U.S. Senate Approves Anti-Discrimination Bill Endorsed by Tim Cook

[quagmire]

Church and state are not separated. State is forbidden from establishing a national church. The people are free to choose and practice their religion including voting and demanding that their politicians uphold and respect their religious views. Religion is protected. Government is not.

Many times the age of the bible is brought up. Why is that relevant? People 1000 or 2000 years ago are people just as we are today.

Yes religion is protected. But, I believe religion needs to stay out of government. You can't govern a whole nation with multiple religious beliefs using the bible. Laws shouldn't be made because the bible said it's wrong.

It was written in an entirely different time period. Humanity has changed. We have moved forward. Can't govern todays modern society by a book that was written in a different time period. Especially since it's written due a religious faith in god, not written in facts. To you who is religious christian, it may be fact to you. But, to others who are atheists, muslim, agnostic, etc it's just material written in faith in that one religion.

 

[keysofanxiety]

So based on the evidence that "iPhone" is not mentioned in the Bible, its teaching on morality and universal truth is discredited? Huh?

iPhones are like grass, friend, they are cool one moment and thrown into the furnace the next!

Its teaching on morality and universal truth is called 'common sense'. It's innate. It's not limited to the Bible; the teachings of morality are the same in every religion, and pretty much have stayed consistent in every culture.

 

[Demon Hunter]

And smart managers should realize that cutting off any portion of the applicant pool is foolish, because the best workers might happen to be in that part of the pool.

This law will help enforce what is a smart business practice in the first place.

Do we really want government enforcing "smart business practices" though? Honest question.

 

[phillipduran]

loll... owned! love it! so true! high five!... another high five!

See my response above.

Your ownage is invalid.

 

[Orlandoech]

You do need to be careful about claiming that religious exemptions should not exist. I know people hate slippery slope arguments, but we really don't want government telling religion what they should believe any more than we should have religion telling government what to enact into law.

Religious organizations have long held the ability to discriminate on a number of things. For example, a religious university can require that faculty belong to that religion, if they so desire.

However, I am in full support of this law. What difference should it make to a business what a person's sexual orientation is? Even if you take the perspective that a behavior is wrong (don't want to get into that), that behavior is not relevant to the work place.

Should I be able to not hire people who are living together if I think that it is a sin to have sex outside of marriage? That has nothing to do with the person's ability to do the job.

And smart managers should realize that cutting off any portion of the applicant pool is foolish, because the best workers might happen to be in that part of the pool.

This law will help enforce what is a smart business practice in the first place. Not to mention that it simply is morally wrong to deny someone the right to earn a living just because you disagree with their choice of lifestyle.

You're so well spoken and logical... I bet you're not in politics, I bet you pay your taxes, I bet your an admirable person... wish more people thought with ration and logic. Kudos. I'm being serious.

----------

See my response above.

Your ownage is invalid.

Excuse me, don't you DARE ruin my high-five session. That was between him and I. thanks pumpkin!

 

[Happybunny]

My statement was general and can be applied to all religions. In fact, you could even modify my statement to apply to any political view and my statement still stands. I believe that even homosexuals, the core issue of this discussion have every right to lobby their viewpoint as would any religious group. I made no statement in that post to suggest otherwise.

So you would have endorsed the mosque/prayer room by ground zero then, I mean you stand up for all religions.

 

[Demon Hunter]

Its teaching on morality and universal truth is called 'common sense'. It's innate. It's not limited to the Bible; the teachings of morality are the same in every religion, and pretty much have stayed consistent in every culture.

Well, erm, not exactly. I am fairly certain that you will find a wide range of moral beliefs in the varying denominations of the Christian tradition, between different Muslims and Jews, etc.

Yes, elements of "common sense" (or what I would refer to as the natural law) are found in every culture and place.

While I would not disagree that every religion contains elements of the truth, Christians believe that the Bible contains the fullness of Truth with a capital T. This can't be called "common sense".

 

[Orlandoech]

Do we really want government enforcing "smart business practices" though? Honest question.

Ugh... good point here too.

I dont want the law to do crap, because thats what it does... crap (imo).


FLAME ME... hurry go people.

 

[Nunyabinez]

Do we really want government enforcing "smart business practices" though? Honest question.

Actually, I do, but only when it is necessary for the public good. For example, Sarbanes-Oxley forced transparent reporting, which is much better than having accountants hiding things from interested parties.

