Do you think a religious person should have the right to not hire atheists based on their religion?

overgrowem said:

Yesterday's news: Pakistan refuses to indict mastermind of Mumbai attack. Trouble on the horizon?

Click to expand...

Pakistan and China ink deal to do $45 billion in infrastructure development, $38 billion of which is for electrical improvements. This dwarfs anything and everything the US has offered.

'Trouble', if that's what you want to call it, has arrived.

Padawanbater2 said:

There are fundamental questions your reasoning ignores..

-What is "a right"? Example?
-What are equal rights?
-Do you believe people should have equal rights?
-Do you believe society should strive to provide equal rights to all citizens, regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation, sexual identity, gender, national origin, etc.?
-What economic policy do you consider to be best? How would you rank Capitalism, Communism and Socialism from best to worst? Why?
Those with only "tt" will die off while those with "Tt & TT" will have a better chance at survival.

"tt" is represented as a recessive genetic trait, capital letters represent dominant traits. The dimensions hold no meaning other than that, so if, in your example "tt" was a dominant gene that was successful at helping the organism survive/pass on genes, it would be expressed in capital letters because it's a "dominant" gene by definition because it's what best helps the organism to survive.

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't get hired at Chick-fil-a because I'm not a God fearing Christian who will use his Sunday off to worship their God.

Padawanbater2 said:

You said "cultural is different than genetic" implying cultural variation isn't good. America is the most culturally diverse population on Earth and by far the strongest and most influential, so how is cultural variation bad?

Click to expand...

cultural variation is a beautiful thing. Resistance to cultural change slows it down, which is good for culture. However that said, there are several tried and tested methods to collapse an economic system. One is to inject or allow an influx of foreign occupancy, into already stretched systems. IMHO America is damaged and hated by the world. It is not a good example to give. Its "I'll tell you what's good for you" followed by "scientific proof" has brainwashed it's people into an anxious state.
if one was contemplating absolute resolve for humanity one might suggest culture is unnecessary. I am more mixed thoughts on it tho.


I believe we are supposed to stay on this planet to nurture it and be its caretaker, somewhere along the line in our evolution monarchy and government have grabbed hold and forced us into the state we are in today.

Padawanbater2 said:

You ever seen a high school drop out working in the ER?

Discriminating against people based on their sexual orientation isn't the same as denying employment based on realistic and/or expected requirements necessary to perform the job

Is it discrimination to deny a high school drop out employment based on his level of education? Why not?

I bet you can't answer that honestly

Click to expand...

Yes, it is discrimination. Discrimination is not some inherently wrong thing to exercise. Unfortunately the definition of the word has changed completely.

When you complain about discrimination you ought to be complaining about discrimination based on qualities that are unimportant. But we're lazy with language and that's useful to those who would manipulate people, so we're left with stupid semantics a lot of the time.

: the practice of unfairly treating a person or group of people differently from other people or groups of people

: the ability to recognize the difference between things that are of good quality and those that are not

: the ability to understand that one thing is different from another thing

Click to expand...

The last two are reasonable. The first one should be the last one if mentioned at all. Discrimination was a pretty useful word in the context of the English language until it got politicized. Now people automatically assume that to discriminate means to make a choice for no logical reason.

ttystikk said:

Pakistan and China ink deal to do $45 billion in infrastructure development, $38 billion of which is for electrical improvements. This dwarfs anything and everything the US has offered.

'Trouble', if that's what you want to call it, has arrived.

Click to expand...

Why is the U.S.no longer being the worlds sole Imperial power bad news? Looks like a natural outcome of there being two rich countries instead of one.

OGEvilgenius said:

Discrimination is not some inherently wrong thing to exercise. ... Discrimination was a pretty useful word in the context of the English language until it got politicized. Now people automatically assume that to discriminate means to make a choice for no logical reason.

Click to expand...

are you saying it is not inherently wrong to discriminate based on skin color or sexual orientation?

are you saying there is some sort of logical reason to discriminate base don skin color or sexual orientation?

all that goddamn political correctness, amirite?

you're fucking transparent.

OGEvilgenius said:

When you complain about discrimination you ought to be complaining about discrimination based on qualities that are unimportant.

Click to expand...

That's exactly what I am complaining about; arbitrary attributes

OGEvilgenius said:

people automatically assume that to discriminate means to make a choice for no logical reason.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure how you reached that conclusion. I'm pretty sure most of the kinds of people we're talking about know what discrimination means. It's discriminatory to deny equal goods/services based on arbitrary reasons (skin color, gender, height/weight, etc.), as outlined in the 14th amendment. They pretty much made the basis of which you can and can't interact with people clear with that. It ensures equal protection of all citizens under the law, that seems like a pretty logical reason to me..

UncleBuck said:

are you saying it is not inherently wrong to discriminate based on skin color or sexual orientation?

are you saying there is some sort of logical reason to discriminate base don skin color or sexual orientation?

all that goddamn political correctness, amirite?

you're fucking transparent.

Click to expand...

Discriminating based on skin color or whatever is dumb.

I'm saying the word meant something different than it does now because of politics and it's annoying.

Discretion is the same thing, but if I exercise discretion no one asks if I'm a racist. They are words to be used in different types of sentences that originally had the same meaning except now one is basically off limits where it would otherwise be appropriate if people wouldn't just jump to conclusions about intention.

More over, there were already appropriate words that existed prior to this hijacking. Biggot, racist, etc. And this word causes all kinds of conflict where it might not otherwise because it's interpretation is not entirely clear, because folks are imprecise with their language.

