|
Post by justwatching on May 14, 2019 13:56:53 GMT -5
Futsal Gawdess I can appreciate the debate as well and welcome it. Having the debates are the start to attempt to make progress. I was more disgusted by the comments that went along with the original post If she is so unhappy here in the greatest (and most free) nation in history, perhaps she should emigrate to Iran, Saudi Arabia, or Venezuela and see how she gets along. I've had enough of her childish immaturity and disrespect. I felt like it was vile, unnecessary, and very disrespectful to a very real topic. Please tell me how that was "vile, unnecessary, and very disrespectful to a very real topic." I find your affinity for censorship much more concerning. ... at my affinity to censorship. I have no problem with the article and no problem with someone disagreeing. I just think the person's thoughts are very hurtful and inappropriate to people that are affected everyday by the very issues she, Kaepernick, and many others protest. Personally for anyone to not agree that these are real issues blows my mind. But I also don't understand why people get so upset by the method these athletes use to protest. It isn't hurting anyone and isn't disrespecting any flag etc. They are merely bringing to light the systematic issues that this country has been enduring for many years. But please tell me, what exactly is "childish immaturity and disrespect" with her saying there are so many things that need changing in order to actually be a country that gives equal footing to everyone? Also, I could be wrong but I never remember her or any of the other athletes who protest state that they would like to be a part of another country.
|
|
|
Post by sportsdad on May 14, 2019 13:57:27 GMT -5
Freedom of speech is a marvelous thing. “I don't agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - someone somewhere Unless the MSM or left decide that what you say is "intolerant" even though it isn't and decide to destroy you because you didn't say what they wanted to hear. The sad truth is that quote you say above isn't equal and true for everyone. In fact some would rather only one side of some issues ever be spoken by trying to shame and destroy the other side into silence. There is only one side that does that by the way and it is only because they can't convince the majority of people to believe in what they believe through facts and normal dialogue. I do not disagree with what you stated above. Unpopular speech should be treated the same as popular. We should stop trying to penalize the individuals for unpopular speech but rather point out the flaws in the opinion or statements made.
|
|
|
Post by slickdaddy96 on May 14, 2019 14:06:59 GMT -5
Unless the MSM or left decide that what you say is "intolerant" even though it isn't and decide to destroy you because you didn't say what they wanted to hear. The sad truth is that quote you say above isn't equal and true for everyone. In fact some would rather only one side of some issues ever be spoken by trying to shame and destroy the other side into silence. There is only one side that does that by the way and it is only because they can't convince the majority of people to believe in what they believe through facts and normal dialogue. I do not disagree with what you stated above. Unpopular speech should be treated the same as popular. We should stop trying to penalize the individuals for unpopular speech but rather point out the flaws in the opinion or statements made. I would argue that your answer here though shows a lot of the problem I am talking about. In a lot of the situations what you call unpopular speech is actually speech that the silent majority of America believe in and just keep their mouth shut because they don't want to be the next person attacked by those who don't like that type of speech. So who is to say what is popular and unpopular speech? The MSM? The groups that don't like a particular viewpoint? There is a very loud minority of people in this country that don't like the fact that they can't get the majority of Americans on board with their viewpoints, some of those viewpoints borderline insane and maybe even borderline mentally unstable not to mention anti-science. So they silence the few outspoken people of the majority to make sure no one else in the silent majority speaks up, and then the minority gets their way by tyranny because the narrative is that the majority of people agree with them and the ones that don't are a intolerant bigoted minority of people when that couldn't be any further from the truth. An open dialogue free of the media and opposing viewpoints trying to destroy the opposite side is what the country has to get back to. Otherwise there is going to be backlash and heck maybe even civil war before its over with. I don't see it getting better anytime soon unfortunately.
