|
On June 08 2012 11:13 Heavenlee wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2012 11:11 Uncultured wrote: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:
[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 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:
[quote]
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.
Care to explain? The end result is the exact same. Your votes decide where the money goes.
|
On June 08 2012 11:13 Uncultured wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2012 11:13 Heavenlee wrote:On June 08 2012 11:11 Uncultured wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
[quote]
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. Care to explain? The end result is the exact same. Your votes decide where the money goes.
Because again, if you have ever experienced how the real world works, you would realize that 1) there are a limited number of people that run for office, there is not a candidate that will agree with every thing you also agree with, so you may vote someone in for their views on a couple things but their views could be completely different; 2) this is not exactly a platform you will often be aware of when voting a person in office in the first place; 3) the person in office may change their opinion once they get into office, happens all the time. So on and so on.
Do you live in some sort of parallel universe that has somehow managed to merge their internet with my universe?
|
Still, no one has provided me with a law/bill/right that says you can't discriminate in an organization that is federally funded. I highly doubt there is one, or there wouldn't be a debate about the scouts letting people in. Because they would be forced to let people in.
|
I'll have to check, but I don't recall being asked if I believed in a higher power during my Eagle board of review.
and yea, the topic of homosexuality and atheism were just generally not talked about at all. Would be interesting if this resolution made it through, I don't really see why it shouldnt.
|
On June 08 2012 11:07 Uncultured wrote:
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.
Actually no, that's not how it works. It goes against the equal protection clause. That's the law. You are only showing your ignorance about what Federal Law contains.
You are allowed to go against the equal protection clause if you are not funded by public money. But they are. So they have to obey it. Organizations cannot discriminate like that. And no, it's not the same thing as 'qualifications.'
Also, the organization being religiously discriminatory goes against the establishment clause of the first amendment.
|
On June 08 2012 11:17 Heavenlee wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2012 11:13 Uncultured wrote:On June 08 2012 11:13 Heavenlee wrote:On June 08 2012 11:11 Uncultured wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Care to explain? The end result is the exact same. Your votes decide where the money goes. Because again, if you have ever experienced how the real world works, you would realize that 1) there are a limited number of people that run for office, there is not a candidate that will agree with every thing you also agree with, so you may vote someone in for their views on a couple things but their views could be completely different; 2) this is not exactly a platform you will often be aware of when voting a person in office in the first place; 3) the person in office may change their opinion once they get into office, happens all the time. So on and so on. Do you live in some sort of parallel universe that has somehow managed to merge their internet with my universe?
I never said the system was perfect, that's a completely different problem. But there are options available to those that take issue with the problem of organizations that discriminate. The option to force people to change their rules isn't there. So, it's probably best to use the options you do have if you really have a problem, no?
|
As an eagle scout, and having been a scout for 7 years this is something that needs to be changed as soon as possible and I hope they make the correct decision. Theres no reason to exclude gay members and leaders from a program that can be so beneficial to young people throughout america.
|
On June 08 2012 11:20 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2012 11:07 Uncultured wrote:
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. Actually no, that's not how it works. It goes against the equal protection clause. That's the law. You are only showing your ignorance about what Federal Law contains. You are allowed to go against the equal protection clause if you are not funded by public money. But they are. So they have to obey it. Organizations cannot discriminate like that. And no, it's not the same thing as 'qualifications.'
Well, that's a fine argument, and it would prove me wrong. But why is it that the scouts get to vote on this then? Are you saying that if they vote no, then federal funding will be removed? Can you provide any sources to verify that claim. If so then yes, I'm ignorant of the law. Or the law must be very new, considering how long the scouts haven't been adhering to it.
Here's a relevant part of the Equal Protection Clause that seems to agree with me:
After Brown, questions still remained about the scope of the equal protection clause. Does the Clause outlaw public policies that cause racial disparities—for example, a public school examination that has not been established for racist reasons, but that more white students than black students pass? Or, on the other hand, does it prohibit only intentional bigotry?[citation needed]
The Supreme Court has answered that the equal protection clause itself does not forbid policies which lead to racial disparities, but that Congress may by legislation prohibit such policies.
|
If the government and their workings are binded by non-discrimination laws, and you dislike what a private organization is doing in violation of their funder's rules, than call the funder and tell it to them. Being an intolerant "tolerant" on the internet yelling at the BSA because they don't adhere to your values isn't going to change anything. You can most certainly yell at Washington over it, and you leave it up to them to make an impact. If politicians don't do what you want, you get new ones. If the available ones suck you make a new one and gather support from like-minded people and take matters into your own hands. Just going out (and by "out", I mean angrily shouting into cyberspace from the comfort of your chair) and telling people that you don't like them and that they need to give up what they believe in and conform to you just makes you look like the stereotypical entitled teenagers that elderly groan about.
|
Listen in order to prove homosexuality is not a choice, scientists will literally have to tell me which kids will end up gay and which kids will end up straight because there has to be something different about them right?
