and dont make me pull out the history lesson regarding the migration of conservatives and liberals from one party to other over racial issues by saying something stupid like "but democrats were the original racists". that would be foolish of you.
actually abortion has been a right recognized since 1973. the unborn dont have rights, by virtue of not being a person. scientifically speaking its still a part of the mother's own body, and not a separate entity.
the idea that none of the republican leadership propose further actions is bullshit. since 2010 alone, when they swept nearly every state legislature in the country thanks to massive redistricting right after the census, there have been over 2300 different abortion regulations proposed or adopted at the state level across the nation.
there is a case before the supreme court right now that seeks to make it impossible to have an abortion, by allowing any and all irrelevant regulations specific to abortion providers and no one else, no matter how much safer an abortion procedure is. IE, you may have the right to have an abortion, but the providers will be regulated out of existence.
already we are seeing a spike in hazardous and desperate home and "back alley" abortions again. such things have largely not happened since Roe v Wade occurred. a big reason in support of RvW in the first place was the prevalence of unsafe abortions. Fact is that women, desperate women, have been getting abortions for thousands of years Yes that includes Christian women (in fact, the abortion rate is actually higher among the highly religious, than among the loosely and unaffiliated). And in the absence of qualified medical professionals performing legal abortions, many of them died. Roe v Wade largely eliminated that.
Yes, the GOP -DOES- seek exceptionalism for Christianity.
Some, like Ted Cruz's father (and likely Cruz himself), are Dominionists. Know what a Dominionist is? Someone who believes it is necessary to take over the country, and the world, in the name of the Lord.
Others like the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court (!!!) believe that the constitution and its protections, including hte 1st amendment, only applies to Christians.
No, Christianity does not have "superior compatibility". Christianity and the Bible were both used to not only excuse slavery and segregation, but to cast it as God's Will.
Fact: Traditional American Values(tm) are completely irreligious in nature, and have no special compatibility with ANY religion. Any statements otherwise are born out of delusion or bigotry.
Also, you would do well to cure yourself of those myths regarding Islam.
The problem is, prisons don't allow long hair, and neither do some employers nor the military.
Prisons and Military are agents of the government, and therefore bound by the constitution..... They have to allow inmates to adhere to their religion, So it should not be an option for the prison to prevent these people from having long hair, unless they can prove there is a reason to the rule beyond expediency, and unreasonable cost to arrange an exception.
As for Employers and private businesses.... Well, I think failing to make accommodations would be extremely shameful; However, it is not the role of government to try and force other people to respect you who might have reasons not to.
that actually was only recently determined. prior to that a prison barred beard for fear of guard safety. it wasnt until a muslim sued for acknowledgement of the right to grow a beard in accordance with his religion, and it went all the way to the supreme court, that it was decided. it probably helped his case that in his legal case he even stated he understood the state's position and wished to be reasonable, and so was willing to compromise by it being only a very short beard.
but that was only last year. Holt V Hobbs if you wish to read it.
ok now that is just straight up ignorant bullshit. no really. it is.
1) The Civil Rights Act of 1964 had nothing to do with slavery. It outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. All things that existed then and CONTINUE TO EXIST NOW as sources of discrimination. That culture of oppression didnt just go away after the Civil War. It's why the CRA of 1964 was even necessary. Hell, that culture STILL EXISTS TODAY.
This was later followed with the Civil Rights Act of 1968, which sought correct a few oversights of the first law. For example, it explicitly forbade redlining, which by the way still happens to this day (banning it and proving it was done are two different things).
2) No, it's not a lifestyle, behaviour, or choice. It's not new either. That is ignorance on your part.
3) Preventing you from discriminating is not in turn discrimination. You don't have the right to discriminate in the public square, regardless of what your religion says. Any religious expression which is itself discriminatory crosses the line of what you have the right to do. It's the old question of "My right to not be punched in the nose outweighs your right to punch me in the nose". In this analogy you are the one demanding a right to punch someone in the nose.