|
|
|
Post by Futsal Gawdess on May 14, 2019 14:42:59 GMT -5
My question is why does the LGBTQ and other left-leaning groups find it that they have to get in the average American's face about everything? What happened to live and let live? Sports used to be the one bastion of unilateral support no matter what your political affiliation. Now you can't escape politics in sports either. If a sports team wanted to wear something on their uniforms or speak out about traditional marriage, etc.... the media and LGBTQ community and the left would go apoplectic about it. I don't understand why free speech is a one way street or the social media mobs will destroy you? If you don't believe the "correct" things (who defines correct?), you are labeled a bigot, homophobe, racist, intolerant, etc.... It's sad America used to be a country that lived and let live no matter what your beliefs. Now the militant wing of groups like the LGBTQ community will destroy anyone that doesn't believe what they believe, and they aren't the only group. They are just the loudest one right now. The silent majority of average people that just want people to get along, live and let live, need to stand up against the social media and regular media mobs that destroy people for one comment here or there. It will end up destroying all of us unless we go back to the more civil discord where people could speak their minds without fear of ruining their families and careers. Quite an interesting take on things I must say. So how, pray-tell would you want "them" to get their point across, a silent protest? That is exactly what Rapinoe was doing, yet it elicited a very loud and rambunctious response. Also, could we start by all agreeing that the LGBTQ and other left-leaning groups are also part of the average American? I don't understand how one can love America but in a not so blunt way hate Americans who exercise their God-given American rights. Yes, you may not agree with what she stands/kneels for, move on, change the channel, stop supporting the team. I'm sure there are things you vehemently believe in that she doesn't agree with, but you don't see her sticking her head up and giving an Op-ed on your beliefs. As a historical refresher, the militant wing of the civil rights movement, conducted bus boycotts, performed sit-ins, got sprayed with water hoses, pelted with stones, had attack dogs sicked on them and many lost their lives. Only then did real change occur. We know one of those usurpers today at The very Honorable Reverend Martin Luther King who was killed for that belief. Truly we all need to live and let live...
|
|
|
Post by soccerloafer on May 14, 2019 14:45:18 GMT -5
Yet with all the posts above, no one has answered the pivotal question: exactly what rights / freedoms does the LGBTQ community not have?
|
|
|
Post by mistergrinch on May 14, 2019 14:52:19 GMT -5
Yet with all the posts above, no one has answered the pivotal question: exactly what rights / freedoms does the LGBTQ community not have? Laws against discrimination, for one. You can still be fired, legally in 30 states, just for being gay.
As an aside.. I have to crack up at the typical refrain aimed at the "MSM and the left". Faux news is the #1 cable news channel, but somehow claims it's not part of the 'MSM' (also, legally claims it's not news but entertainment) and that the 'MSM' is left, despite the #1 slot being taken up by an extremely right-wing channel. It's like schrodinger's media.
Sorry, take your pick.
|
|
|
Post by slickdaddy96 on May 14, 2019 15:05:23 GMT -5
My question is why does the LGBTQ and other left-leaning groups find it that they have to get in the average American's face about everything? What happened to live and let live? Sports used to be the one bastion of unilateral support no matter what your political affiliation. Now you can't escape politics in sports either. If a sports team wanted to wear something on their uniforms or speak out about traditional marriage, etc.... the media and LGBTQ community and the left would go apoplectic about it. I don't understand why free speech is a one way street or the social media mobs will destroy you? If you don't believe the "correct" things (who defines correct?), you are labeled a bigot, homophobe, racist, intolerant, etc.... It's sad America used to be a country that lived and let live no matter what your beliefs. Now the militant wing of groups like the LGBTQ community will destroy anyone that doesn't believe what they believe, and they aren't the only group. They are just the loudest one right now. The silent majority of average people that just want people to get along, live and let live, need to stand up against the social media and regular media mobs that destroy people for one comment here or there. It will end up destroying all of us unless we go back to the more civil discord where people could speak their minds without fear of ruining their families and careers. Quite an interesting take on things I must say. So how, pray-tell would you want "them" to get their point across, a silent protest? That is exactly what Rapinoe was doing, yet it elicited a very loud and rambunctious response. Also, could we start by all agreeing that the LGBTQ and other left-leaning groups are also part of the average American? I don't understand how one can love America but in a not so blunt way hate Americans who exercise their God-given American rights. Yes, you may not agree with what she stands/kneels for, move on, change the channel, stop supporting the team. I'm sure there are things you vehemently believe in that she doesn't agree with, but you don't see her sticking her head up and giving an Op-ed on your beliefs. As a historical refresher, the militant wing of the civil rights movement, conducted bus boycotts, performed sit-ins, got sprayed with water hoses, pelted with stones, had attack dogs sicked on them and many lost their lives. Only then did real change occur. We know one of those usurpers today at The very Honorable Reverend Martin Luther King who was killed for that belief. Truly we all need to live and let live.. I never said I had an issue with Rapinoe or other athletes in sports stating their opinion. I question the stage on which she decided to do it just like Kaep, but it is their right if they want to do it. They also may feel the wrath of other people and their free speech due to it. My issue is more of the bigger picture of movements that Rapinoe and others champion. There are fringe elements of these movements that will turn off the majority of Americans, and when I mean average, I was using it synonymous with majority. For instance some in the LGBTQ (and this is used just as an example but there are other movements with similar problems) instead of promoting genuine rights violations, hate, slander, etc.... they instead get in the face of people that don't believe in everything they stand for by purposely targeting religious business in the more liberal states to ruin those business when all those people were doing were exercising their Constitutional rights of free speech and religious free speech and beliefs. Were those few in the LGBTQ community truly discriminated against or had their rights violated in these situations, or did they purposely shove themselves into someone else's beliefs on purpose because they don't like their religion or belief structure? Those people could have easily gone to another florist or cake decorator just like any of us can go to another business when we are not getting the service we like. Another example: There are militant wings of BLM that cause people to hate all Law Enforcement good or bad, and their active silence on not condoning stuff like this and allowing the militant people to make a bad name for them turns off the majority of Americans because people get emboldened to try to actually shoot and kill police officers. My whole point is there are no Constitutional or Civil rights that the LGBTQ community doesn't already have. At this point, in my opinion they have 1st world problems because they can't convince a majority of Americans to go along with more than 2 genders etc... (which is anti-science and a borderline mental disorder). As the person said above me. No one has showed me where their rights are being violated anymore. At this point their movement exists only to destroy any speech that doesn't agree with them by trying to destroy those people. I stand by may stance that "Live and let Live" is a lot better of a way to go about life for everyone regardless of what you believe then trying to destroy people that don't agree with you.
