Ron Brown issue/discussion wonderfully articulated...

[Cardinal]

So let me see if I am understanding this.

You otherwise rational people think it is proper to allow a religious businessman to discriminate based on sexual orientation, but a homosexual businessman may not discriminate based on religion?

Might be time for some to go back to the drawing board, 'cause that just ain't right.

[blkshrts]

50 years ago most people thought Homosexuality was a horrible sin and not accepted...and even against the law in some places. Now it's accepted.

Whats going to be accepted 50 years from now?

Have we gotten "smarter" over these 50 years...or just more ignorant...

I doubt that the victimization of a child will be accepted in 50 yrs. It has nothing to do with how smart we are as a society. We have come to the realization that homosexuality isn't evil and won't be the end of civilization.

[RedPhoenix]

I doubt that the victimization of a child will be accepted in 50 yrs. It has nothing to do with how smart we are as a society. We have come to the realization that homosexuality isn't evil and won't be the end of civilization.

Well, some of us have....

[abominable snow man]

Social norms should never dictate acceptable practices. We are not a theocracy. There should be a secular rationale for every law on the books.

Why?

[huskernut]

So let me see if I am understanding this.

You otherwise rational people think it is proper to allow a religious businessman to discriminate based on sexual orientation, but a homosexual businessman may not discriminate based on religion?

Might be time for some to go back to the drawing board, 'cause that just ain't right.

That's a good point, and I was thinking I would have to agree with it. So it actually made me get some facts.

Incredibly, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which is the Federal level statute which covers most kinds of discrimination, including religious, exempts:

1. religious entities; and
2l businesses with fewer than 15 employees.

I think that's hilarious because I arrived at something very similar through a torturous process of analysis and debate. But all I did was re-invent the wheel. I could have saved myself a whole lot of thinking and writing if I had just looked up the law in the first place.
I feel kind of foolish.

So in comparison to current law, I am 33% more progressive, by proposing a threshold ot 10 employees, instead of 15.

So let's add sexual orientation to Title VII. I'm happy.

[Pops]

Is it possible for everyone to get over themselves and love thy brother and sister for WHO THEY ARE

[RedPhoenix]

That's a good point, and I was thinking I would have to agree with it. So it actually made me get some facts.

Incredibly, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which is the Federal level statute which covers most kinds of discrimination, including religious, exempts:

1. religious entities; and
2l businesses with fewer than 15 employees.

I think that's hilarious because I arrived at something very similar through a torturous process of analysis and debate. But all I did was re-invent the wheel. I could have saved myself a whole lot of thinking and writing if I had just looked up the law in the first place.
I feel kind of foolish.

So in comparison to current law, I am 33% more progressive, by proposing a threshold ot 10 employees, instead of 15.

So let's add sexual orientation to Title VII. I'm happy.

Ha! We love taking the long route here in the cafe!!!

[huskernut]

Ha! We love taking the long route here in the cafe!!!

Right? I mean, we're hilarious.

In all honesty though, we're not bad debaters when we want to be. And I will say when we're on, y'all help me improve my thinking on a subject.

[huskernut]

Is it possible for everyone to get over themselves and love thy brother and sister for WHO THEY ARE

Based on historical data?

Yes, occasionally, and even progressively over time somewhat. But not all at once, nor perfectly.

[RedPhoenix]

Right? I mean, we're hilarious.

In all honesty though, we're not bad debaters when we want to be. And I will say when we're on, y'all help me improve my thinking on a subject.

So.....I guess that pretty much resolves the debate with SBH.

Whats next?!

[SealBeachHusker]

I think we're probably not as far off as you might think. The exemption of religious organizations seems like an obvious point to me, but I understand the hesitation with small family businesses. It just seems that, for instance, a small mom and pop operation offers a unique situation, in that owners personal lives are often completely commingled with their business. So, forcing accommodation in this case would be forcing one to personally accommodate a behavior they might find in direct contradiction with their faith.

That's a situation where an accomodation makes complete sense (to me at least), but would just be difficult to figure out how to effectively legislate.

I agree. Besides, the pull from the hard left would be that's it's still allowing "hate" and the hard right would seek to keep expanding it. So instead, we'll have one side " winning" and one side "losing" and the polarization continues. It's so frustrating to literally see it happening, but no way to change it.

[SealBeachHusker]

50 years ago most people thought Homosexuality was a horrible sin and not accepted...and even against the law in some places. Now it's accepted.

Whats going to be accepted 50 years from now?

Have we gotten "smarter" over these 50 years...or just more ignorant...

I doubt that the victimization of a child will be accepted in 50 yrs. It has nothing to do with how smart we are as a society. We have come to the realization that homosexuality isn't evil and won't be the end of civilization.

And, yet you have the research I provided that suggests otherwise. Not saying it's around the corner or even highly likely, but cultures that accepted it did so based on the belief that it was not victimization but simply an extension of affection. The researches that hypothesize that sexual abuse of males who grow up to identify as gay may in-fact be healthy probably don't feel like accepting that practice would end society either.

