Active Users:764 Time:13/11/2024 05:57:21 AM
Good god... MalkierKnight Send a noteboard - 10/09/2010 10:52:03 AM


My my, I'm away from the computer for a few days and look what has found it's way to my thread.

An illiterate moron.
You mean, today, when you came back?

1) I never, in my entire post, brought up morality. So don't put words in my mouth. I hope you're bright enough to realize that what is legal and what is moral are not necessarily the same thing. I'd be more than glad to discuss the morality of the issue with you another time, but the topic of this thread was legality.
Like I care. Why don't you show me the rule on the site where a poster decides what topics may be discussed in replies and has the right to forbid anything else. I “brought up” morality to explain the position of the Church, because there are other people than you in the world, and your disinterest in a topic in no way renders it ineligible for discussion. And why don't you tell me where the word homophobia occurs in the the US Code or Constitution? You WERE talking about morality.

My point was that it shouldn't be legal for private institutions to make personnel decisions based on something not directly related to their work performance. Perhaps my use of the word "ought" misled you to think there was a moral emphasis in what I said. That would be my fault.
I said they OUGHT to be allowed to do so. I directly disagreed with your issue. I fully understood the point you were making and could not disagree more. People are allowed to do that.

2) Comparing Ben Roethelesburger to this woman is absurd. Just because two things are similar in the vaguest of ways, doesn't mean you can draw a comparison. The circumstances of each issue are very different.
I disagree. Saying they are different does not make it so. You have admitted your ignorance and deficiencies in communication sufficient times in this thread that I wonder that you still stand on your own feelings as an authority.

If you can't understand that, you're more of an idiot than your post lets on. However, I'd be glad to exhaustively explain how the NFL's personal conduct policy is different from marrying a homosexual, if you insist.
That might be relevant if that was the point I was making. Why is the NFL allowed to have a conduct policy applied to employees on issues "not related to their work performance" but the Catholic Church is not?

3) Discrimination isn't legal. In fact, it's explicitly illegal. I'm sorry that you really don't like the civil rights act, but it is a law. And it was voted there by elected representatives. That's how democracy works. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean you can sit her and claim that it's not the law. Maybe you don't like that law, but don't sit her and act like it's ok to fire someone based on race.
But it should be, and the law in question has no constitutional basis for its authority. You freely confess to not understanding the law in question, do you really want to try asserting the constitutionality of a law you don't even understand? It is also a law that allows religious institutions more leeway on certain things. You promptly went ahead and questioned whether not they SHOULD have that leeway. So don't complaining that I am the one dragging the discussion from a stictly legalistic analysis of the meaning and execution of a particular anti-discrimination law, that you can't even quote, let alone understand. The next time you leave the site for a few days, re-read what you yourself wrote, so you don't look so foolish referencing posts that only exist in your imagination.

Listing Rob Schneider as a source is also so mind-blowingly stupid I'm almost unable to explain all the ways you are a complete and utter dumbass.
And here you are believing that mentioning someone's name is "listing...as a source". I did not, in fact, cite Mr. Schenider for anything aside as an EXAMPLE of discriminatory behavior that IS widely recognized as acceptable, and should NOT be punished by law. It should be inherently obvious to the most casual reader that I was also using him as the most ridiculous example of discrimination possible, in order to make a point that even such as that should be permitted in a free society.

You see, the law exists because it has to. There's no moral justification for it. It's there because we need it. Because people need it. Which is why Democracy is the most just form of government.
Who the hell taught you to think? Do you even realize how many moralizations you placed in those sentences? Who says we "need" that law? Why do we need it? Prove this. Are your mental faculties really so limited that you honestly cannot conceive of a mindset different from your own narrow moral positioning? Forbidding discrimination is absolutely nothing more than a morality-based action, and is by its very nature a moral judgment. Your assertion that the number of people supporting a position makes it "just" is a moral judgment, if an assinine one. Is this the same position you take vis a vis the democratic opposition to homosexual marriage in California?

Because the society that needs order and protection from too much freedom has a say in how the government goes about protecting and keeping the order.
Insufficient support for a highly dubious proposition.

As people grow culturally and intellectually, they can afford more and more freedoms.
What arrogant and elitist nonsense! You are essentially saying “People cannot be trusted until they believe the way I think appropriate, and they must be restrained, surveilled and kept from freedom, until they are sufficiently re-educated to choose what I think best on their own!”
On what grounds do you claim the right to say when a person is grown enough to be permitted freedom? Who are you to say that is right, and how are you any different from a religious person who says people can't be trusted with freedom until they have proven their faith and devotion and their ability to refrain from temptation?

