Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

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

RealSkyDiver said:
I'm pretty disgusted that individuals like this one are even on this forum or the a.holes who voted this hate comment up.
Pretty sad and pathetic how some people prefer hate and violence over anything else.
Click to expand...

I don't speak from a hateful heart.

But lets look at your comment:

"Pretty sad and pathetic how some people prefer hate and violence"

"I'm pretty disgusted that individuals like this one are even on this forum or the a.holes who voted this hate comment"

"Pretty sad and pathetic how some people prefer hate and violence"

"I'm pretty disgusted that individuals like this one are even on this forum or the a.holes who voted this hate comment"

hmmm . . .
 
FreeState said:
So you didn't read the link? The resume mentioned previous employment and service opportunities with gay businesses. Don't trust the source? You have Google - the story was reported by a multitude of outlets:

LA Times: http://articles.latimes.com/2013/may/22/business/la-fi-mo-lgbt-exxon-gay-20130522

NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/1999/12/07/b...ving-benefits-to-partners-of-gay-workers.html

CNN: http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/09/news/companies/pluggedin_fortune/

USA Today: http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/05/22/exxon-mobil-anti-gay-bias/2350843/

The AP (Via the Blade): http://www.toledoblade.com/Energy/2...e-anti-gay-bias-in-hiring-at-Exxon-Mobil.html

MSN News: http://news.msn.com/us/group-accuses-exxon-of-anti-gay-hiring-practices
Click to expand...
That is all fine and dandy but cases like that are impossible to prove. Maybe they did not call that person because they were over qualified and wanted a less qualified person to pay them less. Maybe they lost the resume. There are a whole list of reasons that do not prove discrimination.

I'm not saying that discrimination does not exist I'm just saying that these type of laws don't prevent people from discriminating if they discriminate at all.

Again as I stated earlier the law should simply read you can't be discriminated against if your are a human being. That is it. No need to keep adding subgroups to it.
 
WestonHarvey1 said:
It just doesn't seem like a very likely scenario. Catholic bakery refusing to make a cake for a gay wedding, based on their sincerely held religious convictions? Yeah, I can see that, that happens. But not hiring a gay employee, just because? That's certainly not a particularly *Catholic* conviction.
Click to expand...

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/09/03/oregon-bakery-closes-doors-after-state-investigates-over-refusal-to-cater-same-sex-wedding/

http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/florist-faces-second-lawsuit-over-gay-wedding-refusal

http://m.nationalreview.com/corner/356498/nm-supreme-court-finds-refusing-photograph-gay-wedding-illegal-sterling-beard
 
phillipduran said:
About the food, this changed with Jesus death. We no longer need to look to the temple for what rules to obey. We go straight to god through Jesus so enjoy your bacon.
Click to expand...

This is your interpretation of what the Bible says. It is not what the Bible says. That's the problem with relying on the Bible. Someone always has to explain and interpret it, and say "well we are going to follow this commandment and this one but not that one and not that one."

Want to avoid the Old Testament? OK, how about this one: Jesus criticized the Jews for not killing their disobedient children, as required by the Old Testament. Think that one still works today? (Mark 7:9-10)

It is perfectly appropriate (I think, others may disagree) to say: look, here is what I believe and it is what I believe and I am entitled to believe that, and even to vote based on my belief. Great. But, it is a very different thing to say: look, you must follow my belief. That's the essential point, I think. Don't like this law? Vote against it, or vote against the politicians who voted for it. But, I reject the notion that the law is inappropriate because of what you (and I and everyone else) choose to believe.
 
Last edited:
phillipduran said:
Regarding slavery. God saw us all as servants. He put in place rules to treat slaves fairly including to set them free after a time. Treat them as you would want God to treat you since you belong to him as your slaves would belong to you. No two ways about this, slavery was not condemned in the bible.

About the food, this changed with Jesus death. We no longer need to look to the temple for what rules to obey. We go straight to god through Jesus so enjoy your bacon.