[LutheranHusker]

That's a good point, and I was thinking I would have to agree with it. So it actually made me get some facts.

Incredibly, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which is the Federal level statute which covers most kinds of discrimination, including religious, exempts:

1. religious entities; and
2l businesses with fewer than 15 employees.

I think that's hilarious because I arrived at something very similar through a torturous process of analysis and debate. But all I did was re-invent the wheel. I could have saved myself a whole lot of thinking and writing if I had just looked up the law in the first place.
I feel kind of foolish.

So in comparison to current law, I am 33% more progressive, by proposing a threshold ot 10 employees, instead of 15.

So let's add sexual orientation to Title VII. I'm happy.

That. Is. Awesome.

[LutheranHusker]

Right? I mean, we're hilarious.

In all honesty though, we're not bad debaters when we want to be. And I will say when we're on, y'all help me improve my thinking on a subject.

Agreed on all counts. Including the hilarity.

[SealBeachHusker]

So let me see if I am understanding this.

You otherwise rational people think it is proper to allow a religious businessman to discriminate based on sexual orientation, but a homosexual businessman may not discriminate based on religion?

Might be time for some to go back to the drawing board, 'cause that just ain't right.

That's a good point, and I was thinking I would have to agree with it. So it actually made me get some facts.

Incredibly, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which is the Federal level statute which covers most kinds of discrimination, including religious, exempts:

1. religious entities; and
2l businesses with fewer than 15 employees.

I think that's hilarious because I arrived at something very similar through a torturous process of analysis and debate. But all I did was re-invent the wheel. I could have saved myself a whole lot of thinking and writing if I had just looked up the law in the first place.
I feel kind of foolish.

So in comparison to current law, I am 33% more progressive, by proposing a threshold ot 10 employees, instead of 15.

So let's add sexual orientation to Title VII. I'm happy.

Whew. Well, that was a lot of unnecessary typing by a lot of us..lol.

[hskrdavey]

That's a good point, and I was thinking I would have to agree with it. So it actually made me get some facts.

Incredibly, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which is the Federal level statute which covers most kinds of discrimination, including religious, exempts:

1. religious entities; and
2l businesses with fewer than 15 employees.

I think that's hilarious because I arrived at something very similar through a torturous process of analysis and debate. But all I did was re-invent the wheel. I could have saved myself a whole lot of thinking and writing if I had just looked up the law in the first place.
I feel kind of foolish.

So in comparison to current law, I am 33% more progressive, by proposing a threshold ot 10 employees, instead of 15.

So let's add sexual orientation to Title VII. I'm happy.

I should have probably read it closer too.....As long as it excepts small business/religious institutions I'm kosher with it too.

(I'm not quite as bull-headed as some might think from my comments in this thread)

[Husker Mort]

I Do Not think it should be a law. I think the At-Will doctrine needs protected. I agree 100% with current Title VII...all of it. I don't think sexual ORIENTATION should be included. If that means it's LEGALLY acceptable...then so be it. Do I think it's ACCEPTABLE...No. I don't think it's FAIR either. People get fired for less than being Gay all the time. Is that FAIR? NO. But life isn't always fair. People get fired for NO REASON at all. Again. I think the At-Will Doctrine needs to be protected.

Are you asking if I think being gay is wrong? My personal conviction is yes. I have that right to an opinion whether you are offended of it or not. If my son becomes gay, I would express how I think it's wrong and my opinion of it but I would certainly still love him as I always have and accept it...I also think Adultery is wrong. Does it happen all around me all the time...Yep..Doesn't mean I'm Adultery-phobic or think it has to be discriminated against. Just don't believe it should be in the category of "Civil Rights". I think the article above articulates that well.

I should have probably read it closer too.....As long as it excepts small business/religious institutions I'm kosher with it too.

(I'm not quite as bull-headed as some might think from my comments in this thread)

[ChitownHusker]

That's a situation where an accomodation makes complete sense (to me at least), but would just be difficult to figure out how to effectively legislate.

I disagree. On the train ride in this morning, I had a completely independent idea that we could just exempt employers with fewer than a certain number of employees, say hypothetically 15. I think I am going to call my legislator this morning with my idea.

By the way, I haven't had the opportunity to read the last 12 hours of posts in this thread, but I am sure there was nothing important in there.

[RedPhoenix]

I disagree. On the train ride in this morning, I had a completely independent idea that we could just exempt employers with fewer than a certain number of employees, say hypothetically 15. I think I am going to call my legislator this morning with my idea.

By the way, I haven't had the opportunity to read the last 12 hours of posts in this thread, but I am sure there was nothing important in there.

Dumbest idea I've ever heard. No way this ever becomes law. IT'S COMMON DAMN SENSE! Fair tax.

[Huskers57]

guys if you're gonna mock me, at least mock me correctly.

it's DAMN COMMON SENSE.