What Does Religious Liberty Mean ?

[Kit the Coyote]

wait a tic


are you talking about "rights" or "grants" ?

Those who defend the 'right' to refuse service call it a right. What it actually is in a public business is open to debate.

 

[The Barbarian]

I'd HOPE that advocating illegal activity would have him in jail, where he can enjoy his generic non-scripted cake in peace...er...piece.

It's that pesky Bill of Rights, again. It's not illegal to advocate illegal activity. It's illegal to do it, and it's illegal to directly incite it. But merely advocating it, is not against the law.

And it shouldn't be.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

They're completely leaning in your direction and a study of how the laws have tightened in regards to protecting children from abuse and a zero tolerance policy in regards to child abuse bears that out.

Build a wall and the worse cases of the abuse of children will stop!

 

[Arthur Brain]

Build a wall and the worse cases of the abuse of children will stop!

Codswallop.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Codswallop.

I live in Mexico and have heard numerous horror stories about the way people are treated by the coyotes who get paid for helping illegals cross the border!

Build a Wall and that will stop!

If you really care about the abuse heaped on these innocent people then why don't you want a wall?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Yes, building a wall would just solve everything.

:freak:

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Yes, building a wall would just solve everything.

Of course I never expected anything intelligent to come from your posts!

You never explained why you don't want a wall.

Is it because if you supported the building of a wall then all of your politically correct friends would abandon you?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Of course I never expected anything intelligent to come from your posts!

You never explained why you don't want a wall.

Is it because if you supported the building of a wall then all of your politically correct friends would abandon you?

For starters I made a comment about child protection laws and zero tolerance policies in relation and you decided to make it all about Donald Trump's bloody wall. No, it would not solve and eradicate most cases of child abuse and if you want to blather on about the wall then you've already started a thread on it haven't you?

It has nothing to do with being "politically correct" and FYI I'm not politically correct anyway. Frankly, I don't expect intelligence from you in turn but rather an ignorant, ill informed and bracketing of people who aren't on the far right wrapped up in unnecessary exclamation marks.

 

[Idolater]

Yes, building a wall would just solve everything.

:freak:

It'd be a tool, one that we don't have right now. We can always leave all its doors open, or shut them tight, depending.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

For starters I made a comment about child protection laws and zero tolerance policies in relation and you decided to make it all about Donald Trump's bloody wall. No, it would not solve and eradicate most cases of child abuse and if you want to blather on about the wall then you've already started a thread on it haven't you?

It has nothing to do with being "politically correct" and FYI I'm not politically correct anyway. Frankly, I don't expect intelligence from you in turn but rather an ignorant, ill informed and bracketing of people who aren't on the far right wrapped up in unnecessary exclamation marks.

Why are you afraid to tell us why you don't want a wall?

Do you want an open border?

 

[Lon]

With respect, unless you were on the wrong side of that it was entirely about your skin. They made the same sad mistake a racist makes by choosing to define you by that very thing.

...but to me, it IS the issue. I don't bake a cake specifically 'black.' I agree too, that such doesn't bother me in the least. Kwanzaa isn't 'white' but it isn't religious nor against my religion. It is a fairly secular celebration, as is Martin Luther King Day. The other requires a bit of 'participation' in the thing, in as much as I'd have to write 'Happy Kwanzaa." The difference? One is something I'm 'supposed' to be against in my faith. To me, it seems a bit compartmentalized in expression, especially if I'm to be "in the world, but not of it." I'm harping on this a tiny bit, because you've said you have little empathy. Even if wrong, such for me, NEEDS empathy. Perhaps this comes a lot more from my parenting style as well: I'm convinced simply 'making' my kids do something is nearly always, if not always wrong. "Because I said so" is not higher learning, and laws don't appeal to that. It is pretty much a rod of discipline at that point with little in the way of empathy or walking a mile in another's shoes for correction.

