People don't choose their sexuality, and saying you can't accept someone because of their sexuality is the same thing as saying you can't accept someone because of their race, and I think we all agree that if someone didn't accept of someone else because of their race, they'd be a racist bigot.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple CEO Tim Cook Writes Op-Ed in Support of U.S. Employment Nondiscrimination Act
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
People don't choose their sexuality, and saying you can't accept someone because of their sexuality is the same thing as saying you can't accept someone because of their race, and I think we all agree that if someone didn't accept of someone else because of their race, they'd be a racist bigot.
Yeah, I do. What you are reading from around the world are people realizing that the change is happening and rally against it, futilely *I might add. The younger generation just doesn't see the issue anymore. Their friends, family members and co-workers are coming out because they are feeling safer to do so and they are realizing these is no issue. Furthermore those same people are realizing (like myself) how difficult it is to be gay and try to get some parity out of the society they have contributed to just as I have. Here in Canada, Gay marriage has been legal for well over a decade *kids are growing up blissfully unaware that there has been a time it wasn't legal. It's a snowball effect that's been a long time coming. Personally, I am fine those who "keep their views to themselves and smile but they and I will never accept it no matter how many laws you pass" because they will eventually die (or hopefully learn better) and we will be left with their kids who don't share their views because of their friends, family members and co-workers are coming out.
You are already a hypocrite - you chastise others for not accepting different views, yet you refuse to accept different views.
Agreed, on both counts - which is why I made the point about if Islam should get its act together (I am all for total risk assessment).
As for treatment of women, that wasn't part of my defined target - libertines.
Bad idea
Not this law but all discrimination laws. I think discrimination is bad but the cost benefit of our current discrimination regime is worse.
Laws all have trade offs. Sometimes letting society develop organically is far better than creating such moral statement laws which make businesses an increasing target for lawyers. At this point we should be repealing all discrimination laws not passing new ones. The trade offs are just not worth the moral statement we are trying to make.
Not this law but all discrimination laws. I think discrimination is bad but the cost benefit of our current discrimination regime is worse.
Laws all have trade offs. Sometimes letting society develop organically is far better than creating such moral statement laws which make businesses an increasing target for lawyers. At this point we should be repealing all discrimination laws not passing new ones. The trade offs are just not worth the moral statement we are trying to make.
Maybe not to you, but people currently being discriminated agains would disagree.
First, you gave yourself away by your infantile use of the teabagger label. TEAparty stands for Taxed Enough Already, but you knew that already, didn't you.
Second, Totally against any form of socialized healthcare. Your health is your business - not mine, and Idefinitely don't want you stealing my money for your wants.
I accept you have the right to believe gay marriage is wrong. It is a free society, and it should protect your right to your beliefs. I may still debate you on the pros and cons, but I accept that you have that right.
The difficult question is... can you accept it for other people? When the laws against gay marriage were repealed (where appropriate) it didn't affect you at all. It doesn't mean you had to have a gay marriage at all. You could still forbid your child from having one (if appropriate) and they would still ignore you as all children have for all time. In other words, your rights to do things and to believe things were not changed at all when the law was repealed. Though you may have to put up with some experiences that you find distasteful.
However, other people's rights were seriously infringed by the law being in place. Other people's lives were negatively impacted in a fundamental way by not having access to marriage. On balance, their fundamental rights trump your distasteful experiences.
And - btw - have you read the relevant Leviticus passage? The full version that is?
----------
Though, to be fair, under a socialized medical system you'd pay less and live longer... That is sort of the whole point. People pay less to be more healthy.
Ok, my apologies. However, who's "we"? Socialism hasn't quite perfected the hive, yet. And, if Islam does form a coalition, all bets are off as to where personal ideology will end up.
Currently, there are two prevailing ideologies - Left and Right, only one will end up the victor in the next major conflict. Barring the pandemic plague of Islam, my money is on the one with the guns.
Let em guess, you're a straight, white male from the south.
US GAO said:
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-700R
I guess you are against health insurance too...
It seems astonishingly unlikely...