I can accept that there is a possibility that it is not a choice ,however, you would have to prove to me beyond a doubt that being gay is not a choice.That being said, i accept the choices that people make, but it in no way entitles me to respect your decision only accept it.
With this thinking, I can also say I do not agree with gay marriage , but if they adopt a kid or something i accept the fact that they should get the same discounts as married people, however, if it is only them I do not think they should. Why? A married couple can have kids whenever they want without any medical aid period ie: sperm donors for lesbians and adoption for gay couples.This means that straight couples can all of a sudden have a kid on the way while gay couples will never experience this unless they aren't completely gay.
|
On June 08 2012 11:43 decker247777 wrote:
Listen in order to prove homosexuality is not a choice, scientists will literally have to tell me which kids will end up gay and which kids will end up straight because there has to be something different about them right?
I can accept that there is a possibility that it is not a choice ,however, you would have to prove to me beyond a doubt that being gay is not a choice.That being said, i accept the choices that people make, but it in no way entitles me to respect your decision only accept it.
With this thinking, I can also say I do not agree with gay marriage , but if they adopt a kid or something i accept the fact that they should get the same discounts as married people, however, if it is only them I do not think they should. Why? A married couple can have kids whenever they want without any medical aid period ie: sperm donors for lesbians and adoption for gay couples.This means that straight couples can all of a sudden have a kid on the way while gay couples will never experience this unless they aren't completely gay.
Holy off-topic post batman.
|
On June 08 2012 11:43 decker247777 wrote:
Listen in order to prove homosexuality is not a choice, scientists will literally have to tell me which kids will end up gay and which kids will end up straight because there has to be something different about them right?
I can accept that there is a possibility that it is not a choice ,however, you would have to prove to me beyond a doubt that being gay is not a choice.That being said, i accept the choices that people make, but it in no way entitles me to respect your decision only accept it.
With this thinking, I can also say I do not agree with gay marriage , but if they adopt a kid or something i accept the fact that they should get the same discounts as married people, however, if it is only them I do not think they should. Why? A married couple can have kids whenever they want without any medical aid period ie: sperm donors for lesbians and adoption for gay couples.This means that straight couples can all of a sudden have a kid on the way while gay couples will never experience this unless they aren't completely gay.
1.) No one has to prove anything to you, especially when the burden of proof is ridiculous. How about scientists also tell us every person that is going to end up with some sort of depression or mental instability? Those aren't exactly choices either, but scientists could not prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they're not. I'm sure all of those people that were bullied, assaulted, mocked, discriminated against, etc. just suddenly made a choice to like guys because...you know, that worked out so well for them right?
I didn't choose to like women and I doubt you did either, unless you are secretly homosexual and hiding it. People don't just go "well, I guess I'm just going to choose to have sex with men because why not?" No one is going to want to choose be considered a second class citizen in the eyes of millions of people in this country. How does that even make sense to you? In your fantasy world do people who choose to be gay just love negative attention, often being treated horribly, etc? Contrary to what you may have seen in a summer teen comedy, people don't "go gay" to try to get close to some girl or whatever you think they do.
Personally, I have zero interest in having sex with a male. If you could make the choice to want one, you may want to consider the possibility you are gay or bisexual and in denial.
2.) It doesn't even matter if it's a choice in the first place, they should still be able to "choose" to be gay and there's no reason they shouldn't.
3.) No one cares if you don't respect the opinion, as long as you do accept it. This is a matter of acceptance.
3.) Cool completely random arbitrary reason for not supporting gay marriage, good thing you are not a legislator.
|
On June 08 2012 11:26 Uncultured wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2012 11:20 DoubleReed wrote:On June 08 2012 11:07 Uncultured wrote:
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. Actually no, that's not how it works. It goes against the equal protection clause. That's the law. You are only showing your ignorance about what Federal Law contains. You are allowed to go against the equal protection clause if you are not funded by public money. But they are. So they have to obey it. Organizations cannot discriminate like that. And no, it's not the same thing as 'qualifications.' Well, that's a fine argument, and it would prove me wrong. But why is it that the scouts get to vote on this then? Are you saying that if they vote no, then federal funding will be removed? Can you provide any sources to verify that claim. If so then yes, I'm ignorant of the law. Or the law must be very new, considering how long the scouts haven't been adhering to it. Here's a relevant part of the Equal Protection Clause that seems to agree with me: Show nested quote +After Brown, questions still remained about the scope of the equal protection clause. Does the Clause outlaw public policies that cause racial disparities—for example, a public school examination that has not been established for racist reasons, but that more white students than black students pass? Or, on the other hand, does it prohibit only intentional bigotry?[citation needed]
The Supreme Court has answered that the equal protection clause itself does not forbid policies which lead to racial disparities, but that Congress may by legislation prohibit such policies.