See, Lon, that's like saying so long as you don't slap an obvious title on a thing it's not the thing its function tells you that it is. Call a rose by any other name and it still smells. Television all but ignored minorities for generations, using them largely as stereotypical cartoons and villains when they found any real purchase. There wasn't any need to call it white anything. It was white everything.You don't need to brand a flavor if its the only flavor. And now? Still dominating the time blocks, though you can seek out alternatives if you're a black kid who would like to see a superhero or family that more closely resembles your own.

For me, the entertained, it wasn't an issue. I've watched Family Matters and Cosby etc. and enjoyed it. Not so much Archie Bunker or the Jeffersons. I appreciate, however, what you are saying and agree, I'm just saying for me, it wasn't the color of skin, but rather the subject matter of those sitcoms. I recognize that minorities were cast differently in order to appear on television BUT I also remember the Rifeman, Bonanza, and other programs dealing directly with those racial concerns in a positive manner. To me, that wasn't just 'White."

I'm not sure how that plays into the point, but affluent Southern families were frequently among the more progressive in attitudes about race. In part that's because it was the general rule that in those homes you found numerous employees of color and the sort of daily interaction that almost cannot help but produce a familiarity and, not infrequently, a level of affection (if often paternalistic in nature) not as present in the middle and lower classes where racial separation was more dramatic and the hostility without that interaction and humanization tended to generate more dangerous notions.

To me, it still looks a little lopsided. I simply played with all colors on the playground. I do think our experiences come into play on some of this, though I do indeed see the bigger picture. My trip to the Texas black church was an eye opener. It really is different where I grew up in Tacoma/Seattle.

Well, silly at the very least and racists depending on the motivation. Black organizations are largely attempting to establish footholds and traditions aimed at breaking the crippling cycle of poverty and exclusion. What would be the white equivalent complaint and problem?

I think it would be a guy/gal that wanted to work on BET for whatever reason? I think that would be tough. That white lady who self identifies as black is getting a lot of negative and adverse legal attention. I'm not sure of her motivations.

What if 85 wpm is sufficient to do the job AND the hire accomplishes something in addition that seems more important to the employer than that one attribute?

Adequate vs. more expedient and cost effective at that point. 170 wpm is over twice as efficient and I didn't mention, but with fewer mistakes as well.

Affirmative Action wasn't a bigoted response to bigotry though. It's aim wasn't to keep another race down, to continue an institutionalized marginalization. You can't really, reasonably compare the two that way.

I think 'reasonable' is to look at those differences as well as what is also the same. When it comes to color, I'm fairly clinical about my questions. I would take the guy who typed 170 wpm, regardless.

Same thing happened to restaurant owners across the South once upon a time.

Did they lose their businesses over it? To me, a spiritual conviction is different than bigotry guised.

So you're suggesting that we shouldn't have desegregated schools if we'd understood there would be hostile and sometimes violent backlash? The defense and advance of equity and equality often causes societal upheavals and adjustments. True when women got the vote. True when blacks had their voting rights defended. True here, whatever you think of the moral underpinning.

No, it goes back to what you said about the 'purpose' of affirmative action. It was not made to harm anybody, it was a result however, and responsible legislature must own whatever it does. Judges and lawyers and congresspersons must own whatever collateral damage and have hopefully accounted for it. This past week, while working, I asked a boy why he was down in the mouth. He said his brother was bugging him. The brother heard and ran into the house and told on him for saying something 'bad' about him. He got in trouble AGAIN for the same thing when all he was doing was answering a question about why he was down. I don't know if the mother reversed his punishment, but I told her it was my fault. There are repercussions for our hand-downed laws and my concern is always how well we think them out before we force them. Fairness is always important and sometimes the tattle-tale gets the better simply because he/she being younger and immature, complains the most. It isn't always the best to cater to complaints real or imagined, because I think it the worst solution more often than not. It is much better for kids to work it out and if necessary, with a little guidance. I don't see it changing much on a societal level. It often just looks like a grown-up version of the same to me.