 

[j4zb4]

That's what they said about blacks and women not 100 years ago. Grow a pair and think for yourself rather then believing what a book over 2k years ago says.

The "book" as you put it also teaches acceptance and tolerance along with the ideal way to lead you life... The problem is the people in the middle at times twisting the message to suit themselves and to gain more traction...

 

[keysofanxiety]

So you would have endorsed the mosque/prayer room by ground zero then, I mean you stand up for all religions.

Hey, want to mention the Crusades, witch-hunts, and Catholic priests' odd affiliation with choir boys?

You know, since we're not discriminating against a particular religion or anything.

 

[ChrisA]

Whatever happened to freedom of association?

It is a case of conflicting rights. The best example is "My right to swing my arm ends at your nose."

Your right of association ends when it harms someone else.

Courts have made distinction between public and private groups. Private groups having a much stronger right to associate. Public groups have a much weaker right.


Hope this answers the question but the topic is bigger then will fit here.

 

[calvin2006]

This is where you lost me. I can't think of anything worse than an absolute morality; one based around some dogmatic, outdated morals that have no place in modern society.

To paraphrase Dawkins, I want a morality that is thought out and reasoned. Women's rights, kindness to animals, abolishing slavery -- these are all things that are entirely recent and have come about from logical discussion, not from Bible-bashing and verse-quoting.

You can't think of anything worse than an absolute morality, and then you contradict yourself by espousing one. Apparently, you haven't thought this out or reasoned about it very long or very well.

 

[phillipduran]

Yes religion is protected. But, I believe religion needs to stay out of government. You can't govern a whole nation with multiple religious beliefs using the bible. Laws shouldn't be made because the bible said it's wrong.

It was written in an entirely different time period. Humanity has changed. We have moved forward. Can't govern todays modern society by a book that was written in a different time period. Especially since it's written due a religious faith in god, not written in facts. To you who is religious christian, it may be fact to you. But, to others who are atheists, muslim, agnostic, etc it's just material written in faith in that one religion.

OK, then. Lets see how the next decade goes because you are getting your way currently and I see the next 10 years societal change going in your favor.

I'm putting my money on us regretting the direction we are headed in.

 

[rei101]

So you made a conscious decision to be attracted to the opposite sex?

Is actually about what you do, the end result.

For example, I had this girl a "friend" who was into drugs and prostitution. She was saying that "no one understand her" because she had childhood traumas.

I told her that we all know about that, even court. But the problem is that you are hurting other people, you are a threat to society and that is why you will go to jail.

Then is when she sort of got the point. it does not matter what is in your head, is your influence onto others, if is bad, you will be isolated by law.

So, what ever you have in your head regarding sexuality is your business. But that does not mean you are going to go around picking on anyone else.

I have no problems with homosexuals personally, but I wouldn't like to work with one because part of my daily interaction is talking about girls and the fact is that people in your office is basically family, you spent more time with them a year than with your own family. So, I would like to have the chance to share with people with normal trends. I am not a robot or a machine.

So... I am fine with people who have other sexual orientations having peace, but again, if I am hiring someone I would like to be someone I can share more than office work.

The topic has its shades.

 

[Demon Hunter]

The "book" as you put it also teaches acceptance and tolerance along with the ideal way to lead you life... The problem is the people in the middle at times twisting the message to suit themselves and to gain more traction...

I would love to see that verse!

 

[Orlandoech]

Actually, I do, but only when it is necessary for the public good. For example, Sarbanes-Oxley forced transparent reporting, which is much better than having accountants hiding things from interested parties.

Man, so many smart people here. More minds = powerful!

Good point.

 

[phillipduran]

You're so well spoken and logical... I bet you're not in politics, I bet you pay your taxes, I bet your an admirable person... wish more people thought with ration and logic. Kudos. I'm being serious.

----------



Excuse me, don't you DARE ruin my high-five session. That was between him and I. thanks pumpkin!

It was more like one of those awkward moments when two people miss and smack each other in the face but, mmkay pumpkin, whatever you say.

----------

So you would have endorsed the mosque/prayer room by ground zero then, I mean you stand up for all religions.

Yes.

 

[keysofanxiety]

You can't think of anything worse than an absolute morality, and then you contradict yourself by espousing one. Apparently, you haven't thought this out or reasoned about it very long or very well.

I didn't espouse an absolute morality. I have no idea how you came to that conclusion. Evidently you don't know what 'absolute morality' means.

 

[Orlandoech]

OK, then. Lets see how the next decade goes because you are getting your way currently and I see the next 10 years societal change going in your favor.