However, when society starts to abuse those freedoms, the government steps in and creates more laws.
Who decides? What gives them the right to restrict freedom just because it's unpopular?

In a perfect world, we wouldn't need things like the civil rights act.

Unfortunately, idiot racists abuse their freedom of privacy, by hurting other citizens.
How do they hurt them? Hurting someone is inflicting suffering on them, NOT refusing to give them everything they ask for. The laws against discrimination, however, are basically stepping to force people to do the other. It is, or should be, entirely up to an employer to determine what constitutes job performance. When educating children at a Catholic school, for instance, the purpose of the job is educate children in Catholic values. People who embrace a lifestyle in opposition to those values are not doing their job. Just as an employee of the NAACP who is a member of the KKK in his free time is similarly failing to advance colored people. The inability to get along with a more highly-valued employee, for no fault of one's own, can and should be grounds for termination, as the employer is not getting what he wants from his employees in such a case, no matter how illegitimate or unjust the reasons why the fired person is not tolerated by his coworkers.

Even setting aside all those points, essential liberty includes the right to property, which assumes the right to do as one pleases with his or her property, including choose whom you will give your property to in exchange for goods or services. Those who surrender this essential liberty in exchange for temporary security against the ugliness of discrimination, neither deserve, nor will they get, either the liberty OR security.

Unfortunately, catholics abuse their power as a private institution by refusing to hire/employ someone who sins in but ONE way among THOUSANDS.
What kind of reasoning is that? Not only that, you are being discriminatory, making a sweeping & unsupported generalization about a widespread group. Who are you to tell Catholics what sins they have to value, and what priority those sins should be? As I explained, the sin in question is one of the most serious against Catholic values. Or is your point about the quantity of the sins? A man who lies and takes the name of the Lord in vain commits two sins, so by your reckoning, he should be fired before the man with only a single murder to his name?

And I'm well aware that the Bible is the book you're referring to.
I wasn't trying to hide it.

However, if you're a Catholic, as you seem to suggest, there's a whole bunch of church doctrine you have to listen to as well. In case you didn't know, that's where most of the anti-gay stuff comes from (at least in the Catholic Church). (Btw, the bible is a collection of writings from many different authors, I was referring to those select writings about Jesus, i.e. the gospel).
My point exactly. Why do you bring up a bunch of blather about what is not contained in one tiny source when you freely admit a wide range of sources for Catholic morality? I was directly responding to your comment about "all the writings we have on Jesus" when I cited "one very short book." I would have thought the physical proximity of those two sentences would have alerted you to their relationship, even if your brain is incapable of maintaining coherent lines of though. I know exactly where the anti-homosexual doctrine comes from, but your were the one disingenuously expressing shock at the lack of such in a rather limited compilation of a single teacher. You claim to find it shocking that the Church takes a position despite a single source having nothing to say about it one way or another, and yet, when called out on your ignorance, confess your true understanding of the source of doctrine you claim to be shocked at its lack of provenance.

Since you're such a penitent man, go read the bible sometime and gloss over the pages about jesus christ. Tell me how many times he mentions homosexuality.
Who said I was penitent, and what does that have to do with reading the Bible? And when did I ever claim He said otherwise, or that it matters one way or another to me? So Jesus says nothing about homsexuality. Your point being...? Or did you forget once again that you claimed to understand that Catholics answer to Church doctrine?


1) When you're responding directly to a post, as you were to mine, it's pretty basic courtesy to address what that person said, not go on your own tangent about morality.

Do you honestly not understand the distinction between legality and morality? There is a difference between positive law and natural law. I have neither the time nor the patience to explain to your ignorant and arrogant self what each is. So go wikipedia it.

2) The NFL's personal conduct policy deals with legality, not necessarily a player's personal life. The NFL doesn't step in and prohibit players from going to night clubs or gay bars, but it does allow itself the right to suspend players who get on the wrong side of the law (or close to it). The key word here is LAW.

3) What you seem to be misunderstanding about this whole thing is that while I agree that the catholic school does have a contractual right to fire the teacher, the language of that contract should never have been permitted under federal law.

No where, do I need morality to prove that point.

According to the civil rights act (which I do understand) and Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, discrimination is not permitted unless a lack of discrimination alters or derogates the expressed message of the organization.

Wikipedia that as well if you like.

However, you seem insistent upon introducing morality to all this.

You accuse me of being elitist when you sit there and try and argue for your brand of morality.

Prove to me WHY businesses should be allowed to fire and hire whoever they want? Because they're private? Well why should being private make them special? Please don't tell me that you are operating under the assumption that pure capitalism is inherently moral?