Regarding stoning, Jesus said "Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her." Judgement belongs to god, not man. Let me point out though that judgement is not opinion. Letting someone know that what they are doing is wrong according to the bible is not judging someone it's making a statement. Stoning someone for what you think they did wrong would be casting judgement.
Click to expand...

So where did Jesus or God say that homosexuality is a sin? Since Jesus's death essentially retconned the lore and made his own rules where is his stance on homosexuality recorded? Also should we literally interpret the bible, how do we interpret it? Who is the body that determines which interpretation from each denomination is the correct one and how our society should function.
 
phillipduran said:
I don't speak from a hateful heart.

But lets look at your comment:

"Pretty sad and pathetic how some people prefer hate and violence"

"I'm pretty disgusted that individuals like this one are even on this forum or the a.holes who voted this hate comment"

"Pretty sad and pathetic how some people prefer hate and violence"

"I'm pretty disgusted that individuals like this one are even on this forum or the a.holes who voted this hate comment"

hmmm . . .
Click to expand...

People like "Christians" or "Islamists" would have it far easier if they'd begin to understand that there are plenty of people who have absolutely no interest in their "religion". Please, just keep it to yourself, don't judge others by what you think your god likes or not and definitely don't expect them to live by that (why the hell would I want to do that?!) and live long and happy.

And sorry, bringing in pedophelia is just asking for emotional responses.
 
yg17 said:
Wow, it only took one page for someone to falsely equate homosexuality to pedophilia.

It's like a modernized version of Godwin's law :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Worse still is his comments are the highest rated so far... what the actual **** Macrumors?
 
Kurwenal said:
Name that version. I double dog dare you (grin)....and it will take me 12 seconds to find a doctrinal dispute on a fundamental issue between that version of Christianity and many others. Even on really basic stuff. Like, let's start with an easy one: do all 1.1 billion of these adherents you mention believe that Pope Francis speaks for God?

You cannot get away from the fact that Christianity is fragmented. As soon as you cite Christianity or the Bible as support for almost any position, you are necessarily picking one over the others.
Click to expand...

Well, obviously I don't dispute that Christianity is fragmented. There are something like 200 new denominations created each year. But 1.1 billion people adhere to Catholicism which DOES have clear, authoritative teachings.

If I understand your question, then yes, if those 1.1 people are professed Catholics they share the same beliefs. You can find me dissenters but that is true of any institution.
 
phillipduran said:
Regarding slavery. God saw us all as servants. He put in place rules to treat slaves fairly including to set them free after a time. Treat them as you would want God to treat you since you belong to him as your slaves would belong to you. No two ways about this, slavery was not condemned in the bible.

About the food, this changed with Jesus death. We no longer need to look to the temple for what rules to obey. We go straight to God through Jesus so enjoy your bacon.

Regarding stoning, Jesus said "Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her." Judgement belongs to god, not man. Let me point out though that judgement is not opinion. Letting someone know that what they are doing is wrong according to the bible, is not judging someone, it's making a statement. Stoning someone for what you think they did wrong would be casting judgement.
Click to expand...


So where does the bible say homosexuality is wrong?
 
Rogifan said:
I want a bill that protects fat people. No doubt they're discriminated against. Why does everyone pander to gays? :rolleyes:

Hopefully this goes nowhere in the house.
Click to expand...

That's insane. If the fatties can get support for non discrimination of their unhealthy lifestyle, more power to em.

----------
phillipduran said:
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.
Click to expand...

Congratulations -- you don't belong in the US, where we protect against discrimination. Try Iran?

----------
Aragornii said:
Now that Obamacare has proven to be an ongoing disaster I guess it's time to throw out a highly-charged partisan wedge issue to try to change the subject.
Click to expand...

A website is not the healthcare system.
 
Dagless said:
Worse still is his comments are the highest rated so far... what the actual **** Macrumors?
Click to expand...

Cowards hiding behind an upvote button. If down votes were still allowed, I bet it would have dozens, as it should.
 
nagromme said:
Time is on the side of justice.
Click to expand...

