(01-09-2017 04:36 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote: REASONABLE REQUIREMENTS. IT IS NO MORE REASONABLE FOR A PRIVATE BUSINESS, ENGAGED IN ORDINARY COMMERCE, UNDER THE ICC RULING, TO SAY 'WERE IN BUSINESS TO BE EVANGELICALS' SO NO GAYS AND NO JEWS, THAT IT WOULD BE FOR THAT SAME BUSINESS TO SAY 'WE'RE MEMBERS OF CHRISTIAN NATIONALISM, THEREFORE NO BLACKS'. IT IS NOT REASONABLE TO SAY THAT A CHECK OUT PERSON AT HOBBY LOBBY BE CHRISTIAN OR STRAIGHT.
Argue and then prove those motivations and you have a case. You do this a lot... assuming things you can't possibly prove. If the person at the check-out is bad-mouthing people buying crosses or bibles or the like, then their personal positions are interfering with the corporate goals of selling goods. Is there any evidence that gays or atheists can't shop at Hobby Lobby? There isn't even any evidence I'm aware of that they don't hire gays or atheists... though as I understand it, they don't have to offer contraception... which best I know isn't an issue for gays and certainly not something that is part of atheism.
Hobby Lobby is also different from most large corporations in its ownership
Quote:ACTUALLY H&M WOULD BE VIOLATING THE LAW IF THEY DID THAT. ABERCROMBIE AND FITCH TRIED SOMETHING SIMILAR AND GOT PUNKED BY THE EEOC BECAUSE OF IT.
Not at all the same, though I'll admit I gave a weak example. An aggressively hetero male would likely 'turn off' many H&M Men's department customers. He would be not hired because of THAT, and not because of his sexual orientation.
The abercrombie ruling I'm familiar with, they equated a religious head scarf to a 'hat' which was against company policy... not at all the same as how they would treat a customer, who wouldn't be subject to such a company policy at all.
Quote:Quote:But I'd be very surprised if you'd ever seen me posting anything advocating employment discrimination against evangelicals.
What I strictly advocate for is a ban on taxpayer subsidies to groups that discriminate?
And then you define discrimination to mean anything that doesn't aggressively PROMOTE your agenda. Defining gender as 'what is on your birth certificate, that can be changed if you want it to be' is apparently BLATANT discrimination.
ITS PRETTY SIMPLE...CAN GAY OR JEWISH PERSONS WORK AT ECCLESIA? CAN THEY EVEN ATTEND AS STUDENTS? NO. THIS ISN'T IN DISPUTE. CAN A TRANS PERSON WORK THERE? NO. CAN THEY ATTEND? NO. SO NO, ECCLESIA SHOULDN'T GET ONE DIME OF TAXPAYER FUNDING. AND WE'RE NOT EVEN TALKING ABOUT DOLING OUT FUNDING TO THE RECEIPIENT AND LETTING THEM DECIDE WHERE TO SPEND IT....WHERE TALKING ABOUT A DIRECT SUBSIDY.[/quote]
Yeah, you're likely intentionally not getting my point. You say 'this isn't in dispute', yet I don't believe you because you've claimed such things before. I'll let a judge and not 'an advocate' decide.
Obviously that person has a 'right' to public funding for his education and at least SOME of the education even at such a place is not related to religion.
Like PP does in order to get IT'S funding, and you do if you have a home office or use your car for work, ANY group should be able to differentiate SOME of their activities from others. If 50% of their education is deemed to be non-religious in nature, then they should get half the support of a group that had 100% non-religious.
You're free to disagree, but that doesn't make you right or in the majority.
Quote:Do you have evidence that the government subsidizes groups that only serve/hire one religious group but denies such things to others? A 'set aside' isn't a denial... It's a made-up thing to promote something that doesn't otherwise exits.
If you can show me where a catholic school gets funding and an identical atheist or jewish school does not, that would be something....
but make sure they are identical.