I happen to believe that it's UNfair to hire/fire based on factors that have nothing to do with job performance.

That seems a lot more intuitively grasped to me.

As opposed to your sick reverence for privacy.

Am I arguing for socialism? No. I'm arguing for a legal system that ensures order and approximate fairness.

Private business owners have rights, but so do the individuals who seek jobs from those owners.

By your logic, black people still wouldn't be allowed to eat in the same restaurants as whites. And they probably wouldn't be allowed to pursue jobs as doctors or lawyers either.

But sometimes the government has to step in.

What gives them the authority you ask?

4) I already explained this, but it's the fact that we live in a democracy. We voted this government in power and do so regularly. Therefore, we can assume that most of their actions have the approval of the people.

And how in god's name am I being elitist for suggesting a very simple statement about the nature of government? Did you go to high school? Ever hear of something called the social contract? John Locke's version in particular? I feel like a pretentious ass alluding to it, but you really don't seem to know what you're talking about.

If we lived in a society of complete freedom that would be anarchy. People would do whatever they wanted, whenever they wanted. And, more than likely, in today's society, they would cause a lot of chaos. Government is needed to keep order in society. Do you understand? Do you?

Here's a simple example: Ever been to a McDonalds? Chances are you have. And if you've been to one in a decent area, the soda fountain is located in the customer area so the customers can freely get refills. Employers are allowed to do this because fountain soda is absurdly cheap and most people aren't asses who cheat the system by bringing in the same used mcdonalds cups over and over again.

But, if you've been to an area that's not so decent, you'll realize that you almost NEVER see the soda fountains out in the customer area. Why? Because when given too much freedom, asses abuse their freedoms. This is a simple fact of life.

Not every person is created equally. As you've once again shown me. A number of societal and even genetic influences play a role in a person's behavior, to assume that everyone will just do the right or decent thing is silly. Some people will be better, more civil, others will not.

I hadn't intended to explain all that to you, but your ignorance was getting really frustrating.

5) I'll be more direct since you seem to misunderstand my efforts to be modest and polite with ignorance and hesitance.

It is STUPID that catholics and christians alike place so much emphasis on the sin of homosexuality, when the son of god, GOD HIMSELF, the individual upon whose ideas the bulk of christianity is based, does not ONCE mention homosexuality. The sheer stupidity of it drives me crazy.

I am very well aware that catholics have doctrine, but no other doctrinal fact incites as much passion and fervor as homosexuality. Say to a deeply catholic person that you used a contraceptive and they would be disappointed. Say to that same person that you like to take it up the ass from other guys chances are you'd get fired from your job (that is, if you work for a catholic organization).

This is my own interjection now and is not wholly relevant to the discussion: so what explains this emphasis on the sin of homosexuality?

Answer: homophobia.

And because it is an explanation of behavior and NOT of religious laws it is STUPID to compare my point that homosexuality is not mentioned in the gospel to homophobia not being used in the constitution.

Let me break it down for you: "homosexuality is a sin" -->religious law--> comes from a religious text-->the gospel doesn't ever mention homosexuality.

"homophobia is the real reason for emphasis on homosexuality being a sin" -->observing behavior. so where would you even think to mention the constitution?

Just because I said it and you disagree doesn't mean you can draw an poorly conceived parallel.

You know, it's people like you that really cause problems in this country. There's the elitists (the educated, intelligent, rational people) then there's the less educated, less intelligent people (who are no less as individuals because of that). But THEN there's that group in between. The group that can talk just well enough to convince themselves that they're smart despite a complete and utter ignorance on the subject they randomly form an opinion on.

If nothing else, you have demonstrated your lack of understanding in three separate fields of interest, all of which you should have had a meager understanding of before commenting on this post.

Please do yourself a favor and don't respond to this, just learn a little about the distinction between positive and natural law, the social contract, and your own religion.

