Originally posted by Robtardi did. He was discussing a sex organ with regard to sexual separation between excretion from said sexual organs and sexual preferences, sexual identity and sex change operated people.
The "penis" part was obvious humor, since Schilling's comment mentioned "penis". Did you even read his comment? I'm guessing no.
You claimed some obsession of penises and mentioned racial segregation because black penises are different to white penises.
Fail harder.
Originally posted by Newjak
Freedom of Speech does not mean freedom from consequences. He's not going to jail. The government isn't doing anything to him.A private company decided to let him go. It might be to save face but that doesn't mean what Schilling said wasn't bigoted either
If a private company decided to let someone go because they disagreed with that persons lifestyle, would it be okay? Is it only okay to let someone go if you don't like what they say, but not to fire them because they don't like what they do?
Originally posted by Surtur
If a private company decided to let someone go because they disagreed with that persons lifestyle, would it be okay? Is it only okay to let someone go if you don't like what they say, but not to fire them because they don't like what they do?
Still curious to the answer. Why is it okay to fire someone based on their beliefs comments, but it's not okay to refuse them service based on beliefs and comments?
Originally posted by SurturHonestly context matters.
If a private company decided to let someone go because they disagreed with that persons lifestyle, would it be okay? Is it only okay to let someone go if you don't like what they say, but not to fire them because they don't like what they do?
But ultimately it is up to the company who they want on their staff. Even if I don't agree with some of the discriminatory practices companies employ. Like CHik-Fila once fired an employee simply because they refused to join in on group prayer. Stuff like that is silly and it obviously on the wrong side of thinking.
But Curt is the one on the wrong side of the argument in this case.
First of all transgenders are more likely to be assaulted by men than women are to be assaulted by transgenders. Also assaults really don't happen in bathrooms. This whole bathroom bill is mostly just thinly veiled homophobia. I'm sure some people believe bad things will happen but there is no real proof to back it up other than bias.
Originally posted by Newjak
Honestly context matters.But ultimately it is up to the company who they want on their staff. Even if I don't agree with some of the discriminatory practices companies employ. Like CHik-Fila once fired an employee simply because they refused to join in on group prayer. Stuff like that is silly and it obviously on the wrong side of thinking.
But Curt is the one on the wrong side of the argument in this case.
First of all transgenders are more likely to be assaulted by men than women are to be assaulted by transgenders. Also assaults really don't happen in bathrooms. This whole bathroom bill is mostly just thinly veiled homophobia. I'm sure some people believe bad things will happen but there is no real proof to back it up other than bias.
Men use the men's room, women use the women's room.
Men that believe/think they are women still aren't women and use the mens room and same goes for women.
That's so easy to understand its borderline crazy.
Where is there problem with that?
Originally posted by snowdragonOther than biased fear what is the problem with transgenders using the bathroom of the gender they associate with?
Men use the men's room, women use the women's room.Men that believe/think they are women still aren't women and use the mens room and same goes for women.
That's so easy to understand its borderline crazy.
Where is there problem with that?
Seriously if your argument is men will abuse this then my above statements still hold true. More assaults would be prevented because transgender people are way more likely to be attacked than the other way around.
Originally posted by Newjak
Honestly context matters.But ultimately it is up to the company who they want on their staff. Even if I don't agree with some of the discriminatory practices companies employ. Like CHik-Fila once fired an employee simply because they refused to join in on group prayer. Stuff like that is silly and it obviously on the wrong side of thinking.
But Curt is the one on the wrong side of the argument in this case.
First of all transgenders are more likely to be assaulted by men than women are to be assaulted by transgenders. Also assaults really don't happen in bathrooms. This whole bathroom bill is mostly just thinly veiled homophobia. I'm sure some people believe bad things will happen but there is no real proof to back it up other than bias.
I'm asking why it's up to the company who they want on their staff, but it's apparently not up to them who they want to do business with?
Originally posted by SurturIf you want my honest opinion in the context of gay and transgendered people I generally don't think businesses should refuse to hire or do business with these groups. Why because the desire to do so stems from a place bigotry and hurt.
I'm asking why it's up to the company who they want on their staff, but it's apparently not up to them who they want to do business with?
There is no reasonable conclusion to reach that should allow that type of behavior.
In the context of the broader topics of business rights for the most part I believe that businesses should have the right to hire and choose to do business with whoever they want.
Yet it is a complicated topic and there are reasons we have discrimination laws to protect minorities in the hiring process and when they are in consumer roles.
I think this about as clean cut as I can express my views on the topics at hand.
I just think it should be real simple to me, I'm not advocating for hating on any group, but if it's up to a business to choose who they hire or fire for whatever reason, it should apply to customers as well. So for example firing someone for not joining in on group prayer. Thus it should also allow the business to refuse to do business with someone who is an atheist or something.
Originally posted by SurturFYI the guy that fired for not joining the prayer group sued them and they settled out of court because there actually anti discrimination laws against that type of thing.
I just think it should be real simple to me, I'm not advocating for hating on any group, but if it's up to a business to choose who they hire or fire for whatever reason, it should apply to customers as well. So for example firing someone for not joining in on group prayer. Thus it should also allow the business to refuse to do business with someone who is an atheist or something.
But generally it is easier to get away discrimination in the hiring process than it in consumer choice. Why because it is much harder to prove that you were discriminated against because they can claim to have passed you over for different reasons.
Also in some cases you want to be discriminatory in the hiring process. For instance you don't want a known child molester getting hired as a youth camp manager or something like that.
Or in other instances you may only want to hire based on gender where it makes sense. For instance running an abuse shelter for women probably needs some female employees to help counsel them.
And I understand what you're saying. In a perfect world we shouldn't have to care about who hires who or who works with who. But in a perfect world we wouldn't have a large group of dicks that would discriminate against people as well. So like I said to me it is a complicated topic.