|
|
|
Post by slickdaddy96 on May 14, 2019 15:09:42 GMT -5
Yet with all the posts above, no one has answered the pivotal question: exactly what rights / freedoms does the LGBTQ community not have? Laws against discrimination, for one. You can still be fired, legally in 30 states, just for being gay.
As an aside.. I have to crack up at the typical refrain aimed at the "MSM and the left". Faux news is the #1 cable news channel, but somehow claims it's not part of the 'MSM' (also, legally claims it's not news but entertainment) and that the 'MSM' is left, despite the #1 slot being taken up by an extremely right-wing channel. It's like schrodinger's media.
Sorry, take your pick.
All media is biased. Thanks for assuming I watch Fox News though. Actually I don't watch any network or cable news. They are all garbage. I read as much from both sides that I can stomach and let my brain and experience determine for myself what is bull crap and what is true. I only say MSM because they have always existed and were always biased even before conservative biased media even was formed. The sad thing is that sheeple still turn on their nightly news on their networks and think the media is telling them the truth. The left I just rag on because they are a very vocal minority some of whom go borderline mental because of one guy in the white house and the fact that they can't explain their viewpoints well enough to convince more people they are correct without taking over the education system and brainwashing young kids.
|
|
|
Post by thisonedude on May 14, 2019 16:29:39 GMT -5
Quite an interesting take on things I must say. So how, pray-tell would you want "them" to get their point across, a silent protest? That is exactly what Rapinoe was doing, yet it elicited a very loud and rambunctious response. Also, could we start by all agreeing that the LGBTQ and other left-leaning groups are also part of the average American? I don't understand how one can love America but in a not so blunt way hate Americans who exercise their God-given American rights. Yes, you may not agree with what she stands/kneels for, move on, change the channel, stop supporting the team. I'm sure there are things you vehemently believe in that she doesn't agree with, but you don't see her sticking her head up and giving an Op-ed on your beliefs. As a historical refresher, the militant wing of the civil rights movement, conducted bus boycotts, performed sit-ins, got sprayed with water hoses, pelted with stones, had attack dogs sicked on them and many lost their lives. Only then did real change occur. We know one of those usurpers today at The very Honorable Reverend Martin Luther King who was killed for that belief. Truly we all need to live and let live.. My whole point is there are no Constitutional or Civil rights that the LGBTQ community doesn't already have. Until very recently, gay citizens did not have the right to marry who they chose. So, there is some movement toward ore specifically protecting the rights of US citizens who happen to be gay. With that said, I'll take a crack at rebutting your statement that "there are no Constitutional or Civil rights that the LGBTQ community doesn't already have." The 14th amendment to the constitution guarantees equal protection under the law to all US citizens and bars states from passing laws that interfere with such. As stated, several states allow businesses to fire employees who are gay. Thus, gay US citizens do not enjoy equal protection guaranteed by the 14th amendment as they can lose their job for being gay. Similarly, Trump's decree that transgender individuals not be allowed to serve in the military would be an example of a violation of the 14th amendment (it may not be in effect, though...i stopped paying attention to his policies a long time ago). The passage of laws under the guise of "religious freedom" by various states allows, in essence, for businesses to discriminate in large part against individuals who are homosexual, or transgender. Again, these laws are de facto, if not de jure, examples of violations of the 14th amendment. So, there are some constitutional/civil rights the LGBTQ community doesn't have. Just my 2 cents. I'm sure we can have a spirited debate about whether or not these scenarios are truly examples of limitations to rights. But if I were gay, I'd feel like my constitutional right to equal protection under the law was tenuous, at best, particularly if I lived in a state where I could be fired for being gay or legally refused services because I was gay. Sometimes, perception is reality for many.