Of course a lot of folks thrive on this imprecision for their own purposes. But that's another issue that I think Orwell covered much better than I.

abandonconflict said:

The rightful owners of the United States live in reservations.

Click to expand...

I thought you held the belief that people can't "own" (land) property ?

Please clarify. Thank you.

Padawanbater2 said:

Do you think a religious person should have the right to not hire atheists based on their religion?

1. Yes, they should have the right to hire who they want for whatever reason they want, regardless of race, color, religion, sex or nation of origin

2. No, they shouldn't be able to deny equal employment opportunities based on race, color, religion, sex or nation of origin

Why/why not?

Do you believe this law has to do with religious freedom or civil rights?

If you believe it has to do with religious freedom, where do you draw the line? What if your religion says X, Y or Z? Do we grant people the right to perform whatever X, Y and Z are just because it's their religion? What if X is rape, Y is murder, and Z is theft? At what point do the rights of other citizens supercede the rights of those who are religious?

Click to expand...

Once again, you have it all ass-backwards.

An employer can hire whoever they want for whatever reason.

The disabled/gay/minority person has to prove they were discriminated against for any sort of trouble to happen to the employer and "I thought X was better than Y for the job" is all the employer has to say.

I will say from management experience that if you were to only hire based on racial, religious, etc grounds youre either going to have a high staff turnover or get stuck with a bunch of retards and you'll miss out on real talent purely because they were the wrong "flavour" for you.

Diversity is the key to talent, 70% of the public are dumb as hell.

Padawanbater2 said:

Bump @Rob Roy

Click to expand...

As you requested sir. Below are some quick and dirty definitions.

(natural) right = a theory that INDIVIDUALS have basic rights given to them by nature or God that no individual or government can deny

example = The right to control your own body, but not the body of others without their explicit consent


Equal rights = There are several commonly used meanings. The first makes sense, the second relies upon rationalization and is the improper use of the term..

The first meaning, is all people enjoy the same right, with regard to their ability to exercise control of it, over themselves,but not over others.

The second meaning is when the first meaning is contradicted. For instance, some people think an equal right should guarantee an equal result, but that is wrong, because in order to do that, the first definition would have to be violated to achieve it.

Should people have equal rights ? Yes, but that is with the understanding that no person may violate anothers right of self determination to achieve it. For instance, you have the right to determine the use of YOUR body and YOUR justly acquired property, but not the right to determine that for others.

Race etc. = People should strive to do unto others as they would have done to them. I don't like to be forced to do anything, therefore I reason others don't either. All people regardless of race have the right to control themselves, but not others etc.
No persons race confers superiority, our actions should define us, not our race or sexual preference etc.


Economic policies, which is best? = The kind that don't force other people to participate and that people naturally gravitate to.

It is not impossible, to have several competing policies existing at the same time in a given area, it just hasn't happened yet.
When it is "allowed" the answer will then become, you will decide which works best for you and I will for me. Co-existence in different economic models in a given land area is not impossible, when that becomes a widely recognized realization, people will be a step closer to freedom.

Panarchy....a good thing.

OGEvilgenius said:

Discriminating based on skin color or whatever is dumb.

Click to expand...

but do you think it should be legal, like most of the righties on this board feel it should be?

UncleBuck said:

are you saying it is not inherently wrong to discriminate based on skin color or sexual orientation?

are you saying there is some sort of logical reason to discriminate base don skin color or sexual orientation?

all that goddamn political correctness, amirite?

you're fucking transparent.

Click to expand...

Are you saying it is not inherently wrong to force people that are leaving you alone into an interaction?

Rob Roy said:

Are you saying it is not inherently wrong to force people that are leaving you alone into an interaction?

Click to expand...

RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRAPE!!!

Rob Roy said:

Are you saying it is not inherently wrong to force people that are leaving you alone into an interaction?

Click to expand...

name one person who has been forced to open a public store rather than a private one.

wooops, you can't, and your entire philosophy is predicated upon that false premise.

looks like you need a new philosophy, spaMBLA. might i suggest one in which children cannot consent to being paid for sex?

UncleBuck said:

name one person who has been forced to open a public store rather than a private one.

wooops, you can't, and your entire philosophy is predicated upon that false premise.

looks like you need a new philosophy, spaMBLA. might i suggest one in which children cannot consent to being paid for sex?

Click to expand...

Your question doesn't refute "my entire philosophy" bonehead. It fortifies it.

In my world government isn't necessary to redefine what property is. In yours it is a given that government can, using force too. You believe the nanny state has the right to redefine property and who can own it.

You declare that a person must do one of either
1)declare their property as "private club" or 2) "public accomodation".

Failing to declare is not an option in your world....WHY? \

WHAT WILL HAPPEN? Force, government force. There it is. You lose, again...bonehead.

You really aren't very bright.

UncleBuck said:

but do you think it should be legal, like most of the righties on this board feel it should be?

Click to expand...

Not surprising he avoids this direct question.

Rob Roy said:

Your question doesn't refute "my entire philosophy" bonehead. It fortifies it.

In my world government isn't necessary to redefine what property is. In yours it is a given that government can, using force too. You believe the nanny state has the right to redefine property and who can own it.

You declare that a person must do one of either
1)declare their property as "private club" or 2) "public accomodation".

Failing to declare is not an option in your world....WHY? \

WHAT WILL HAPPEN? Force, government force. There it is. You lose, again...bonehead.

You really aren't very bright.

Click to expand...

see4 said:

Click to expand...

Your dog looks dizzy, here let me train him not to chase his tail. You're welcome.

Rob Roy said:

Your dog looks dizzy, here let me train him not to chase his tail. You're welcome.

Click to expand...

You've got some really good Photoshop skills.