A pleasure. I skipped over some agreement and a little sidebar to get at the meat that seemed to have elements in need of qualifications. :cheers:

Me too. thank you again. -Lon

 

[Arthur Brain]

Why are you afraid to tell us why you don't want a wall?

Do you want an open border?

I want reasonable border controls. If you want to talk about Trump's wall then take it to a relevant thread cos this one isn't.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I want reasonable border controls. If you want to talk about Trump's wall then take it to a relevant thread cos this one isn't.

You still have not told us why you don't want a wall. If we had a wall then the coyotes woudn't be abusing the young people like they are doing now.

Do you not care about the human trafficking and the pedophile rings involving these young people?

 

[Arthur Brain]

You still have not told us why you don't want a wall. If we had a wall then the coyotes woudn't be abusing the young people like they are doing now.

Do you not care about the human trafficking and the pedophile rings involving these young people?

If I want to talk about Trump's wall then I'll do so when I choose and on a thread salient to the topic. I'm not obliged to jump through your pet topic of conversation on a thread that's about religious liberty. Suffice to say, if you think a wall would stop everything then you're just plain naive.

 

[Town Heretic]

Had another bizarre server issue that nearly wrecked my response. I've pasted it together again as nearly as I can...good grief.

...but to me, it IS the issue. I don't bake a cake specifically 'black.' I agree too, that such doesn't bother me in the least. Kwanzaa isn't 'white' but it isn't religious nor against my religion. It is a fairly secular celebration, as is Martin Luther King Day. The other requires a bit of 'participation' in the thing, in as much as I'd have to write 'Happy Kwanzaa." The difference? One is something I'm 'supposed' to be against in my faith. To me, it seems a bit compartmentalized in expression, especially if I'm to be "in the world, but not of it." I'm harping on this a tiny bit, because you've said you have little empathy.

It's not that I lack empathy, but rather who I save it for. I'd wager a good deal that baker didn't make the first inquiry into the sleeping habits of his heterosexual clients.

Perhaps this comes a lot more from my parenting style as well: I'm convinced simply 'making' my kids do something is nearly always, if not always wrong. "Because I said so" is not higher learning,

Looks like parenting doesn't enter into then, because up to that point we agree completely.

and laws don't appeal to that. It is pretty much a rod of discipline at that point with little in the way of empathy or walking a mile in another's shoes for correction.

The purpose of the law isn't to teach, it's to set the parameters of acceptable exercise of right. I don't empathize with people who are willfully ignorant or hypocritical. My empathy is for those who are harmed by their willfulness.

On popular culture coddling.

For me, the entertained, it wasn't an issue.

For you, the white guy with most of tv echoing your general and some particular cultural background, what complaint could you have?

I've watched Family Matters and Cosby etc. and enjoyed it.

Never cared for the former, watched a little fo the latter. Loved Cosby's stand-up and we had his albums, along with Carlin, Wilson, and a few others. Never was a particular fan of sitcoms, with a few strong exceptions. Wasn't a strong television watcher for most of my life, though it has gotten much more interesting in recent years.

Not so much Archie Bunker or the Jeffersons. I appreciate, however, what you are saying and agree, I'm just saying for me, it wasn't the color of skin, but rather the subject matter of those sitcoms. I recognize that minorities were cast differently in order to appear on television BUT I also remember the Rifeman, Bonanza, and other programs dealing directly with those racial concerns in a positive manner. To me, that wasn't just 'White."

Who was the hero again of the Rifleman? The racial composition of the cast?...so even among shows that momentarily reflected the turbulent struggle going on with the Civil Rights movement the order of the day was something very different and comfortable for the empowered majority.

To me, it still looks a little lopsided. I simply played with all colors on the playground. I do think our experiences come into play on some of this, though I do indeed see the bigger picture. My trip to the Texas black church was an eye opener. It really is different where I grew up in Tacoma/Seattle.

Race was a different issue in the South for the same reason war is a different issue to people who live where most of the fighting is going on.

