She went into their private club so she has to obey their private club rules.
Sorry, that's how it works. And she did. So good on her for sitting off to the side while the men prayed. 😄
You don't walk into another person's house and tell them they can stick their house rules up their ass.
If she invited them to her private club, and she had a rule that all the men had to stand on their right foot the entire time, if they accepted her rules, they could enter her club.
Originally posted by dadudemonSeem fair.
She went into their private club so she has to obey their private club rules.Sorry, that's how it works. And she did. So good on her for sitting off to the side while the men prayed. 😄
You don't walk into another person's house and tell them they can stick their house rules up their ass.
If she invited them to her private club, and she had a rule that all the men had to stand on their right foot the entire time, if they accepted her rules, they could enter her club.
and what do you think of this story? Should the Sweden leaders not wear cloths in support of the women rights there, or respect the men/culture of the country by wearing cloths?
Trade minister Ann Linde and other members of Sweden’s “first feminist government in the world” walked past Iranian President Rouhani yesterday as they covered their hair in compliance with Iran’s compulsory hijab law, despite Stockholm’s promise to promote “a gender equality perspective” internationally, and to adopt a “feminist foreign policy” in which “equality between women and men is a fundamental aim.”The scene was also a sharp contrast to Deputy Prime Minister Isabella Lövin’s feminist stance against Trump, in a viral tweet and then in a Guardian op-ed last week, in which she wrote that “the world need strong leadership for women’s rights.”
Linde “sees no conflict” between her government’s human rights policy and signing trade deals with an oppressive dictatorship that tortures prisoners, persecutes gays, and is a leading executioner of minors.
In doing so, the Swedish female politicians ignored the recent appeal by Iranian women’s right activist Masih Alinejad, who urged Europeans female politicians “to stand for [their] own dignity” and refuse to wear the hijab when visiting Iran.
“So that is why I say that European female politicians are hypocrites. Because they stand up with the French Muslim women, and condemn the burkini ban—because they think compulsion is bad—but when it happens to Iran, they just care about money.”
“And they go to my country, and they ignore millions of those women who send their photos to me and put themselves in danger to be heard.”
“And [the European politicians] keep their smile, and wearing hijab, and saying this is a ‘cultural issue’—which is wrong.”
Originally posted by dadudemon
She went into their private club so she has to obey their private club rules.Sorry, that's how it works. And she did. So good on her for sitting off to the side while the men prayed. 😄
You don't walk into another person's house and tell them they can stick their house rules up their ass.
If she invited them to her private club, and she had a rule that all the men had to stand on their right foot the entire time, if they accepted her rules, they could enter her club.
This is generally true, but I'm pretty sure you can't discriminate against "protected classes" even at a private club.
You can't put up a sign saying "No blacks allowed", or "no asians." Or even "No catholics".
Not unless it's an ethnic/gender/religious exclusive club, at least.
Edit: I posted before checking back a page.
Yeah, recognized religions don't have to follow any of those rules because they're one of the protected classes. Pretty much as long as they aren't killing and eating people, they can do as they please.
Someone finally put into words my main problem with SJW's. Better then I could, at any rate:
That is what I believe to be intolerant: a refusal to agree to disagree, however passionately and impolitely; a rejection of the notion that earnest differences held by people of good faith are not cause for punishment, even if they are mistaken, or unwittingly insensitive, or give offense; a stance that amounts to “error has no rights.”
This is in regards to the Yalie temper tantrum over halloween costumes:
Watching footage of that meeting, a fundamental disagreement is revealed ... Christakis believes that he has an obligation to listen to the views of the students, to reflect upon them, and to either respond that he is persuaded or to articulate why he has a different view. Put another way, he believes that one respects students by engaging them in earnest dialogue. But many of the students believe that his responsibility is to hear their demands for an apology and to issue it. They see anything short of a confession of wrongdoing as unacceptable. In their view, one respects students by validating their subjective feelings. Notice that the student position allows no room for civil disagreement.
And the main point of the entire article, is that Yale professors/progressives never call them on their shit. They usually stop at condemning their target, but never give even a hint of critique at their behavior. (You know, like yelling in someones face for not giving an apology on the spot.)
Editing isn't working, but forgot the link:
Originally posted by cdtm
This is generally true, but I'm pretty sure you can't discriminate against "protected classes" even at a private club.You can't put up a sign saying "No blacks allowed", or "no asians." Or even "No catholics".
You absolutely can in America.
Originally posted by cdtm
Yeah, recognized religions don't have to follow any of those rules because they're one of the protected classes. Pretty much as long as they aren't killing and eating people, they can do as they please.
No, that is how religious groups in America would like things to be, but that is not how they are.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
You absolutely can in America.
[b]that reminds me of the recent story of some angry chicks trying to force the courts to make some male quartet singing groups start accepting women.
No, that is how religious groups in America would like things to be, but that is not how they are. [/B]
Except for when Obama forces Nuns to hand out condoms and abortion pills.
😛
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
You absolutely can in America.
Looks like you can, as long as they're not open to the public. Like a private golf club.
No, that is how religious groups in America would like things to be, but that is not how they are.
How do you figure? What has goverment forced a religious institution to change within their own places of worship, that didn't conflict with laws against murder and such?
Originally posted by cdtm
How do you figure? What has goverment forced a religious institution to change within their own places of worship, that didn't conflict with laws against murder and such?
I am referring specifically to this:
Originally posted by cdtm
Pretty much as long as they aren't killing and eating people, they can do as they please.
It is kind of a gross exaggeration.
Lol so some Clinton allies tried to say Susan Surandon was "smearing minorities" for one of her tweets and of course got slapped down by her.
Susan Sarandon Is Still Being Attacked by Hillary Clinton Allies
Originally posted by cdtm
Sure it was. My point also should have been clear.Do I need to spell out the specific laws? Are you one of those "accuracy police" nerds that doesn't understand sarcasm or hyperbole?
In most circumstances, religious groups are not exempt from laws.
In fact, there is Supreme Court precedent stating the opposite: that if a religious rite violates the law, they are not allowed to practice it, no matter how deeply-held their belief.
It is why it remains illegal for Native tribes to smoke peyote, and why we jail parents if their children die from withholding medical treatment.
Evangelicals, however, desperately want to reverse this, so they can exempt themselves from any laws they do not wish to follow, particularly with regard to discrimination.
Many Christians want to be able to discriminate against large swaths of taxpaying Americans, because Jesus.
That is not how things work in this country.
True enough. There's some general exceptions, such as allowing youths to drink as part of a religious ceremony (Unsure if this is official position, or turning a blind eye..)
Your points about blatant discrimination are part of an argument about where religious freedom ends, and public services begin. A bakery that is funded/run by Christians, who serve an entire community, would be obligated to serve even those parts of the community that their orthodoxy forbids (Such as a same sex couple shopping for a cake.)
By the same token, if they employ from the general public, they'd have the same obligations as any business, such as women's health issues (contraceptives, for example.)
As far as "in house" worshipping is concerned, there they can discriminate all they'd like. (Or, if they had a bakery that ONLY served Christians/their religion, and not the general public.)
Yep, she did indeed just say Islam is the most feminist religion.
An Andy video on the same video:
Lol, Milo was on Bill Mahers show last night and once again they fell for his trolling. Bill really didn't, but the other guests did.
My favorite part was in the overtime segment. Milo says Bills guests are stupid, and how do these liberals respond? "Go f*ck yourself" lmao. Stop playing right into his hands.