Time is on the side of nobody if the congress and the president don't get the budget /debt limit figured out in the next couple months. The discrimination issue is an important issue but it and all other issues besides the budget / debt limit should be on hold for the next 2-3 months and congress / the president should be working on tax reform, entitlement reform, the budget and the debt limit. The discrimination issue is an easy issue for congress with both the right and left pandering to their bases. The budget / debt limit problem is a difficult problem which is why the congress and the president are ignoring it until the clock runs out again in Jan / Feb.
 
joeshmo2010 said:
Sadly it isn't expected to pass in the house. Our two-party system is nothing but roadblocks.
Click to expand...

The two party system isn't to blame in this case. Put the blame where it should be, on the bigots who vote against it or don't even bring it up for a vote.
 
Kurwenal said:
Want to avoid the Old Testament? OK, how about this one: Jesus criticized the Jews for not killing their disobedient children, as required by the Old Testament. Think that one still works today? (Mark 7:9-10)
Click to expand...

Were under a new covenant. The Old Testament rules of punishment are no longer in effect. The consequences behind the old rules are still there. All will die because of sin unless those sins are paid for. Jesus dying on the cross is the new price paid, the sacrifice for everyone's sins. In the Old Testament you paid the price directly. Now someone else has given you the gift of their life to pay for your sins, you just have to accept that gift.

So yes, it still works today, there is just someone else who stepped up to pay the price. I'm really thankful for that too because I would have been dead long ago. ;)

Heb. 8:13 "When He said, 'A new covenant,' He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear."
 
rdowns said:
Cowards hiding behind an upvote button. If down votes were still allowed, I bet it would have dozens, as it should.
Click to expand...

Figured as much. Is there any way to see who upvoted? I'd love to know who else's opinion I should put zero value to.
 
Demon Hunter said:
Just throwing this out as a possibility...

Private Catholic lay employer is hiring. Say it's a wedding cake bakery. Catholics believe marriage is between one man and one woman. That is their sincerely held religious conviction.

Gay person wants to work at bakery. Private Catholic employer declines. Gay person sues Catholic employer and/or government fines business into oblivion. Bakery goes out of business.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

What does being gay have to do with making wedding cakes, or providing the services the company provides? I don't think they should be allowed to not hire that person.

However, here is a contrasting position. A gay college professor wants to work at a Catholic University. Part of the mission of that university to develop students who uphold the values and traditions of the Catholic church. Here, I would support the ability of the church to not hire the person.
 
WestonHarvey1 said:
Those are not examples of Catholic business owners refusing employment to gay people.
Click to expand...

They are all examples of these laws trampling on a person's religious beliefs. They could be Catholic, Jewish, Protestant or Zorastrian. The point remains the same.

We can and should prevent discrimination but not at the expense of freedom to religion.
 
Last edited:
phillipduran said:
I think it is a misconception that my views are the minority view. We're just usually less vocal.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing in your town your views are not the minority. So sad that some people continue to embrace such small thinking, and traditional small town ideas.

I actually disagree on politics quite often with friends and people that I meet, but I don't know anyone that embraces discrimination in the work place. It's sad to see that this mind set still exists.
 
rdowns said:
So where does the bible say homosexuality is wrong?
Click to expand...

Pretty much everywhere, modern pretzel-twisting attempts at proving otherwise notwithstanding.

----------
Demon Hunter said:
They are all examples of these laws trampling on a person's religious beliefs. They could be Catholic, Jewish, Protestant or Zorastrian. The point remains the same.

We can and should prevent discrimination but not at the expense of freedom to religion.
Click to expand...

I totally agree.
 
yg17 said:
Threads like this just reinforce my belief that I did the right thing by running far away from religion.
Click to expand...

Pretty much, the less faith the better. I don't base my life around angles and fairy's.

“Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet. Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich.”
― Napoleon Bonaparte
Click to expand...

“If I had to choose a religion, the sun as the universal giver of life would be my god.”
― Napoleon Bonaparte
Click to expand...

Sums it up for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back