|
|
|
Post by Futsal Gawdess on May 14, 2019 16:51:11 GMT -5
Silent protest at it's best, I bet you the management of the Whitecaps will take notice...
|
|
|
Post by soccerloafer on May 14, 2019 19:08:33 GMT -5
"Similarly, Trump's decree that transgender individuals not be allowed to serve in the military would be an example of a violation of the 14th amendment (it may not be in effect, though...i stopped paying attention to his policies a long time ago)."
As a veteran, allowing transgender individuals to serve is prejudicial to good order and discipline, reducing the lethality of our combat units. While we take an oath to support and defend the Constitution, sometimes those rights have to be suspended to allow for maximum unit discipline and combat effectiveness. Otherwise it simply endangers others and our Republic as a whole. The military is no place for social justice engineering.
|
|
|
Post by slickdaddy96 on May 15, 2019 7:26:25 GMT -5
Raise your hand if you’ve ever signed a contract to actually defend the liberties you all are commenting on! 👋 👋👋 The reality is this- while both sides argue their beliefs on a topic like this- and you have every right to, there’s an enormous amount of veterans who need your support. Instead of wasting your time debating what’s right or wrong for a civilian to say or do, ultimately her employer will determine what she can and cannot do under strict scrutiny of a fundamental right. Instead, I challenge you all to dedicate a minute or two to those who served for this very right you all are debating. From the patriot who joined the service to the kid from the ghetto who needed a way out, they all give up a whole lot if they even make it back alive to come home to bantering and bickering amongst people who haven’t seen a shred of what they’ve witnessed. We have homeless veterans, starving veterans, underemployed veterans, 80% divorce rates among active duty members. It’s not just the veterans, our families sacrifice and suffer. Mental health issues, life altering injuries, death- the spouses and kids who spend a year at a time wondering if their husband/wife or mom/dad will make it home this time. I appreciate the debate, but let’s try supporting the boots on the ground who give you all the ability to debate freely. I’m sure many of you have the ability to help in one way or another. I'm not sure anyone here ever said anything against Veterans. Coming from a family of veterans though never served myself, I always have and always will support them as I assume anyone in this forum does as well. Good Post.
|
|
|
Post by slickdaddy96 on May 15, 2019 7:36:54 GMT -5
Until very recently, gay citizens did not have the right to marry who they chose. So, there is some movement toward ore specifically protecting the rights of US citizens who happen to be gay. With that said, I'll take a crack at rebutting your statement that "there are no Constitutional or Civil rights that the LGBTQ community doesn't already have." The 14th amendment to the constitution guarantees equal protection under the law to all US citizens and bars states from passing laws that interfere with such. As stated, several states allow businesses to fire employees who are gay. Thus, gay US citizens do not enjoy equal protection guaranteed by the 14th amendment as they can lose their job for being gay. Similarly, Trump's decree that transgender individuals not be allowed to serve in the military would be an example of a violation of the 14th amendment (it may not be in effect, though...i stopped paying attention to his policies a long time ago). The passage of laws under the guise of "religious freedom" by various states allows, in essence, for businesses to discriminate in large part against individuals who are homosexual, or transgender. Again, these laws are de facto, if not de jure, examples of violations of the 14th amendment. So, there are some constitutional/civil rights the LGBTQ community doesn't have. Just my 2 cents. I'm sure we can have a spirited debate about whether or not these scenarios are truly examples of limitations to rights. But if I were gay, I'd feel like my constitutional right to equal protection under the law was tenuous, at best, particularly if I lived in a state where I could be fired for being gay or legally refused services because I was gay. Sometimes, perception is reality for many. The Constitution also protects free speech and protects the right to exercise one's religious beliefs as well. So you could also say that Religious people (mostly Christians) are being discriminated against also because some people think their beliefs are wrong and intolerant when all that those people are doing is following exactly what it says in their religion in their Holy Book. It's not like the old South that tried to tie the bible into segregation and slavery. That was a time where religious leaders tried to twist the word for their gain. There are specific passages in the bible about homosexuality like it or not. Some believe they are going against their religious convictions by making that flower arrangement or baking that cake, and that is their prerogative. If there were not more florists or cake decorators in this country to get flowers or cakes from I could see your point, but just like we all have the right to go to another business if we don't like a certain one, businesses and people should have the right to refuse service if it "truly" (notice my word there) goes against their religious convictions. I believe the Supreme Court also sided with these business owners recently as well. Personally I have no issue with the LGBTQ community as a whole. I have many friends and even family that are LGBTQ and they are wonderful people. I just don't get the in your face about their sexuality. I don't go around saying and flaunting I'm heterosexual, I don't understand the need to flaunt the other way either. So you came out of the closet? Good