WHERE IS THE FUNDING FOR THE ATHIEST/JEWISH/GAY SCHOOL IN ARKANSAS? WHAT ARKANSAS COULD DO TO EVEN IT OUT IS TO TAKE AN EQUAL AMOUNT OF FUNDING AS GIVEN TO ECCLESIA AND CREATE JOBS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS FOR NON-EVANGELICALS ONLY AND TO PROVIDE AUTOMATIC ADMISSION TO THAT SCHOOL FOR ANY PERSONS DENIED ADMISSION TO ECCLESIA. THE STATE OF KENTUCKY TRIED THIS A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO. THEY TRIED TO USE TAXPAYER FUNDS TO CREATE A PHARMACY SCHOOL AT A DISCRIMINATORY SCHOOL. WE RAISED UNHOLY HELL AND STUDENTS WHO COULDN'T GET INTO THE OTHER PHARMACY SCHOOL IN KENTUCKY (IT HAD HIGHER ADMISSION REQUIREMENTS) SUED AND GOT MANDATED ADMISSION TO UK'S SCHOOL. THEN THE STATE, CORRECTLY YANKED ALL THE FUNDING FROM THE DISCRIMINATORY INSTITUTION.
---
So the answer is 'no' you can't show me such a situation, and 'no' you don't understand the difference between a 'set aside' and funding.
and that was a violation of a Kentucky state law, which isn't the same in every state OR the Federal law. States that have similar laws, you'd win in. Obviously many states don't have the same laws.
Quote:Quote:And no, you can't credibly argue that giving taxpayer money to a school named after a bigoted (yes - I can defend using that term here) person named David Barton and that OVERTLY discriminates in employment and service provision is somehow helpful or a good use of taxpayer funding.
We had some very successful schools named after people like Robert E Lee. Why would the NAME matter? William Marsh Rice and John Harvard among others were slave owners iirc. Obviously those schools don't promote THOSE values.
IF THE ROBERT E LEE SCHOOL DIDN'T ALLOW BLACKS THEN YOU'D HAVE AN ANALOG TO THE DAVID BARTON SCHOOL NOT ALLOWING GAYS. BUT THAT'S NOT THE CASE.
That's not at all what you said. You said giving money to a school named after a bigot... Obviously the name has nothing to do with anything... you're just trying to 'pile on'.
Quote:Quote:Now if you're talking about the public health head or the fire chief....those people must have the support of the communities they serve. If their public statements are considered so offensive that they make their job impossible or more difficult, then sure, they can't do the job. And why would a full time major public employee have a second job anyway?
Hiring someone to lead a public health department that offends everyone they need to work with....is a bad idea.
What if that is because they are militant gay activists?
I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU'RE GOING HERE. ARE YOU UPSET BECAUSE A GAY ACTIVIST COMPLAINED? IF SO, STFU, THEY ARE TAXPAYERS AND STAKEHOLDERS TOO. IF YOU'RE MAINTAINING THAT THERE ARE PUBLIC JOBS IN MANAGEMENT WHERE YOU MUST BE A MILITANT GAY ACTIVIST, THEN PLEASE LET ME KNOW.....I KNOW PLENTY OF FOLKS THAT WOULD WANT TO APPLY FOR THAT.
My comments in ALL CAPS.
[/quote]
I couldn't care less who complained.
What I'm going after is the idea that militant activists often offend everyone they need to work with. You do it in ever post on here... not that you NEED to work with 'us', but I doubt you're much more reserved in your public activities. If it's a bad idea to hire someone who offends everyone they need to work with, then I'm asking if you'd apply that interpretation without discrimination.
I suspect that if a militant gay activist were fired for offending all of those people they worked around, that you'd want them to be able to sue for discrimination.... and you'd define 'discrimination' differently for them than you apparently would for 'another' public health department hire.
/
Evangelical - David Barton aligned "college" in major bribery scheme