In short, and as shown below, you are extremely ignorant, not insightful, and in fact, positing bigoted statements.
you're playing a little too loose with what does what.
the 1st Amendment only protects religion from government, not from public discrimination. it has no bearing on discrimination by any non-governmental entities. it has no bearing on public accommodations, or the right of a religious baker to refuse to bake a cake for a lesbian wedding.
the civil rights and anti discrimination laws have their basis in the 14th amendment, though their concepts didnt exist explicitly until they were written. And those laws (collectively "public accommodations" and "anti discrimination" are what protect religious groups in the public square in the same fashion as minorities. The same concept that says businesses have to do business with all of the public, includes religious persons.
Your pork example is a poorly constructed straw man, particularly since it's in fact wrong. You're actually pretty ignorant in this area:
Religious Discrimination & Reasonable Accommodation
The law requires an employer or other covered entity to reasonably accommodate an employee's religious beliefs or practices, unless doing so would cause more than a minimal burden on the operations of the employer's business. This means an employer may be required to make reasonable adjustments to the work environment that will allow an employee to practice his or her religion.
Examples of some common religious accommodations include flexible scheduling, voluntary shift substitutions or swaps, job reassignments, and modifications to workplace policies or practices.
An employer that provides lunch to its employees, if it has a Muslim employee, should in fact provide a pork-free alternative. That actually is a reasonable accommodation. As is allowing a Muslim women to wear a head scarf on the job, recently affirmed in a lawsuit against A&F: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/... . And so are prayer breaks, generally (the meat packer case, being an assembly line operation dependent on every worker has yet to be resolved, and may be an exception that is deemed not reasonable).
These are not willy-nilly demands, they are in fact well known tenets of the religion and established reasonable accommodations.
so she's as big an ignorant bigot as you, and would also advocate or use violence against someone based on -HER- judgment of someone's identity?
I really this conservative logic. they always claim to be oppressed, yet they always seem to be the ones intent on telling other who they are, what they are, and how to live, and so on.
No, whats messed up in the head is someone who is, theoretically at least, American saying that "equal rights for a minority is a violation of the rights of the majority".
they're not trying to change anything for the majority. they just want the same rights as everyone else.
and contrary to your post below you literally just did dismiss the rights of minorities based solely on the fact they ARE a minority. again: that makes you a bigot.
and yes it would be insane. its like asking for white history month, which FYI (since you have been asked for it) is the other 11 months of the year, just as hetero-normative needs no parade, already being 99.9% of what's seen and represented in culture.
let me be clear: if you're not willing to give minorities the same rights you enjoy, then you ARE AGAINST THEM. by definition.
Majority rule is a major factor in our nation. But so is protecting the rights of minorities against tyranny by majority rule.
I agree with your assessment of paypal as a company. however your reasoning still leaves you a bigot. and this isn't the first topic were you've outed yourself as one.
transgender is a very broad word, encompassing several situations. so sounds like you're in need of some terminology lessons. that's ok, we got you covered: http://www.glaad.org/publicati...
not everything is legitimately decided by vote. discrimination by majority rule is still discrimination. if slavery, segregation, and Jim Crow had been up for vote, they'd likely still be around too.
Slashdot Mirror
and dont make me pull out the history lesson regarding the migration of conservatives and liberals from one party to other over racial issues by saying something stupid like "but democrats were the original racists". that would be foolish of you.
In the US, the Democrats and those that support them are oppressive of individual rights.
Pure myopic ignorance.
AKA, bullshit.