for you. I'm glad you are happy. It isn't that big of a deal, and the faster we get to sexuality not being a big deal while still respecting people's religious liberties the whole country will be a better place. Now as far as transgender stuff goes, it is indeed anti-science since there are only two sexes, and I believe a lot of it if the Psychological Professionals would quit being politically correct would agree it is linked to mental disorders. That will never happen because even the medical and science community now has to be "politically correct" in all forms as well. Also please site me where 30 states can fire LGBTQ people (and actually go through with firing people). I think that is a straw man argument that doesn't happen. If it did there would be a bigger stink in the news about this. I think you are looking at antiquated laws on books that aren't enforced (like the laws for sodomy etc... in some states). I would love to specific articles where someone was truly fired for being LGBTQ without other issues where there was proof of them being bad or negligent employees. I don't believe that is happening, and if there truly is a case of that anywhere, the person should sue and take it all the way to the supreme court.
|
|
|
Post by weekendwarrior03 on May 15, 2019 7:39:00 GMT -5
Hopefully she comes back to Benz stadium so we can boo and whistle her everytime she touches the ball again. Of course ESPN will edit it out. Time to go Rapinoe
|
|
|
Post by jetta25 on May 15, 2019 7:53:16 GMT -5
Rapinoe is an excellent soccer player. However, her outspoken anti-American positions should disqualify her from a spot representing our country on the US WNT. If she is so unhappy here in the greatest (and most free) nation in history, perhaps she should emigrate to Iran, Saudi Arabia, or Venezuela and see how she gets along. I've had enough of her childish immaturity and disrespect. www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7025223/US-womens-soccer-star-Megan-Rapinoe-says-shell-probably-never-sing-national-anthem-again.html'I know what it means to look at the flag and not have it protect all of your liberties,' Rapinoe told reporters at the time. Exactly what liberties does she not have? 'There are things that are much more important than soccer,' she said. Perhaps she should be given time to pursue other opportunities. So let me get this straight, I live in the best country in the world where everybody is happy with everything that happens in this country. Everybody has a seat at the table, Everybody has equal opportunities, pay equity, access to health care, all their basic needs met, so then what is she complaining about? In that case why did Rosa Parks want to sit at the front of the bus? Everything is perfect the way it is. She is an ingrate. The nerve of some people that want change, change to what? WE have it good. I agree with you, kick her off the team. Why the heck would she want to air our dirty laundry to the world when we don't have any. Soldiers may have fought for our freedom of speech and expression, that do not mean we have to use it. Sorry for the long response, I have to go back and put on my rose colored glasses now.
|
|
|
Post by slickdaddy96 on May 15, 2019 8:51:17 GMT -5
Rapinoe is an excellent soccer player. However, her outspoken anti-American positions should disqualify her from a spot representing our country on the US WNT. If she is so unhappy here in the greatest (and most free) nation in history, perhaps she should emigrate to Iran, Saudi Arabia, or Venezuela and see how she gets along. I've had enough of her childish immaturity and disrespect. www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7025223/US-womens-soccer-star-Megan-Rapinoe-says-shell-probably-never-sing-national-anthem-again.html'I know what it means to look at the flag and not have it protect all of your liberties,' Rapinoe told reporters at the time. Exactly what liberties does she not have? 'There are things that are much more important than soccer,' she said. Perhaps she should be given time to pursue other opportunities. So let me get this straight, I live in the best country in the world where everybody is happy with everything that happens in this country. Everybody has a seat at the table, Everybody has equal opportunities, pay equity, access to health care, all their basic needs met, so then what is she complaining about? In that case why did Rosa Parks want to sit at the front of the bus? Everything is perfect the way it is. She is an ingrate. The nerve of some people that want change, change to what? WE have it good. I agree with you, kick her off the team. Why the heck would she want to air our dirty laundry to the world when we don't have any. Soldiers may have fought for our freedom of speech and expression, that do not mean we have to use it. Sorry for the long response, I have to go back and put on my rose colored glasses now. Honestly on the equal pay thing for Professional Women's sports. I'm sorry but pay for professional athletes (male or female) should be tied to what the league and teams make as far as revenue goes. Women soccer players don't make as much money (nor do Women basketball players, etc....) because the revenue generated in those sports is less than the NBA, MLS, etc.... It isn't some conspiracy just to pay women less. If you want women to get paid more at the professional level convince the sports fan to come and spend money on their games, apparel, etc.... That is the only way you are going to fix this. Good luck with that though. I don't watch the WNBA because it is boring, though I don't watch NBA either. I watch the USWNT for soccer but have never considered going to one of the games because my son doesn't want to watch one while he did want to watch a USMNT so we saw the Gold Cup games in the Dome back when it came. It is what it is. You can't force sports fans to embrace women's sports if they don't want to.
