Originally posted by Tzeentch
I would argue that the difference between the two scenarios is that you can use discretion in choosing what you say, but you can't choose to not be gay. It's the same reason a company can't not hire you on the basis of a disability. You might not have legs, but if you can perform the duties as described by the company adequately than it shouldn't matter.The only right a company really has is to do what it can to stay profitable. If an employee or customer is not infringing on that right somehow, than, broadly speaking, the company doesn't really have grounds to deny them service.
But..If a company chooses not to do business with a certain group of people, it's certainly their right I think even if it's stupid as hell. To me it's hard to find a difference between that and how the talking heads run their businesses and fire those employees that don't agree with their stupidity. I mean yea, the only difference is that one is a business-customer dynamic while the latter is inhouse politics.
Originally posted by psmith81992This isn't a question to be discarded idly, it's a genuinely complicated and complex topic worthy of consideration. Anybody who thinks they have a simple answer to it is either biased toward one outcome, or doesn't appreciate the impact of the subject.
Well, here's my question. If companies like CNN, Fox News, MSNBC or any group can fire one of it's own for saying something that doesn't agree with their higher ups, and they get defended by people saying "it's their company, their rules, and their discretion", why doesn't the same standard apply here?
At what point does the country as a whole draw the line on government intervention and legal enforcement? On which issues? Should it be legal to deny employment or services to someone due to personal prejudice or ideology? Should it only be accepted if the service you provide isn't "essential"? (and what constitutes an "essential" service?) Should dairy farmers be allowed to sell raw milk, so long as they label it so? Or does the greater public health warrant a prohibition on it?
At what point does personal rights, convenience, and choice get trumped by society-wide civil rights and public health? Or vice versa? I've yet to come upon an answer free of personal biases or uncertainty. For myself, I'm of the mind, at least, that religious rights are trumped by every other right. No Hierarchy of Rights and Freedoms exists (that I know of), but if it did, then religious rights would fall at the bottom. Freedom of worship and belief are all yours, but as soon as your beliefs are being forced upon, or negatively impacting another human, that other human's rights take precedence. The outcry from Jewish and Muslim groups over a recent German law prohibiting infant circumcision, for instance: the baby's bodily rights take precedence over the family's religious rights (though that particular law was overturned, IIRC).
But that's only religion. Qualifying all the other rights--and even determining what is a "right"--is a whole other problem.
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
This isn't a question to be discarded idly, it's a genuinely complicated and complex topic worthy of consideration. Anybody who thinks they have a simple answer to it is either biased toward one outcome, or doesn't appreciate the impact of the subject.At what point does the country as a whole draw the line on government intervention and legal enforcement? On which issues? Should it be legal to deny employment or services to someone due to personal prejudice or ideology? Should it only be accepted if the service you provide isn't "essential"? (and what constitutes an "essential" service?) Should dairy farmers be allowed to sell raw milk, so long as they label it so? Or does the greater public health warrant a prohibition on it?
At what point does personal rights, convenience, and choice get trumped by society-wide civil rights and public health? Or vice versa? I've yet to come upon an answer free of personal biases or uncertainty. For myself, I'm of the mind, at least, that religious rights are trumped by every other right. No Hierarchy of Rights and Freedoms exists (that I know of), but if it did, then religious rights would fall at the bottom. Freedom of worship and belief are all yours, but as soon as your beliefs are being forced upon, or negatively impacting another human, that other human's rights take precedence. The outcry from Jewish and Muslim groups over a recent German law prohibiting infant circumcision, for instance: the baby's bodily rights take precedence over the family's religious rights (though that particular law was overturned, IIRC).
But that's only religion. Qualifying all the other rights--and even determining what is a "right"--is a whole other problem.
👆
Originally posted by DARTH POWER
You don't think The CLONE Wars should go into depth about the Clones Origins and where they're headed? I think the whole Sifo Dyas and Order 66 thing is a perfect way to end the show.
Originally posted by Tzeentch
The Jedi are the least interesting part of the mythos doe
Right, but they are given growth and struggles by far more interesting Sith.
In any case, CLONE XL2321312398 is not going to be super interesting, and ARC commandos got enuff growth in previous content.
This would be like Lord of the Rings covering the "Third Elf Archer from the Left" and Elrond's fated-to-die wife.
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
This isn't a question to be discarded idly, it's a genuinely complicated and complex topic worthy of consideration. Anybody who thinks they have a simple answer to it is either biased toward one outcome, or doesn't appreciate the impact of the subject.At what point does the country as a whole draw the line on government intervention and legal enforcement? On which issues? Should it be legal to deny employment or services to someone due to personal prejudice or ideology? Should it only be accepted if the service you provide isn't "essential"? (and what constitutes an "essential" service?) Should dairy farmers be allowed to sell raw milk, so long as they label it so? Or does the greater public health warrant a prohibition on it?
At what point does personal rights, convenience, and choice get trumped by society-wide civil rights and public health? Or vice versa? I've yet to come upon an answer free of personal biases or uncertainty. For myself, I'm of the mind, at least, that religious rights are trumped by every other right. No Hierarchy of Rights and Freedoms exists (that I know of), but if it did, then religious rights would fall at the bottom. Freedom of worship and belief are all yours, but as soon as your beliefs are being forced upon, or negatively impacting another human, that other human's rights take precedence. The outcry from Jewish and Muslim groups over a recent German law prohibiting infant circumcision, for instance: the baby's bodily rights take precedence over the family's religious rights (though that particular law was overturned, IIRC).But that's only religion. Qualifying all the other rights--and even determining what is a "right"--is a whole other problem.
Least interesting part of the mythos? mmm
Nah, especially the PT Jedi. Gotta love the constant, relentless subversion of the Morally Infallible Hero.
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Is she pointing at me? Cuz it looks like she's pointing in the direction of your avatar, whore.
Until now, when I quoted her. I FELL FOR YOUR TRAP