It is not the democrats who oppose equal rights for minorities, women, LGBT, and others.
actually abortion has been a right recognized since 1973.
the unborn dont have rights, by virtue of not being a person.
scientifically speaking its still a part of the mother's own body, and not a separate entity.
the idea that none of the republican leadership propose further actions is bullshit.
since 2010 alone, when they swept nearly every state legislature in the country thanks to massive redistricting right after the census, there have been over 2300 different abortion regulations proposed or adopted at the state level across the nation.
there is a case before the supreme court right now that seeks to make it impossible to have an abortion, by allowing any and all irrelevant regulations specific to abortion providers and no one else, no matter how much safer an abortion procedure is. IE, you may have the right to have an abortion, but the providers will be regulated out of existence.
already we are seeing a spike in hazardous and desperate home and "back alley" abortions again. such things have largely not happened since Roe v Wade occurred. a big reason in support of RvW in the first place was the prevalence of unsafe abortions. Fact is that women, desperate women, have been getting abortions for thousands of years Yes that includes Christian women (in fact, the abortion rate is actually higher among the highly religious, than among the loosely and unaffiliated). And in the absence of qualified medical professionals performing legal abortions, many of them died. Roe v Wade largely eliminated that.
Yes, the GOP -DOES- seek exceptionalism for Christianity.
Some, like Ted Cruz's father (and likely Cruz himself), are Dominionists. Know what a Dominionist is? Someone who believes it is necessary to take over the country, and the world, in the name of the Lord.
Others like the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court (!!!) believe that the constitution and its protections, including hte 1st amendment, only applies to Christians.
No, Christianity does not have "superior compatibility". Christianity and the Bible were both used to not only excuse slavery and segregation, but to cast it as God's Will.
Fact: Traditional American Values(tm) are completely irreligious in nature, and have no special compatibility with ANY religion . Any statements otherwise are born out of delusion or bigotry.
Also, you would do well to cure yourself of those myths regarding Islam.
The problem is, prisons don't allow long hair, and neither do some employers nor the military.
Prisons and Military are agents of the government, and therefore bound by the constitution..... They have to allow inmates to adhere to their religion, So it should not be an option for the prison to prevent these people from having long hair, unless they can prove there is a reason to the rule beyond expediency, and unreasonable cost to arrange an exception.
As for Employers and private businesses.... Well, I think failing to make accommodations would be extremely shameful; However, it is not the role of government to try and force other people to respect you who might have reasons not to.
that actually was only recently determined. prior to that a prison barred beard for fear of guard safety. it wasnt until a muslim sued for acknowledgement of the right to grow a beard in accordance with his religion, and it went all the way to the supreme court, that it was decided. it probably helped his case that in his legal case he even stated he understood the state's position and wished to be reasonable, and so was willing to compromise by it being only a very short beard.
but that was only last year.
Holt V Hobbs if you wish to read it.
It's called prosecutorial discretion.
And yes it does apply to all laws.
And no, that isn't a danger, your absurd fallacy not withstanding.
https://www.google.com/search?...
ok now that is just straight up ignorant bullshit.
no really. it is.
1) The Civil Rights Act of 1964 had nothing to do with slavery. It outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. All things that existed then and CONTINUE TO EXIST NOW as sources of discrimination. That culture of oppression didnt just go away after the Civil War. It's why the CRA of 1964 was even necessary. Hell, that culture STILL EXISTS TODAY.
This was later followed with the Civil Rights Act of 1968, which sought correct a few oversights of the first law. For example, it explicitly forbade redlining, which by the way still happens to this day (banning it and proving it was done are two different things).
2) No, it's not a lifestyle, behaviour, or choice. It's not new either. That is ignorance on your part.
3) Preventing you from discriminating is not in turn discrimination. You don't have the right to discriminate in the public square, regardless of what your religion says. Any religious expression which is itself discriminatory crosses the line of what you have the right to do. It's the old question of "My right to not be punched in the nose outweighs your right to punch me in the nose". In this analogy you are the one demanding a right to punch someone in the nose.
In short, and as shown below, you are extremely ignorant, not insightful, and in fact, positing bigoted statements.
ok now that is just straight up ignorant bullshit.
you're playing a little too loose with what does what.
the 1st Amendment only protects religion from government, not from public discrimination.
it has no bearing on discrimination by any non-governmental entities.
it has no bearing on public accommodations, or the right of a religious baker to refuse to bake a cake for a lesbian wedding.
the civil rights and anti discrimination laws have their basis in the 14th amendment, though their concepts didnt exist explicitly until they were written.
And those laws (collectively "public accommodations" and "anti discrimination" are what protect religious groups in the public square in the same fashion as minorities. The same concept that says businesses have to do business with all of the public, includes religious persons.
Your pork example is a poorly constructed straw man, particularly since it's in fact wrong.
You're actually pretty ignorant in this area:
http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types...
Religious Discrimination & Reasonable Accommodation
The law requires an employer or other covered entity to reasonably accommodate an employee's religious beliefs or practices, unless doing so would cause more than a minimal burden on the operations of the employer's business. This means an employer may be required to make reasonable adjustments to the work environment that will allow an employee to practice his or her religion.
Examples of some common religious accommodations include flexible scheduling, voluntary shift substitutions or swaps, job reassignments, and modifications to workplace policies or practices.
An employer that provides lunch to its employees, if it has a Muslim employee, should in fact provide a pork-free alternative. That actually is a reasonable accommodation. As is allowing a Muslim women to wear a head scarf on the job, recently affirmed in a lawsuit against A&F: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/... . And so are prayer breaks, generally (the meat packer case, being an assembly line operation dependent on every worker has yet to be resolved, and may be an exception that is deemed not reasonable).
These are not willy-nilly demands, they are in fact well known tenets of the religion and established reasonable accommodations.
You should have chosen better straw men.
live a little.
so she's as big an ignorant bigot as you, and would also advocate or use violence against someone based on -HER- judgment of someone's identity?
I really this conservative logic.
they always claim to be oppressed, yet they always seem to be the ones intent on telling other who they are, what they are, and how to live, and so on.
No, whats messed up in the head is someone who is, theoretically at least, American saying that "equal rights for a minority is a violation of the rights of the majority".
2. You do not have the right to trample other people's rights int he process of the above.
Too bad you don't follow your own advice and insist on denying a minority equal rights under law.
they're not trying to change anything for the majority.
they just want the same rights as everyone else.
and contrary to your post below you literally just did dismiss the rights of minorities based solely on the fact they ARE a minority.
again: that makes you a bigot.
and yes it would be insane. its like asking for white history month, which FYI (since you have been asked for it) is the other 11 months of the year, just as hetero-normative needs no parade, already being 99.9% of what's seen and represented in culture.
let me be clear: if you're not willing to give minorities the same rights you enjoy, then you ARE AGAINST THEM.
by definition.
Majority rule is a major factor in our nation.
But so is protecting the rights of minorities against tyranny by majority rule.
why is it not surprising that youre sexist too?
and now you're a bigot advocating violence against a minority without actual threat but based solely on -YOUR- judgment of -THEIR- identity.
I agree with your assessment of paypal as a company.
however your reasoning still leaves you a bigot.
and this isn't the first topic were you've outed yourself as one.
hah.
he thinks he lives in reality.
way too many liberals have ideas that work great in text books but utterly fail in the real world
you misspelled conservative.
and this is how we know you -don't- live in reality.
transgender is a very broad word, encompassing several situations.
so sounds like you're in need of some terminology lessons.
that's ok, we got you covered: http://www.glaad.org/publicati...
OK, we'll keep it simple:
you're an ignorant bigot with those statements.
There.
That's settled.
Real simple.
You're a woman, you walk into the bathroom, notice you're immediately followed by a dude.
No, you grow the hell up, close your stall, do your business, and get out, like an adult.
Nice try at fear mongering though.
Sorry, but it seems like this is completely ripe for the predators
cause they were just waiting for transgendered bathroom rights before being perverts, right?
criminals ignore laws....except for predators?
Amen.
not everything is legitimately decided by vote.
discrimination by majority rule is still discrimination.
if slavery, segregation, and Jim Crow had been up for vote, they'd likely still be around too.
its call public accommodations.
we discussed it last time you tried to defend Indiana.
yet here you are.
your ignorance is astounding.
because pervs were just waiting for permission from law to be pervs?
idiot.