|
|
|
Post by soccerloafer on May 15, 2019 9:40:01 GMT -5
Everybody has a seat at the table - check - more voters in 2018 than ever before, more options to vote (early, absentee, etc). Everybody has equal opportunities - check - equal outcomes not guaranteed pay equity - strawman argument - most of the gender pay imbalance is due to career selection, not discrimination. In my 30+ years of working, every employer has paid equally. access to health care - yes - Medicaid for poor, Medicare for retirees, open markets for everyone else all their basic needs met - only the responsibility of the individual, not society
|
|
|
Post by mistergrinch on May 15, 2019 9:48:16 GMT -5
The Constitution also protects free speech and protects the right to exercise one's religious beliefs as well. So you could also say that Religious people (mostly Christians) are being discriminated against also because some people think their beliefs are wrong and intolerant when all that those people are doing is following exactly what it says in their religion in their Holy Book. It's not like the old South that tried to tie the bible into segregation and slavery. That was a time where religious leaders tried to twist the word for their gain. There are specific passages in the bible about homosexuality like it or not. Some believe they are going against their religious convictions by making that flower arrangement or baking that cake, and that is their prerogative. If there were not more florists or cake decorators in this country to get flowers or cakes from I could see your point, but just like we all have the right to go to another business if we don't like a certain one, businesses and people should have the right to refuse service if it "truly" (notice my word there) goes against their religious convictions. I believe the Supreme Court also sided with these business owners recently as well. Ahh, yes.. the persecuted majority. To quote Jon Stewart - “Yes, the long war on Christianity. I pray that one day we may live in an America where Christians can worship freely! In broad daylight! Openly wearing the symbols of their religion... perhaps around their necks? And maybe -- dare I dream it? -- maybe one day there can be an openly Christian President. Or, perhaps, 43 of them. Consecutively.” (Note: it's now 45 if you believe that Trump is a Christian.)
There are passages that also say you can't eat lobster or wear that nice cotton/poly blend... but you get to cherry pick the parts that just happen to align with your worldview, right? There are also parts that talk about donkey d***s, drunken incestuous group sex, and freaking DRAGONS. I don't see us making laws about dragons.
Your rights end when they infringe on mine. Religious freedom is and has always been your right to practice your religion free of government interference. You get to pray, wear a yarmulke, wear a cross on your neck.. whatever you want - and will never be arrested for it. Once you fire someone, teach garbage in schools, or pick and choose who you serve - you're no longer just practicing your religion but IMPOSING your beliefs on others.
They have recently passed legislation that allows doctors to withhold care if it goes against their 'sincerely held religious beliefs'... the Hobby Lobby case allowed employer paid healthcare to pick and choose what they actually offer. I'm just waiting for a JW-owned business to kill someone by refusing a transfusion. We'll see how much they like those 'sincerely held' beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by slickdaddy96 on May 15, 2019 11:15:15 GMT -5
Ahh, yes.. the persecuted majority. To quote Jon Stewart - “Yes, the long war on Christianity. I pray that one day we may live in an America where Christians can worship freely! In broad daylight! Openly wearing the symbols of their religion... perhaps around their necks? And maybe -- dare I dream it? -- maybe one day there can be an openly Christian President. Or, perhaps, 43 of them. Consecutively.” (Note: it's now 45 if you believe that Trump is a Christian.)
There are passages that also say you can't eat lobster or wear that nice cotton/poly blend... but you get to cherry pick the parts that just happen to align with your worldview, right? There are also parts that talk about donkey d***s, drunken incestuous group sex, and freaking DRAGONS. I don't see us making laws about dragons. Your rights end when they infringe on mine. Religious freedom is and has always been your right to practice your religion free of government interference. You get to pray, wear a yarmulke, wear a cross on your neck.. whatever you want - and will never be arrested for it. Once you fire someone, teach garbage in schools, or pick and choose who you serve - you're no longer just practicing your religion but IMPOSING your beliefs on others. They have recently passed legislation that allows doctors to withhold care if it goes against their 'sincerely held religious beliefs'... the Hobby Lobby case allowed employer paid healthcare to pick and choose what they actually offer. I'm just waiting for a JW-owned business to kill someone by refusing a transfusion. We'll see how much they like those 'sincerely held' beliefs.