Uhm... do you lack reading comprehension? That is talking about things like quotas. 'Disparities' just refers to unequal numbers. That has absolutely nothing to do with anything we're talking about, and I have no idea how you could possibly think that is relevant to this conversation.
In fact, I'm so shocked that you could possibly think that that is "agreeing with you" that I'm going to go drink myself into a stupor and hopefully forget this conversation ever happened. Good day.
|
On June 08 2012 11:54 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2012 11:26 Uncultured wrote:On June 08 2012 11:20 DoubleReed wrote:On June 08 2012 11:07 Uncultured wrote:
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. Actually no, that's not how it works. It goes against the equal protection clause. That's the law. You are only showing your ignorance about what Federal Law contains. You are allowed to go against the equal protection clause if you are not funded by public money. But they are. So they have to obey it. Organizations cannot discriminate like that. And no, it's not the same thing as 'qualifications.' Well, that's a fine argument, and it would prove me wrong. But why is it that the scouts get to vote on this then? Are you saying that if they vote no, then federal funding will be removed? Can you provide any sources to verify that claim. If so then yes, I'm ignorant of the law. Or the law must be very new, considering how long the scouts haven't been adhering to it. Here's a relevant part of the Equal Protection Clause that seems to agree with me: After Brown, questions still remained about the scope of the equal protection clause. Does the Clause outlaw public policies that cause racial disparities—for example, a public school examination that has not been established for racist reasons, but that more white students than black students pass? Or, on the other hand, does it prohibit only intentional bigotry?[citation needed]
The Supreme Court has answered that the equal protection clause itself does not forbid policies which lead to racial disparities, but that Congress may by legislation prohibit such policies. Uhm... do you lack reading comprehension? That is talking about things like quotas. 'Disparities' just refers to unequal numbers. That has absolutely nothing to do with anything we're talking about, and I have no idea how you could possibly think that is relevant to this conversation. In fact, I'm so shocked that you could possibly think that that is "agreeing with you" that I'm going to go drink myself into a stupor and hopefully forget this conversation ever happened. Good day.
I guess sometimes it's hard to actually come to the terms with the fact some people lack common sense and reading comprehension. I wish everyone could debate logically and come up with fair arguments, but I have to remind myself that unfortunately there are people incapable of that. :/ I mean, that sounds completely elitist but honestly.
|
On June 08 2012 11:59 Heavenlee wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2012 11:54 DoubleReed wrote:On June 08 2012 11:26 Uncultured wrote:On June 08 2012 11:20 DoubleReed wrote:On June 08 2012 11:07 Uncultured wrote:
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. Actually no, that's not how it works. It goes against the equal protection clause. That's the law. You are only showing your ignorance about what Federal Law contains. You are allowed to go against the equal protection clause if you are not funded by public money. But they are. So they have to obey it. Organizations cannot discriminate like that. And no, it's not the same thing as 'qualifications.' Well, that's a fine argument, and it would prove me wrong. But why is it that the scouts get to vote on this then? Are you saying that if they vote no, then federal funding will be removed? Can you provide any sources to verify that claim. If so then yes, I'm ignorant of the law. Or the law must be very new, considering how long the scouts haven't been adhering to it. Here's a relevant part of the Equal Protection Clause that seems to agree with me: After Brown, questions still remained about the scope of the equal protection clause. Does the Clause outlaw public policies that cause racial disparities—for example, a public school examination that has not been established for racist reasons, but that more white students than black students pass? Or, on the other hand, does it prohibit only intentional bigotry?[citation needed]
The Supreme Court has answered that the equal protection clause itself does not forbid policies which lead to racial disparities, but that Congress may by legislation prohibit such policies. Uhm... do you lack reading comprehension? That is talking about things like quotas. 'Disparities' just refers to unequal numbers. That has absolutely nothing to do with anything we're talking about, and I have no idea how you could possibly think that is relevant to this conversation. In fact, I'm so shocked that you could possibly think that that is "agreeing with you" that I'm going to go drink myself into a stupor and hopefully forget this conversation ever happened. Good day. I guess sometimes it's hard to actually come to the terms with the fact some people lack common sense and reading comprehension. I wish everyone could debate logically and come up with fair arguments, but I have to remind myself that unfortunately there are people incapable of that. :/ I mean, that sounds completely elitist but honestly.