I'm putting my money on us regretting the direction we are headed in.

Oh god...

Wait...

damn...

So.... we already know which side you are on.

----------

It was more like one of those awkward moments when two people miss and smack each other in the face but, mmkay pumpkin, whatever you say.

----------



Yes.

Maybe we didn't use our hands to high five, so, hitting each other in the face was actually intended... without pun... ha.

 

[FreeState]

I can see the reasoning for these laws but at the end of the day they really don't do anything to prevent discrimination especially in the hiring process.

If I theoretically had 3 qualified people I was interviewing, a straight white person, a gay person and a minority. Now I really don't know that the person is gay but i'll pretend that my gaydar is pretty good. So I end up picking the straight white person. How on earth does anyone prove that I discriminated if I discriminated at all? I just ended up picking the person I felt was the best candidate.

I'm fine with the law but why do we need to keep adding groups of people to it? Why not just say you can't be discriminated against if your are a human being??? Much simpler i think.

Heres the thing though - companies do crappy things like not call references from the obviously equally qualified gay person. Like for example:

http://www.salon.com/2013/05/23/lawsuit_alleges_anti_gay_hiring_practices_at_exxonmobil/

A lawsuit filed by the advocacy group Freedom to Work alleges that ExxonMobil discriminated against a prospective employee because the individual was gay.

After the oil and gas giant failed to adopt a nondiscrimination policy that included protections for sexual orientation and gender identity, Freedom to Work ran a “paired resume” experiment to see if the company actively discriminated in its hiring practices. The LGBT worker advocacy group submitted two fictitious resumes in response to a listing for an administrative position at Exxon’s Illinois offices. One of the candidates, the complaint alleges, was a highly qualified LGBT individual; the other was less qualified but had no ties to the gay community.

Exxon never responded to the employment request from the LGBT candidate while it actively pursued the other candidate, a practice in violation of Illinois’ Human Rights Act

 

[FrizzleFryBen]

Not sure why you'd call these "loopholes"; religions aren't limited to the four church walls, you know ("the free exercise thereof" in the First Amendment).

Here's a stretch for yah. I don't like blonds, therefore I won't hire ANY blonds. It's not your choice to be blond, you were born that way. Is that okay?

But you could always dye your hair red, but what if I see your blond roots? You're fired! Is that okay?

Or is my hypothetical not 'religious' enough?

Loopholes or is it respect for the fact that we all don't think alike?

Let the business owners decide what they want to do. If the public is so outraged over these differences, they can take their business to the companies that are in step with their views.

I would oppose laws that say you can't open a business based on your race or sex. I also oppose a government telling a business who they can or cant employ.

No one is saying who you can or can't employ. It's simply saying you can't FIRE or NOT hire someone based on they're sexual orientation.

I'm vegan, but I would never fire someone because they go deer hunting.

Crap, that's not 'religious' enough either.

Are my points sinking in at all? We all have strong convictions (as we should) but that doesn't give us the right to discriminate in the workplace based on our ideals.

 

[e-coli]

A thought out and reasoned morality. . . based on what. The current thought and culture of the day? What could possibly go wrong with that? Put your faith in men and see where that takes you. It's too susceptible to changes in which way the wind blows. Mankind needs direction and it was given to him. Were choosing to turn from that and it has been to our detriment not our enlightenment.

Sorry but this comment shows a sad lack of historical perspective of the Bible. The Bible was written by men decades after the events depicted. It was edited and canonized centuries later. Then it was divvied up, reinterpreted and segregated countless times thereafter - then reconciled with Paganism. Edits were made by virtue of which way the wind was blowing at the time. You're entitled to believe in whatever you want, but keep some perspective.

Most religions teach the same basic "moral" and social precepts.

 

[Orlandoech]

It was more like one of those awkward moments when two people miss and smack each other in the face but, mmkay pumpkin, whatever you say.

----------



Yes.

FIGHT!!! who made you the bru-thority... jk don't fight.

 

[rei101]

Those 32 are holding the line against societal degradation. It's homosexuality today. It will be pedophilia tomorrow. Sexual liberation for 13 year olds and up. Transgender, sexual identification are already being pushed into our schools now. It has no place there, but there it is. Pick the bathroom you want to use in middle school. Encourage kids to "figure out" what their sexual identity is. This is a historical calling card of the collapse of society. History backs this up.

Yes, that is why I would like to hear their arguments.