Sorry I think you just disqualified yourself by quoting John Stewart (a comedian not a journalist, just want to make sure that is clear since so many people think the Daily Show is news). Whether you like it or not the Constitution protects religious liberty even without specific religious liberty laws being passed by these states. I never said I was a religious person. I just see the plight of them and how they are being attacked now more than ever because the people that hate Christians and religion in general are purposely going after them in an "in your face" I'm going to destroy your very fabric of life and religion attitude. Something I told the LGBTQ people I knew at the time was going to happen and they told me I was crazy. The Supreme Court did indeed upheld the cake decorator's right to refuse service. Which in that case he didn't say he refused complete service. He just said he was not going to make a special cake for them because it went against his beliefs. He offered to sell them any number of generic cakes already made or made every day for anyone. So while you may think the Supreme Court was wrong and he doesn't have that right. He does just like any other Christian business does. It is not intolerance, it isn't persecution. You may disagree, but it is what it is. Also by people refusing service or certain services for religious reason is not IMPOSING their religion on anyone especially when there are 100's of other businesses doing the same service that will take their business. If anything the people trying to force service are trying to IMPOSE their beliefs and lifestyle on the business owner. If Christians owned a monopoly on all particular services I could see your point, but they don't. The argument is a straw man argument plain and simple to further attack religion. The reason I know this is that there are plenty of Muslim owned businesses also around (florist, cake decorators, bakers, etc...) I don't see these activists (which is what they are) going in there demanding service for something that they know will cause them to refuse due to their religious beliefs. These activists only do it to Christians. As I said again there are no rights that are being violated for the LGBTQ community that I can see. All I see is a militant wing of that group trying to openly destroy religious people and businesses and impose their beliefs on them. That will never work because you can't force someone to believe what you believe. You have to convince them of it not by suing, and using the government to intimidate, but by giving valid arguments and points.
|
|
|
Post by Soccerhouse on May 15, 2019 11:22:46 GMT -5
'disclaimer' -- please let moderators know if anything crosses the line in this thread.
reminder - we are a soccer board, but we are also not in the business of censoring folk's opinions. ( not stopping folks from continuing their conversations as long as they remain healthy - please remain civil and thoughtful).
|
|
|
Post by mistergrinch on May 15, 2019 12:24:08 GMT -5
Christians being attacked.. Sorry, but it's just a case of 'when you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.'
As for this
Did you miss the part where it's legal to fire someone for being gay in 30 states?
When you can fire someone for being openly Christian.. THEN we can talk about them being 'attacked' for their faith.
|
|
|
Post by slickdaddy96 on May 15, 2019 13:08:04 GMT -5
Christians being attacked.. Sorry, but it's just a case of 'when you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.' As for this Did you miss the part where it's legal to fire someone for being gay in 30 states? When you can fire someone for being openly Christian.. THEN we can talk about them being 'attacked' for their faith. Did you miss the part where I said the being fired for being gay in 30 states was a straw man argument because I have yet to see anywhere this is actually taking place whether an antiquated law is on the books still or not. I asked you to produce me articles where someone that was gay was genuinely fired for being gay in those 30 states and not just the person saying they were fired for being gay when in reality they were just a incompetent or bad employee. So far you either didn't read my request or can't find a case where this is happening. If this were happening like you are saying this would be all over the news and one would not be able to escape it given the agenda driven news media. So I'm going to chalk this up as yes a straw man unless you can find me evidence of it happening. When all else fails bring out the tried and true "privilege" card. It's the card that has replaced the "Race Card" now because it was being overused and quit being effective. Sexuality should have no bearing in a career as my heterosexuality doesn't have any bearing because I don't talk about my personal life at work. There is no privilege to being a Christian. Now if you said there was privilege in being a Muslim I might agree with you since they are untouchable now because it is politically correct. If you are white, male, Christian, though you are privileged and because of this everyone can come to attack you and persecute you and you just have to be a good "politically correct" citizen and take it. LOL.... There isn't any point in continuing this debate when the privilege card gets played. This has ceased from being an exercise in debate and has just become a shaming and name calling exercise (typical for the left).
|
|
|
Post by mistergrinch on May 15, 2019 13:35:40 GMT -5
Except that religion is a legally protected class. So yeah, there is.