So what exactly does a "libertine" support that you don't?
That isn't how it usually plays out - http://www.economist.com/news/inter...ay-power-it-rarely-benefits-protesters-weapon.
One small point about your post - there is no such thing as "society". It is a false construct (like many such), designed to fool people into falling in line with the noisiest voice. It is, in effect, nothing more than rabble-rousing.
----------
At my expense - that is the point!
----------
Reagan was wuss! Attila the Hun is more my style.
I don't see how allowing people to die due to their financial situation is any better. Care to elaborate? There are problems inherent to modern society. For one thing people who live in cities are decoupled from the production of natural food sources, and the environment would not survive a population of 300 million turning to hunting. I'm really not sure what you would expect the masses to do when confronted with extreme healthcare expenses. The purely ideological opposition just makes it more difficult to find a palatable solution. I kind of wanted to avoid using the "people dying in the streets" analogy here, but it would be the case for many of them if hospitals only treated insured patients. It has further unintended consequences. For example older individuals can be more expensive to insure, making them less attractive in terms of costs than younger employees.
I'm not the one being led around by someone with a big stick.
----------
True, but the guns help the autocrats, which is fine by me.
----------
Not that whiny old crap again! Everyone dies - and I certainly can't prevent my own death at some point. Some people, via various reasons, are more fortunate than others. That's just the way it is.
My reference to hunting was meant to delineate the difference between the sexes. Perhaps I should have said "provide", instead.
As to the plight of older people, I am one - and since I have retired, I am of less utility than younger, more productive people. None of this excuses the theft of my money.
Last edited:
How is leaving more money in your pocket considered '… at your expense'? And with better outcomes to boot, eh?
Last edited by a moderator:
So what? You too get to be healthier, wealthier and live longer, and you get to benefit from living amongst people who are healthier, wealthier, live longer and are happier. The expense to you is smaller than the benefit to you. Why object to that? Would you hurt yourself simply so that you can ensure others don't benefit from you in any way?
Er ... the bleeding heart meme doesn't work on me.
There is a slight difference between me thinking along those lines and deciding to use charity to alleviate such a situation, versus having my money stolen from me by fiat.
I agree. People never seem to recognize that even the most well-intentioned law has tradeoffs. In this case, the two biggest I see are 1) increased waste (and I mean this in the economic sense of the term) and 2) the very people who this law is trying to help will be hurt the most. After all, if an employee who was fired for very valid reasons can file a wrongful termination suit on the basis of discrimination, do you think an employer is more likely or less likely to hire an LGBT? We've already seen this happen with the passage of the ADA. I'd rather not see a repeat.
EDIT: after thinking about it some more, I'm doubly scared. Unless you're in a heterosexual relationship, there is no way to prove your sexual identity. Get fired and don't like it? Sue on the basis of discrimination, even if you're heterosexual! I can see this being ripe for abuse.
Last edited:
If you were subject to discrimination and had no legal recourse, your opinion would likely be different.
----------
That's ignorant. You have to prove discrimination, and it's one of the most difficult things to prove. It's quite obvious you really don't know what you're talking about.
It seems age doesn't breed maturity
. Anyway you missed several of my points entirely. Regarding hunting I pointed out that we do not prepare children for a life outside modern society. Beyond that I never denied the issue of death. I said that no one is going to support a law to turn away people at the ER. I went on to say that preventative care is administered in an inefficient manner, even for those with insurance policies. There's no way to even guarantee continued coverage, regardless of if you began your policy while healthy.Opinions have little to do with logic. It's a matter of ability to apply reason without distorting the situation.
Doesn't matter in the slightest. Particularly with small businesses, but even in large companies as well, a lawsuit can be so expensive and cumbersome that the defendant will often elect to settle out of court, whether they're right or not.
Also, I can do without the personal attacks, thanks.
I really don't think you know how it works, that isn't an attack. I have a family member who was blatantly discriminated against, fired for being female (her supervisor said wonderful things like "women shouldn't work out in the plant") and she's still suing. So this mystic land where companies just fold every time is a laughable one.