did touch your criminal record example, you are not allowed to have certain jobs because you have broken the law and shown yourself to not be responsible. Often times it doesn't even matter if it's a victimless crime, and that can be expunged from your record in many states anyway. If you have committed a felony or a crime with a victim, then you have shown that you should not be in a professional field where you are a trusted person in a position of power. A person with a past assault and battery charge cannot be trusted as an EMT. A person with past drug abuse problems should not be trusted as a doctor. These are legitimate reasons to "discriminate". Also you apparently have no idea how the legislature process works if you think you can umm...vote to have federal funding removed from certain organizations? You vote in representatives who decide where the federal money goes. Same thing.
It's not even remotely close to the same thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
