The Controversial Discussions Thread (Was "The Prejudice Discussion Thread" (Was "The Human Sexuality Discussion Thread" (Was "The Homosexuality Discussion Thread"))) — Page 12

TV's Frink said:

Again, so what?  Just for example, it doesn't keep you from getting married.  Where's the tangible disadvantage?

You shouldn't listen to everything a student newspaper says anyway. ;-)

 Well, the student newspaper to me represents the views of so many left-winged, politically correct, white guilt folks.  Yes, there are advantages to being part of a majority.  But why is it necessary to have tangible disadvantages in order to stand up for what's right?  Why can't we stand up for what's right all the time?

But if we must discuss tangible disadvantages...

I have been threatened with my life for being a Mormon trying to share my message as a missionary.

I have been belittled many times for my faith.  I don't always feel comfortable sharing my church membership in public because of the criticism I receive.  One of the residents at my work has started several conversations with me, claiming that "the Mormons" run the facility and that every little thing that goes wrong is their fault.  She can often be demeaning in her criticisms, yet she does not know that I am actually Mormon.

Numerous church buildings and temples have been vandalized in recent years, particularly following the defeat of gay marriage in the states where such measures were voted a few years ago.

Many facilities, particularly in the South, will not hire a Mormon.

There are others I could say.  It is not as pretty a picture as you think, and we take flak from Christians and atheists.  I need to go to bed.  I'd also hoped to discuss the tangible problems of bigotry against Christians.  I'll get to it later.  Just don't think of it as so simple and easy because we're not part of the politically-correct protected minority clique.

I forget how we got here from a discussion on homosexuality, but fair enough.

darth_ender said:o.

Many facilities, particularly in the South, will not hire a Mormon.

 pretty sure that is illegal.  

Warbler said:

darth_ender said:o.

Many facilities, particularly in the South, will not hire a Mormon.

 pretty sure that is illegal.  

 If it is illegal, it shouldn't be. Meaning no offense of course, but if that were the case than people would not be able to refuse people for hire based on a person's beliefs (which the employers may be completely opposed to and thus not wish to affiliate themselves with that person), and I think it is a right employers should have.

Warbler said:

darth_ender said:o.

Many facilities, particularly in the South, will not hire a Mormon.

 pretty sure that is illegal.  

 It is illegal, and they would never give it as a reason for not hiring someone on the outset.  But on my mission, I remember meeting people who in fact were very nice, but they said that if they knew a job applicant was Mormon, they would not hire them.  Of course they would not admit that such was the reason when the time came, but they told me as much.  I guess I have a small sample, but I honestly believe that it represents a decent sized number of people.  I'm sure there are others elsewhere in the country, including my home state of AZ.

Let us not forget that a black man was reelected over a Mormon.  To me that shows that the tangible benefits might not only be slated against the African American community.  I encourage all to read this brilliant comment and see just how bigoted the left can even be against Mormons and how it tangibly has affected the way this country is run.

But yes, we were talking about homosexuality.  Sorry to take it off on a tangent.  My ultimate point is that bigotry should never be acceptable, even against privileged majority.

RicOlie_2 said:

Warbler said:

darth_ender said:o.

Many facilities, particularly in the South, will not hire a Mormon.

 pretty sure that is illegal.  

 If it is illegal, it shouldn't be. Meaning no offense of course, but if that were the case than people would not be able to refuse people for hire based on a person's beliefs (which the employers may be completely opposed to and thus not wish to affiliate themselves with that person), and I think it is a right employers should have.

 I couldn't disagree more.   If religion has nothing to do with the job being applied to, why should it matter what the applicant's religious beliefs are?  

I am pretty certain discriminating in hiring based on religion is banned by civil rights legislation.  

Tell me, if Walmart announced  tomorrow that they were no longer going to hire Catholics, would you think Walmart had every right to do so? 

Warbler said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Warbler said:

darth_ender said:o.

Many facilities, particularly in the South, will not hire a Mormon.

 pretty sure that is illegal.  

 If it is illegal, it shouldn't be. Meaning no offense of course, but if that were the case than people would not be able to refuse people for hire based on a person's beliefs (which the employers may be completely opposed to and thus not wish to affiliate themselves with that person), and I think it is a right employers should have.

 I couldn't disagree more.   If religion has nothing to do with the job being applied to, why should it matter what the applicant's religious beliefs are?  

I am pretty certain discriminating in hiring based on religion is banned by civil rights legislation.  

Tell me, if Walmart announced  tomorrow that they were no longer going to hire Catholics, would you think Walmart had every right to do so? 

 Good point. I think it should be legal for small businesses (perhaps under 50 employees or something like that), but once it gets larger than that, then employers should be required to be looser with their requirements. With a small, personal business though, if someone is hiring one other person and they're going to be in close contact everyday, the employer might want to hire someone around whom they would be comfortable, which might involve not hiring people who wear shirts advertising that they're pro-choice (just an example, and the employer could impose a dress code to avoid that kind of thing, but that's not my point).

You'd be okay with a small business owner refusing to hire a black person because of discomfort, then?

Absolutely not. Being black is not a choice.

Neither is homosexuality.  Are you ok with an employer refusing someone employment because of that?

I think based on past statements you would not be ok with that, but just want to be sure.

RicOlie_2 said:

Absolutely not. Being black is not a choice.

 what difference does it make whether or not someone has a choice?

I'll answer you guys later, but I've gotta run now, so I don't have time to type up a proper answer.

TV's Frink said:

Neither is homosexuality.  Are you ok with an employer refusing someone employment because of that?

