Get HuskerMax™ on your iPhone. Click here for details. Get tickets for all home and away games here.
Page 5 of 10 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 182

Thread: Ron Brown issue/discussion wonderfully articulated...

  1. #81
    Guest

    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    19,545
    Quote Originally Posted by OmaHusker View Post
    You're contradicting yourself.
    Some of the arguments in this thread are not necessarily built upon bedrocks of consistency.

  2. #82
    God of Huskermax

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Overland Park, KS
    Posts
    58,841
    Thank you.

  3. #83
    Travel Squad

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Boulder, CO
    Posts
    9,185
    Quote Originally Posted by The Impaler View Post
    Wow! Just wow. So I live in TX, do you think it would be OK for employers here to discrimintate against me becasue I am from Nebraska? Jay, just found out you're from Nebraska, you're fired.
    I am on your side in this argument, TI, but if you don't have an employment agreement that specifically provides the terms and conditions under which you can be fired, then your employment is "at will" and you probably can be fired with or without cause and with or without notice. Only if you were a member of one of the protected classes and only if you could establish your being one of the protected classes was the reason for your firing, would your firing be actionable.
    "Those mothers would rather see the country go down in flames than let the times change."

    -- Samuel L. Jackson

  4. #84
    God of Huskermax

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Overland Park, KS
    Posts
    58,841
    Quote Originally Posted by hskrdavey View Post
    I did not say it's ACCEPTABLE to discriminate against gays. I just do not believe it should be put into a law. Too much Govt interference. In response to your question on whether he's fired or not... It doesn't matter. I think an EMPLOYER who runs his own business should be able to fire anyone he wants to for any reason. Its HIS business. Not the governments. People get fired every day for things much less than being gay.
    And you think that's the right path to go down? A segmented society where Christians can be denied jobs based on religion? Where whites only can be a company policy? Are you kidding?!?!?!?

  5. #85
    Guest

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Aurora, NE
    Posts
    1,598
    Quote Originally Posted by The Impaler View Post
    Wow! Just wow. So I live in TX, do you think it would be OK for employers here to discrimintate against me becasue I am from Nebraska? Jay, just found out you're from Nebraska, you're fired.
    In some small business's... yep. That's what At-Will doctrine is all about. I just don't think "sexual orientation" should be included in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. A great example was SealBeaches Muslim employer example.

  6. #86
    God of Huskermax

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Overland Park, KS
    Posts
    58,841
    Quote Originally Posted by SealBeachHusker View Post
    We discriminate on myriad of criteria on a daily basis. That's not the point. Unlike the examples you used it is a centuries held religious observance, of a faith that is the predominant on the planet, that is based on a very specific behavior that is seen as sinful.

    Also, I do believe, for instance, that a Muslim organization should not be forced by a judge to hire Christians, Atheists, or Jews if it means contradicting their religious practice.
    So it's just a special privilege for the religious folk then? Can atheists discriminate too? And lets not forget that for centuries Muslims have forbidden women to work. Are you saying you'd be ok with that? Or how about the centuries old religious traditions of slavery?

    I honestly get the feeling more than a few Christians in America would prefer to be more like Iran. A true theocracy.

  7. #87
    God of Huskermax

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Overland Park, KS
    Posts
    58,841
    Quote Originally Posted by Showman View Post
    Some of the arguments in this thread are not necessarily built upon bedrocks of consistency.
    Or logic.

  8. #88
    Heisman

    Join Date
    Feb 2000
    Posts
    39,926
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPhoenix View Post
    I honestly get the feeling more than a few Christians in America would prefer to be more like Iran. A true theocracy.
    If that means we get more Iranian women over here, I'm for it... but not the theocracy part.

  9. #89
    Guest

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Papillion, NE
    Posts
    3,743
    Quote Originally Posted by Showman View Post
    Some of the arguments in this thread are not necessarily built upon bedrocks of consistency.
    The problem is "bedrock of consistency" is too often equated to, "I'm right so you're argument makes no sense."

  10. #90
    God of Huskermax

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Overland Park, KS
    Posts
    58,841
    Quote Originally Posted by SealBeachHusker View Post
    We discriminate on myriad of criteria on a daily basis. That's not the point. Unlike the examples you used it is a centuries held religious observance, of a faith that is the predominant on the planet, that is based on a very specific behavior that is seen as sinful.

    Also, I do believe, for instance, that a Muslim organization should not be forced by a judge to hire Christians, Atheists, or Jews if it means contradicting their religious practice.
    And lets keep in mind we aren't talking about a Muslim Mosque or anything like that. What Davey is saying is that a guy who owns a Restaurant and is a Muslim should be able to discriminate against anything his religion says it's ok to discriminate against. Blacks, women, gays, atheists, jews....any and all of those as long as his religion says it's ok.

  11. #91
    Quote Originally Posted by SealBeachHusker View Post
    I'd say if the employment in a small family business or religious organization constitutes a contradiction of religious practice, than I could understand a need to allow for this type of discrimination in some cases. IMO, in these cases the right to freely practice ones religious faith supersedes the right of an individual to work at that particular small family business or religious organization. I do not, though, support a wholesale allowance to discriminate against gays.
    I see, you're discriminating in your discrimination.

  12. #92
    Guest

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Aurora, NE
    Posts
    1,598
    Is this how it should be written?? What am I missing?

    Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, weight, who they married, looks, height, hair color, if they have a bad attitude, they lisp, eat their buggers, bi-sexual, drink of choice, favorite football team, gastric intestinal issues, closet smurf lover, and national origin.

  13. #93
    Quote Originally Posted by hskrdavey View Post
    Is this how it should be written?? What am I missing?

    Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, weight, who they married, looks, height, hair color, if they have a bad attitude, they lisp, eat their buggers, bi-sexual, drink of choice, favorite football team, gastric intestinal issues, closet smurf lover, and national origin.
    Two really awful posts in one thread.

    Certainly not a record, but an admirable performance.

  14. #94
    Quote Originally Posted by hskrdavey View Post
    I did not say it's ACCEPTABLE to discriminate against gays. I just do not believe it should be put into a law. Too much Govt interference. In response to your question on whether he's fired or not... It doesn't matter. I think an EMPLOYER who runs his own business should be able to fire anyone he wants to for any reason. Its HIS business. Not the governments. People get fired every day for things much less than being gay.
    You are arguing that it should be legally acceptable to discriminate against people for being gay. That is your argument; you should own it. You are saying that there is nothing legally wrong with an employer telling an employee he or she is fired because he believes the employee is gay. I don't think it is too much "government interference" to ban discrimination based on race, religion, or ethnicity. Do you? Do you believe it should be acceptable for my boss to walk in and say to me, "I just heard you're a churchgoing Catholic. Catholics disgust me. You're fired." Do you think that should be legally acceptable? After all, I've made a choice to be Catholic. I have no one to blame for my choices, am I right?

    I am all in favor of a limited government. But it is hard to think of a more legitimate governmental function than preventing employers from discriminating on immutable characteristics.
    "The distinctive mark of the Christian, today more than ever, must be love for the poor, the weak, the suffering." Pope John Paul II


  15. #95
    Cake or Death?
    The Impaler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    still in ********** Texas via Alliance
    Posts
    6,611
    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post
    I am on your side in this argument, TI, but if you don't have an employment agreement that specifically provides the terms and conditions under which you can be fired, then your employment is "at will" and you probably can be fired with or without cause and with or without notice. Only if you were a member of one of the protected classes and only if you could establish your being one of the protected classes was the reason for your firing, would your firing be actionable.
    I understand your point, it probably wasn't the best analogy but I'm guessing you would have a pretty legitimate case by the time it was all said and done.

    "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." -Carl Sagan


  16. #96
    God of Huskermax

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Overland Park, KS
    Posts
    58,841
    Quote Originally Posted by SealBeachHusker View Post
    I'd say if the employment in a small family business or religious organization constitutes a contradiction of religious practice, than I could understand a need to allow for this type of discrimination in some cases. IMO, in these cases the right to freely practice ones religious faith supersedes the right of an individual to work at that particular small family business or religious organization. I do not, though, support a wholesale allowance to discriminate against gays.
    So it's ok for 80% of America to discriminate based solely on the fact they are Christian. And you don't think that is "wholesale" discrimination?

  17. #97
    God of Huskermax

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Overland Park, KS
    Posts
    58,841
    Quote Originally Posted by hskrdavey View Post
    Is this how it should be written?? What am I missing?

    Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, weight, who they married, looks, height, hair color, if they have a bad attitude, they lisp, eat their buggers, bi-sexual, drink of choice, favorite football team, gastric intestinal issues, closet smurf lover, and national origin.

  18. #98
    Quote Originally Posted by The Impaler View Post
    I understand your point, it probably wasn't the best analogy but I'm guessing you would have a pretty legitimate case by the time it was all said and done.
    Best analogy is to religion. Title VII prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion. There is sound basis to prohibit discrimination based on religion (one's religious affiliation is at least partially predicated on choice and behavior) but not homosexuality. Both classes have been subjected historically to employment and other types of discrimination, and there is not a sound, secular basis for discriminating against either class of people.
    "The distinctive mark of the Christian, today more than ever, must be love for the poor, the weak, the suffering." Pope John Paul II


  19. #99
    Guest

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Aurora, NE
    Posts
    1,598
    Quote Originally Posted by ChitownHusker View Post
    You are arguing that it should be legally acceptable to discriminate against people for being gay. That is your argument; you should own it. You are saying that there is nothing legally wrong with an employer telling an employee he or she is fired because he believes the employee is gay. I don't think it is too much "government interference" to ban discrimination based on race, religion, or ethnicity. Do you? Do you believe it should be acceptable for my boss to walk in and say to me, "I just heard you're a churchgoing Catholic. Catholics disgust me. You're fired." Do you think that should be legally acceptable? After all, I've made a choice to be Catholic. I have no one to blame for my choices, am I right?

    I am all in favor of a limited government. But it is hard to think of a more legitimate governmental function than preventing employers from discriminating on immutable characteristics.
    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.

  20. #100
    Cake or Death?
    The Impaler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    still in ********** Texas via Alliance
    Posts
    6,611
    Quote Originally Posted by ChitownHusker View Post
    Best analogy is to religion. Title VII prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion. There is sound basis to prohibit discrimination based on religion (one's religious affiliation is at least partially predicated on choice and behavior) but not homosexuality. Both classes have been subjected historically to employment and other types of discrimination, and there is not a sound, secular basis for discriminating against either class of people.
    Yeah, I get that, I was trying to think of something outrageous though in my analogy.

    "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." -Carl Sagan





Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •