Originally posted by Falcon Horus
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Discussion about hot topics trending today
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
-
Originally posted by aretood2 View PostAnd once again, my question, why do you complain about it?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Falcon Horus View PostPoint taken.
A company has policies which an employee upon hiring has to read and sign, acknowledging they agree to the terms.
Plenty of cases known where new hires and employees have been fired for breaking the company policy rules. When severe enough to warrant such a sacking.
So, if the baker's company policy is that he cannot service couples which his religion tells him are living in some sort of sin or does not agree with, then he can refuse all he like in my opinion. If he does not have it in writing, he should keep his discrimination out of the workplace and do his job as baker. I think that would be the simplest way of solving this issue -- write it down in the or a company policy -- serving only good christian couples (who did not have sexual intercourse before the marriage).
I foresee lots of clauses in his policy.
If he doesn't like a 5-star rating for service, who are we to stop him (from going bankrupt at some point).
Did you notice in the recent case of employers not being forced to cover birth control that it is not just ok to do it because of "deeply held religious beliefs", but -also- deeply held moral beliefs? On the surface, you could say that is a "win" for non religious morals -BUT- discrimination is often a deeply held moral belief as well.
Can you be a little more specific, I don't quite follow what you mean (I think).
Oh wait... no, I do get it... It goes back to company policy where an employee needs to step in line with the regulations and policies set forth by the company they work for, while at the same time an employee cannot express or represent personal choice or opinions when they clash with that policy -- hence why company policies are usually as broad as possible within the rules of the land. If the rules of the land dictate that one cannot discriminate against straights, a company cannot have a policy rule stating it's okay to discriminate against straights.
That what you mean?
Remember, the NFL flag thing has -nothing- to do with what people are equating it to now, it is about the inordinate violence towards blacks by police. The flag and the Anthem do -not- represent "patriotism" which is the position of the "general" right, they represent the COUNTRY, ALL of the country, and by taking a knee, the idea is that some part of the -country- is damaged or broken and to bring attention to it.
My more specific point was NFL players are allowed to wear pink cleats for Breast cancer awareness because that's an acceptable social issue for the NFL to represent, the killing of black people by cops however, now is not -because- of this distortion of the message.
Although, not entirely sure where my double standard comes into play...
Neither are NFL teams.
But players are members of a union... weird.sigpicALL THANKS TO THE WONDERFUL CREATOR OF THIS SIG GO TO R.I.G.A lie is just a truth that hasn't gone through conversion therapy yetThe truth isn't the truth
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gatefan1976 View PostMy more specific point was NFL players are allowed to wear pink cleats for Breast cancer awareness because that's an acceptable social issue for the NFL to represent, the killing of black people by cops however, now is not -because- of this distortion of the message.If Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions.- Abba Eban.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Womble View PostExcuse me, but the NFL players are the ones distorting their own message. Their stunts are not against symbols of police brutality, they are against symbols of the country, as you helpfully observed. Aren't there other ways to make the same point that would be more precisely targeted and would not be so widely misinterpreted as a broadside against American state's existence?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Womble View PostExcuse me, but the NFL players are the ones distorting their own message. Their stunts are not against symbols of police brutality, they are against symbols of the country, as you helpfully observed.
The State/The people
In other words, the -country-
Seems like a perfectly reasonable target to me.
Aren't there other ways to make the same point that would be more precisely targeted and would not be so widely misinterpreted as a broadside against American state's existence?
As for it being "widely misinterpreted", I think you will find that the divide falls pretty squarely along party lines, so is it really the "American state's existence" being targeted?sigpicALL THANKS TO THE WONDERFUL CREATOR OF THIS SIG GO TO R.I.G.A lie is just a truth that hasn't gone through conversion therapy yetThe truth isn't the truth
Comment
-
Originally posted by aretood2 View PostIf fake football was a widespread international sport, I wonder how it would look like between a friendly with the USA and some other country...with the US team kneeling to its own national anthem.sigpicALL THANKS TO THE WONDERFUL CREATOR OF THIS SIG GO TO R.I.G.A lie is just a truth that hasn't gone through conversion therapy yetThe truth isn't the truth
Comment
-
Oh, and the Green beret who wrote the initial letter to Kaepernick has written a follow up, worth reading:
http://www.espn.com.au/nfl/story/_/i...states-americasigpicALL THANKS TO THE WONDERFUL CREATOR OF THIS SIG GO TO R.I.G.A lie is just a truth that hasn't gone through conversion therapy yetThe truth isn't the truth
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gatefan1976 View PostMy more specific point was NFL players are allowed to wear pink cleats for Breast cancer awareness because that's an acceptable social issue for the NFL to represent, the killing of black people by cops however, now is not -because- of this distortion of the message.If Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions.- Abba Eban.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gatefan1976 View PostUmm............. Who do the police -work- for?
The State/The people
In other words, the -country-
Seems like a perfectly reasonable target to me.
What would you suggest?
As for it being "widely misinterpreted", I think you will find that the divide falls pretty squarely along party lines, so is it really the "American state's existence" being targeted?If Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions.- Abba Eban.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gatefan1976 View PostRemember, the NFL flag thing has -nothing- to do with what people are equating it to now, it is about the inordinate violence towards blacks by police. The flag and the Anthem do -not- represent "patriotism" which is the position of the "general" right, they represent the COUNTRY, ALL of the country, and by taking a knee, the idea is that some part of the -country- is damaged or broken and to bring attention to it.
My more specific point was NFL players are allowed to wear pink cleats for Breast cancer awareness because that's an acceptable social issue for the NFL to represent, the killing of black people by cops however, now is not -because- of this distortion of the message.
The NFL owners will be discussing this at their fall meeting this upcoming week, and they will make some sort of decision on the matter. I fully expect them to put a stop to it as it is beginning to negatively affect the one thing every business has as its first priority, their profits.
If I'm wrong, and the NFL or the owners of any specific team choose to allow it, or outright support it, then the protests will continue and it won't bother me a bit, as I rarely even watch football.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Womble View PostSo do firemen.
Honestly, I am surprised you did not go for the low hanging fruit of troops.
Kaepernick made his "target" quite clear however.
Anything that is specifically targeted against police brutality or racism. Can't be hard to find.
That is completely false. USA national anthem protests have a very clear context- they have been a form of "black power" salute since the 1960-s when it was used in varying forms during Olympics games and other sports events. Look up Mahmoud Abdul Raouf. Or 1968 Olympic games.
Raouf made it clear it was his Islamist beliefs that caused his sitting.
The 1968 Games?
If you think that helps your argument, I don't know what you are reading as ALL THREE athletes involves made it quite clear that they were representing the black lives, African or Aboriginal that had been affected by "white rulership"
You want to create a correlation-causation argument.
Fine.
It's only because of your book that Negro's were considered lesser beings to be enslaved by whites
It's only because of your book that Women were considered lesser beings to be enslaved by men
Therefore, you, as an adherent of your book, are a racist misogynist.
Isn't this fun??sigpicALL THANKS TO THE WONDERFUL CREATOR OF THIS SIG GO TO R.I.G.A lie is just a truth that hasn't gone through conversion therapy yetThe truth isn't the truth
Comment
Comment