I think based on past statements you would not be ok with that, but just want to be sure.

 No, I am not okay with that, though I think a school (especially a Catholic school), for example, should not be forced to hire a practicing homosexual. People are born homosexual, but they still choose to engage in homosexual sex acts.

Lol at "practicing" homosexual.

TV's Frink said:

Lol at "practicing" homosexual.

 Not the right term I know, but I was in a hurry. :P

This whole thread is just so gay!

;)

MrBrown said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Absolutely not. Being black is not a choice.

 So, you say, what you belief is just a choice.

You could stop believing in God and stop being catholic just at the point? Cool... And you just can start believing homosexuality, just equal as being heterosexuality?

What if a job (out of being a priest) wants you to stop living heterosexual acts?

And, to help the employer to see iof the person is of a belief, sexuality or  such thing they don't feel comfortable with, that homosexuals have to wear a rainbow flag, and jews a little star, and islamists a small half-moon, and mormons a little.. uhm.. here I have fo pass, I don't know a fitting symbol important to the mormon belief...

..but, you know.. nothing against these kind of people... it's not to discriminate.. it ius just.. to help normal people see what they are dealing with...

 No, that's not what I mean. I don't think I presented my reasons very well. I think that in a free country, employers should have the right to refuse employment just because they don't like a person. That's all I mean, and I think that the employer in question should be the top dog in the business/organization/other for the rule to qualify. If someone under the head of the business is responsible for employing people, the rule should no longer apply unless the boss also refuses to hire that person. At a certain point even that should be prohibited.

MrBrown said:

RicOlie_2 said:

MrBrown said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Absolutely not. Being black is not a choice.

 So, you say, what you belief is just a choice.

You could stop believing in God and stop being catholic just at the point? Cool... And you just can start believing homosexuality, just equal as being heterosexuality?

What if a job (out of being a priest) wants you to stop living heterosexual acts?

And, to help the employer to see iof the person is of a belief, sexuality or  such thing they don't feel comfortable with, that homosexuals have to wear a rainbow flag, and jews a little star, and islamists a small half-moon, and mormons a little.. uhm.. here I have fo pass, I don't know a fitting symbol important to the mormon belief...

..but, you know.. nothing against these kind of people... it's not to discriminate.. it ius just.. to help normal people see what they are dealing with...

 No, that's not what I mean. I don't think I presented my reasons very well. I think that in a free country, employers should have the right to refuse employment just because they don't like a person. That's all I mean, and I think that the employer in question should be the top dog in the business/organization/other for the rule to qualify. If someone under the head of the business is responsible for employing people, the rule should no longer apply unless the boss also refuses to hire that person. At a certain point even that should be prohibited.

 But this are two kind of socks, and that's the reason, I think the religion and sexuality of a person has nothing to be discussed in a job application discussion:

If the employer doesn't know on this things, and he feels uneasy with the maybe empoyee, this may be a sign, that the applicant may not fit into the business. Thats normally the main reasin for job interviews: testing, if the applicant fits in.

If a employer refuses to give a job to someone, just because he has another religion, which nothing has to do with the job itself, than this is just a kind of "rascism".

In Germany questions like "What sexuality you have?", "What religion you are part of?" and (for female employees) "Are you pregnant?" are illegal in a job interview, to avoid such form of choosing.

On the other hand, I don't go well with the persons saying "If a person from a minority/female and a person from a majority/male apply for a job, and they are almost equal in knowledge (or whatever for the job is needed) the minority/female person should be favoured, to be not a rascist/sexist whatever." Because thus kind of thinking is just the other way around. Its 'almost' the same as "Hey, we white, christian, men are just superior, because we have balls for everything, a cross to carry for the benefit of all and we get a nice tan in the sun." (okay a bit satirical expressed, but maybe you get it.)

There are som cases, where you are not all wrong:

In a (strict) catholic school, a jew, mormon or even a protestant teacher just won't "fit". In a heterosexual, men aiming, strip club, a gay male tabledancer just won't fit.

But in a company, searching a good IT-engeneer, there is no need, to be heterosexual, male and catholic. If the employer has a problem with a female mormon, which may have just perfect abilities for this job, it is the problem of the employer, for be single minded, not the problem of the applicant to be a female mormon.

I don't think it's right in most cases, but I think it should be legal. Just as I don't think making fun of someone is right, I just think it should be legal. If we impose too many restrictions, laws become stricter and stricter and the government gains more and more control over what people can't do.

Another question:

If you had a son, loving him about 15 years, would you really think he is a different person, if he would come out to be homosexual, knowing it about 3 years or so? Would you really see him as a different person? What would you say to him: "No, I am not your father anymore, I can't accept that you.. love male. Stop it! I will not help you with the problems you will have to face, because of single minded persons, like me."

As I have said many times, I have no problem with homosexuals themselves. If I had a son who discovered he was homosexual, I would still love him but I would try to discourage him from beginning any homosexual relationships. Even if he married another guy, I would still love him. It would hurt because it would mean he would have to abandon the Catholic Church, but I would still love him, though it would strain our relationship.

 Now think another way. Lets say your father had been atheist, but in your childhood, you really found your true belief in god. Finding the teachings of the catholic chuch of hope and salvation quite a true into your heart. What do you hope to hear from your father? "Hah! You fool! 'Believing' in what cannot exsist. Out of my house of true knowledge."

 Well, of course I wouldn't want to hear that, and if I were in that father's position, I wouldn't do that. If I were to become an atheist, I would be fine with other people being religious because I think religion is a beautiful thing and I believe that I still would, even if I looked at it from the outside.

I meant insulting people, not making jokes.