As for instances of being fired for being gay/trans... just the first few that popped up.
That doesn't include things like private religious schools, etc where they likely have more standing to limit who they hire/fire.
|
|
|
Post by slickdaddy96 on May 15, 2019 14:51:54 GMT -5
Except that religion is a legally protected class. So yeah, there is.
As for instances of being fired for being gay/trans... just the first few that popped up.
www.aclu.org/cases/rg-gr-harris-funeral-homes-v-eeoc-aimee-stephens-This one I have an issue with. As I said before if the Psychological Medical community were honest and not just another arm of the Politically correct society, they would fully admit (as some psychologists still do) that transgenderism is a mental disorder or part of a mental disorder. -The employee was hired as a certain gender (Male). The funeral home has to stay in business, and I'm sorry societal norms are not transgenderism nor will ever be to the vast majority of Americans. He would have lost business from grieving families looking to bury their loved ones because a man was dressed up like a woman employed by said business. -The business owner had every right to fire this employee. If an employee is going to lose his business money how is he not allowed to fire him?
www.aclu.org/cases/altitude-express-inc-v-zarda-After reading the Lexus Nexus on this history of this case, it seems to me the employer fired him for not giving the customers and enjoyable experience and not just the one women that complained of inappropriate touching. It seems that was just the straw that broke the camel's back. Of course many people will use whatever they can in a disgruntle job situation to make the employer look bad or even to sue them. I think the original court and 3-judge appellate ruling was the right one here. We shall see what SCOTUS says.
www.lambdalegal.org/in-court/cases/in_hively-v-ivy-tech-I can't find much info on this one except for the court rulings. I wanted to see the background of why Ivy Tech says she was not promoted versus her accusals. So maybe this is your one case, but this wasn't someone that was fired. This was someone that was not promoted. There are people denied promotions all the time and some of those people may think it is for nefarious reasons when it is not.
www.lambdalegal.org/in-court/cases/ga_evans-v-ga-regional-hospital-This one will be interesting at SCOTUS as well. If she was harassed she may truly have a claim here. Still though she was not fired. She left on her on accord then sued them. So while she might have a case on sexual harassment or other harassment or something like that, I don't think this is still one of the situations I was talking about of being fired for being gay.
That doesn't include things like private religious schools, etc where they likely have more standing to limit who they hire/fire.
So you admit that Private Religious schools and churches may have standing and a right to refuse service or employment to someone that does not conform to their religious beliefs it sounds like. I would assume you agree that churches should have the right to refuse hosting a "non-traditional marriage" ceremony at their church correct?
So why then can't private businesses have the same benefits as a private religious school or church? That is my issue. Why is one protected and the other not. They either both are or both are not. My conclusion is that the militant wings of these groups are going after businesses first and once they get the ruling they finally want, it won't be long before they go after private religious schools and churches as well since they will then have precedence.
|
|
|
Post by mistergrinch on May 15, 2019 15:36:01 GMT -5
This is where you almost become self aware. This is one of the fundamental issues that they are fighting for.
LEGALLY - Religion is a protected class. Race is a protected class. Sexual orientation is not.
I can't fire you for being a (persecuted) Christian. I can't fire you for being black. I CAN fire you for being gay.
Or how about just not recognizing their marriages when inconvenient? Denying citizenship?
I'll go back to the tired old example... are you OK with businesses deciding not to do business with black people? Christians? If either of these don't sound OK..
FWIW - I do NOT think that religious schools should have any special standing, but I recognize that they currently do. If you want those sweet, sweet tax breaks on all your real estate - play by the same rules as everyone else. I also definitely do NOT agree with things like the Hobby Lobby decision, in that a business itself can have 'sincerely held religious beliefs'.
|
|
|
Post by Keeper on May 15, 2019 23:54:57 GMT -5
Well. Guess this is the land of the free. Unless you’re black or brown, LGBT, woman, immigrant, etc. Land of the free white rich Christian man....
|
|
|
Post by rifle on May 16, 2019 19:08:56 GMT -5
I like courageous people who speak and act with conviction and let the chips fall.
Personally I’d like to see the Kap/Rap silent protest take place during the coin toss. It’ll be as visible (maybe more in the case of NFL) but less exposed to having the message highjacked.
|
|
|
Post by soccerworld1974 on May 18, 2019 9:26:58 GMT -5
Wow. What a controversial subject. Which way you stand on the issues, have to respect the freedoms though the method might be the most comfortable.
|
|