Adequate vs. more expedient and cost effective at that point. 170 wpm is over twice as efficient and I didn't mention, but with fewer mistakes as well.

Speed, assuming the same rough rate of error between applicants, is only more efficient if there's a need for it. So if the volume is amply served by the slower applicant, the greater speed may mostly be a benefit to the employee and the employer may prize other factors more...for that matter, maybe he didn't but there was something else in the second applicant that made him a better fit, more attractive than narrowing to that one ability. And maybe if we assume race was the deciding factor the problem is our own and the assumption indicative of what happens when people are, generation after generation, acclimated to being preferred.

This from Typing Jobs:

"If you're interested in being a secretary or receptionist, you ll probably find that you need a typing speed between 55 and 80 words per minute (wpm). On average, you ll need to type about 65 wpm. Employers are looking for people who can type quickly so they can take dictation and quickly input information into the computer."

Or, the slower typist might well be error free at the highly desired 65 wpm for professional typists. Administrators are golden at 60 wpm, opening 80% of available jobs.

I think 'reasonable' is to look at those differences as well as what is also the same. When it comes to color, I'm fairly clinical about my questions. I would take the guy who typed 170 wpm, regardless.

You might not if there was no pragmatic advantage to it and other factors were in another applicant's favor.

To me, a spiritual conviction is different than bigotry guised.

It can but needn't be. We've spoken to the certainty of that with Mormons of old and many a Christian in my youth, if not in my particular church.

No, it goes back to what you said about the 'purpose' of affirmative action. It was not made to harm anybody, it was a result however, and responsible legislature must own whatever it does.

Creating in employers the desire to have their workplace resemble the society at large in composition, helping to establish economic and educational opportunities and traditions that were stunted because of a willful exercise of societal forces, including an expression in law, for generations, to the detriment of the people being helped will, I think, cost someone something. But as reparations go, it's pretty easy and who doesn't prefer a voluntary tax?

...It isn't always the best to cater to complaints real or imagined, because I think it the worst solution more often than not.

I think the privileged frequently feel that way and those denied their rights rarely agree with the impression. In the South, where racism was more naked in expression, the poorest whites still felt superior to any black, and given the treatment of society and the law, they had every right to the assumption. It took new law and the resolve to enforce it to begin to desegregate schools, to open living beyond proscribed borders for minorities, and to start the process of real opportunity for millions of Americans who had, generation after generation, been subject to a morally bankrupt and often violent oppression without moral, ethical, or rational justification.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

If I want to talk about Trump's wall then I'll do so when I choose and on a thread salient to the topic. I'm not obliged to jump through your pet topic of conversation on a thread that's about religious liberty. Suffice to say, if you think a wall would stop everything then you're just plain naive.

Why are you afraid to tell us why you don't want a wall?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Why are you afraid to tell us why you don't want a wall?

I'm not. Just to shut you up I'll tell you why. It's gonna cost a whole lot more to build than your president has told you, is impractical to build, maintain and patrol, will hardly be impenetrable and won't stop plenty other ways for people to illegally enter the US. It wouldn't be much cop to the environment either and effectively it's unlikely to come about for aforementioned reasons and was likely pre election show boating from Trump.

Right, if you still want to talk about this wall then take it to a relevant thread cos it has nothing to do with this one.

 

[ok doser]

Why are you afraid to tell us why you don't want a wall?

you do know artie's british, right?

 

[Lon]

It's that pesky Bill of Rights, again. It's not illegal to advocate illegal activity. It's illegal to do it, and it's illegal to directly incite it. But merely advocating it, is not against the law.

And it shouldn't be.

:think: The example was a child predator. I'm fairly sure they cannot do anything along those lines during their probation. Somebody a bit more up on the law might be able to speak to this, however, but I don't think they are protected, cannot own a gun, etc.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

you do know artie's british, right?

That it explains why he doesn't want a wall--because he doesn't have to worry about his taxes going to support all the illegals!