Either way, I won't be responding anymore. I've had quite enough of your shameful idiocy.
You must unlearn what you have learned.
Reply to message
Gay Marriage and Religious Institutions - 04/09/2010 11:36:14 PM 1367 Views
Religion 100% aside, it's"okay" because she breached her contract - 05/09/2010 12:18:36 AM 956 Views
Well, my tripes with it are a little in line with that - 05/09/2010 01:26:56 AM 971 Views
Re: Well, my tripes with it are a little in line with that - 05/09/2010 01:41:34 AM 913 Views
goodness knows that the military sign their rights away ALL THE TIME - 05/09/2010 02:44:58 AM 773 Views
While I understand that view - 05/09/2010 04:05:29 AM 922 Views
There is a difference in the degree of the transgressions and the public nature of them as well. - 05/09/2010 02:30:06 AM 872 Views
agreed. There may be some hypocrisy in the church employment practices... - 05/09/2010 02:49:44 AM 831 Views
That's the crux of it. - 07/09/2010 11:24:44 AM 972 Views
Re: There is a difference in the degree of the transgressions and the public nature of them as well. - 09/09/2010 06:43:23 AM 1150 Views
I could not believe this post was serious. - 10/09/2010 02:04:10 AM 959 Views
Good god... - 10/09/2010 10:52:03 AM 933 Views
To recieve federal funds you can't discriminate - 05/09/2010 04:02:13 AM 972 Views
She chose to work for a Catholic institution. - 05/09/2010 05:54:23 PM 778 Views
what a stupid thing to say - 05/09/2010 07:38:16 PM 918 Views
Um... no? One can be excommunicated for any number of things. *NM* - 05/09/2010 08:22:29 PM 313 Views
yeah back in the time when there was no electricity *NM* - 05/09/2010 08:25:17 PM 355 Views
...um, no. I'm not sure where you're getting that from, but it's completely wrong. - 06/09/2010 01:06:49 AM 819 Views
You can't be excommunicated for being gay - 06/09/2010 02:51:21 AM 902 Views
No one here said you could. - 06/09/2010 03:00:07 AM 834 Views
I am not disagreeing with that, excommunications do happen - 06/09/2010 03:07:57 AM 916 Views
Wow! What an underwhelming argument. - 06/09/2010 04:24:32 AM 881 Views
Actually, the Pope has the right to say "sorry, you're not a Catholic anymore". - 05/09/2010 08:43:34 PM 1024 Views
See above post - 06/09/2010 02:52:25 AM 760 Views
What? - 06/09/2010 02:56:59 AM 771 Views
Nope - 06/09/2010 03:03:48 AM 801 Views
Inaction, like, for example, not saving lives where you could have is also grounds for expulsion. - 06/09/2010 06:35:31 PM 681 Views
Hmm, but I think that's a different type of inaction than the kind he's discussing - 06/09/2010 08:02:50 PM 999 Views
I never infered that that was the case. - 06/09/2010 08:24:30 PM 698 Views
mmm, but your example isn't inaction ALONE - 06/09/2010 08:46:56 PM 800 Views
Hmm interesting question. - 06/09/2010 10:35:19 PM 884 Views
is excommunication about "use" though? - 06/09/2010 10:36:55 PM 918 Views
I don't know. - 07/09/2010 05:47:42 AM 760 Views
yah, I'd agree with that - 07/09/2010 11:59:01 AM 918 Views
Well thank god you aren't the pope - 07/09/2010 03:29:00 AM 882 Views
I would say the same for you. - 07/09/2010 05:50:55 AM 827 Views
Dismas is a Saint? - 07/09/2010 12:08:45 PM 901 Views
It's pretty hard to argue with that one. *NM* - 08/09/2010 04:18:41 AM 292 Views
Yeah, was just surprised they'd made it official is all. - 08/09/2010 04:36:28 AM 867 Views
You are purposefully trying to split hairs - 07/09/2010 03:15:08 AM 805 Views
Calling me an idiot... - 07/09/2010 05:52:39 AM 817 Views
My turn to split hairs: - 07/09/2010 12:10:33 PM 809 Views
does excommunication mean you are no longer Catholic? - 06/09/2010 08:52:58 PM 697 Views
i'm pretty sure we have this conversation on a weekly basis. *NM* - 06/09/2010 09:05:33 PM 332 Views
Yeah. - 06/09/2010 10:34:10 PM 677 Views
is being Catholic a belief system or a club? - 06/09/2010 11:03:00 PM 787 Views
Depends on who you ask - 07/09/2010 03:12:23 AM 936 Views
It's both. - 07/09/2010 05:54:13 AM 883 Views
I'm unsure about that. It doesn't invalidate baptism. - 07/09/2010 08:23:33 AM 760 Views
I thought conformation is what made you a member of the church *NM* - 07/09/2010 06:42:36 PM 303 Views
You're correct. - 08/09/2010 02:33:45 AM 796 Views
Hey I haven't brought up the last two times - 07/09/2010 03:30:18 AM 780 Views
My god people that cheat or divorce shouldn't be Catholic - 06/09/2010 02:26:23 AM 696 Views
I'm inclined to agree. - 07/09/2010 11:31:59 AM 759 Views
Re: I'm inclined to agree. - 10/09/2010 02:36:05 AM 881 Views

Reply to Message