Ya'll just keep on insulting without addressing points. It makes you look very credible. Still haven't linked or cited any sources that back your claim that Federally funded organizations must invite people equally.
|
On June 08 2012 12:06 Uncultured wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2012 11:59 Heavenlee wrote:On June 08 2012 11:54 DoubleReed wrote:On June 08 2012 11:26 Uncultured wrote:On June 08 2012 11:20 DoubleReed wrote:On June 08 2012 11:07 Uncultured wrote:
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. Actually no, that's not how it works. It goes against the equal protection clause. That's the law. You are only showing your ignorance about what Federal Law contains. You are allowed to go against the equal protection clause if you are not funded by public money. But they are. So they have to obey it. Organizations cannot discriminate like that. And no, it's not the same thing as 'qualifications.' Well, that's a fine argument, and it would prove me wrong. But why is it that the scouts get to vote on this then? Are you saying that if they vote no, then federal funding will be removed? Can you provide any sources to verify that claim. If so then yes, I'm ignorant of the law. Or the law must be very new, considering how long the scouts haven't been adhering to it. Here's a relevant part of the Equal Protection Clause that seems to agree with me: After Brown, questions still remained about the scope of the equal protection clause. Does the Clause outlaw public policies that cause racial disparities—for example, a public school examination that has not been established for racist reasons, but that more white students than black students pass? Or, on the other hand, does it prohibit only intentional bigotry?[citation needed]
The Supreme Court has answered that the equal protection clause itself does not forbid policies which lead to racial disparities, but that Congress may by legislation prohibit such policies. Uhm... do you lack reading comprehension? That is talking about things like quotas. 'Disparities' just refers to unequal numbers. That has absolutely nothing to do with anything we're talking about, and I have no idea how you could possibly think that is relevant to this conversation. In fact, I'm so shocked that you could possibly think that that is "agreeing with you" that I'm going to go drink myself into a stupor and hopefully forget this conversation ever happened. Good day. I guess sometimes it's hard to actually come to the terms with the fact some people lack common sense and reading comprehension. I wish everyone could debate logically and come up with fair arguments, but I have to remind myself that unfortunately there are people incapable of that. :/ I mean, that sounds completely elitist but honestly. Ya'll just keep on insulting without addressing points. It makes you look very credible. Still haven't linked or cited any sources that back your claim that Federally funded organizations must invite people equally.
I never said they did, all I did was just completely embarrass you and you dropped the argument.
|
On June 08 2012 12:07 Heavenlee wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2012 12:06 Uncultured wrote:On June 08 2012 11:59 Heavenlee wrote:On June 08 2012 11:54 DoubleReed wrote:On June 08 2012 11:26 Uncultured wrote:On June 08 2012 11:20 DoubleReed wrote:On June 08 2012 11:07 Uncultured wrote:
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. Actually no, that's not how it works. It goes against the equal protection clause. That's the law. You are only showing your ignorance about what Federal Law contains. You are allowed to go against the equal protection clause if you are not funded by public money. But they are. So they have to obey it. Organizations cannot discriminate like that. And no, it's not the same thing as 'qualifications.' Well, that's a fine argument, and it would prove me wrong. But why is it that the scouts get to vote on this then? Are you saying that if they vote no, then federal funding will be removed? Can you provide any sources to verify that claim. If so then yes, I'm ignorant of the law. Or the law must be very new, considering how long the scouts haven't been adhering to it. Here's a relevant part of the Equal Protection Clause that seems to agree with me: After Brown, questions still remained about the scope of the equal protection clause. Does the Clause outlaw public policies that cause racial disparities—for example, a public school examination that has not been established for racist reasons, but that more white students than black students pass? Or, on the other hand, does it prohibit only intentional bigotry?[citation needed]
The Supreme Court has answered that the equal protection clause itself does not forbid policies which lead to racial disparities, but that Congress may by legislation prohibit such policies. Uhm... do you lack reading comprehension? That is talking about things like quotas. 'Disparities' just refers to unequal numbers. That has absolutely nothing to do with anything we're talking about, and I have no idea how you could possibly think that is relevant to this conversation. In fact, I'm so shocked that you could possibly think that that is "agreeing with you" that I'm going to go drink myself into a stupor and hopefully forget this conversation ever happened. Good day. I guess sometimes it's hard to actually come to the terms with the fact some people lack common sense and reading comprehension. I wish everyone could debate logically and come up with fair arguments, but I have to remind myself that unfortunately there are people incapable of that. :/ I mean, that sounds completely elitist but honestly. Ya'll just keep on insulting without addressing points. It makes you look very credible. Still haven't linked or cited any sources that back your claim that Federally funded organizations must invite people equally. I never said they did, all I did was just completely embarrass you and you dropped the argument.
Okay, if you say so bud.
P.S. I was talking to Double Reed.
|
|
|
|
|
On June 08 2012 12:14 Uncultured wrote:
And I also quoted him.
....
I vote we all ignore this guys' posts from here on out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
