Trump's America

[Ric Flair]

12 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

So under what circumstance are we denying religious freedom to government contractors employing a gay individual? Because I can't think of one instance 

 

If the government contractor is a religious organization, it gets complicated.

[Nebfanatic]

7 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

 

If the government contractor is a religious organization, it gets complicated.

It really doesn't to me. Without misconduct, name an example you think its ok a goverment contractor fires a gay person simply for being gay. I can't think of one time that would be ok. Certainly not what Jesus preached, but I digress.

[Ric Flair]

28 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

It really doesn't to me. Without misconduct, name an example you think its ok a goverment contractor fires a gay person simply for being gay. I can't think of one time that would be ok. Certainly not what Jesus preached, but I digress.

 

Should a religiously affiliated adoption agency that opposes gay marriage and gay adoption be forced by the government to place children with gay couples?

 

Should a religiously affiliated school, where the religion teaches that homosexuality is wrong, be forced to employ openly gay teachers? What if the teachers talk about the relationships and sexuality in class?

 

I’m in favor of gay marriage and gay adoption. I oppose discrimination against people based on sexual orientation. But my feelings are irrelevant. In my view, they are trumped by the First Amendment and the rights of religious organizations to act in a manner consistent with their beliefs.

[Nebfanatic]

21 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

 

Should a religiously affiliated adoption agency that opposes gay marriage and gay adoption be forced by the government to place children with gay couples?

 

Should a religiously affiliated school, where the religion teaches that homosexuality is wrong, be forced to employ openly gay teachers? What if the teachers talk about the relationships and sexuality in class?

 

I’m in favor of gay marriage and gay adoption. I oppose discrimination against people based on sexual orientation. But my feelings are irrelevant. In my view, they are trumped by the First Amendment and the rights of religious organizations to act in a manner consistent with their beliefs.

I won't argue the first paragraph but the rest is hogwash. Your scenario is ridiculous. Firstly I would consider a teacher talking about sexuality in a class that isn't sexual education misconduct. In fact, I would consider any teaching not consistent with school curriculum as misconduct. So if a gay teacher decided to work for a place that was openly against their lifestyle, I still don't think it would be right or should be legal for that school to fire the teacher simply for being gay. Do you parade your sexual life around your place of work? It doesn't have to be an issue. If a teacher is discussing their sexual preferances to students that is grounds for termination regardless of orientation, wouldn't you agree? Unless of course that was in line with school curriculum.

[RedDenver]

5 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

 

I’m not defending Trump. I’m looking at what he actually said and pointing out that he didn’t say what people are claiming, they seem to have read additional words into his statements. 

 

The question is what did he say and what did he mean? The plain language isn’t offensive and is objectively true. SOME Mexican people are rapists and murderers, including those who have come here and raped and murdered. So did Trump mean ALL or SOME? A natural reading of the semtence in context would indicate SOME to me. But for those convinced he’s Hitler, they interpret everything he says in a light consistent with that.

 

Take a look at Trump's statement and it's pretty clear he's saying the worst about most Mexicans. The last sentence gives it away:

Quote

When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're sending people that have a lot of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.

 

Just think about if the same statement was made about Republicans, conservatives, Christians, <insert group you're part of> and you know what the implications are.

[commando]

not sure about this websight...but if true....in trumps america this can happen

 

https://www.jpost.com/American-Politics/Missouri-Republican-who-said-Hitler-was-right-wins-state-House-primary-564637?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

[Ric Flair]

1 hour ago, Nebfanatic said:

I won't argue the first paragraph but the rest is hogwash. Your scenario is ridiculous. Firstly I would consider a teacher talking about sexuality in a class that isn't sexual education misconduct. In fact, I would consider any teaching not consistent with school curriculum as misconduct. So if a gay teacher decided to work for a place that was openly against their lifestyle, I still don't think it would be right or should be legal for that school to fire the teacher simply for being gay. Do you parade your sexual life around your place of work? It doesn't have to be an issue. If a teacher is discussing their sexual preferances to students that is grounds for termination regardless of orientation, wouldn't you agree? Unless of course that was in line with school curriculum.

 

The scenario isn’t at all ridiculous. It occurred at Skutt in Omaha within the last few years. I’ve heard of other instances of it. Is putting an openly gay teacher in charge of a classroom at a religiously affiliated school consistent with the religion’s teachings that a gay lifestyle or gay marriage is immoral? Should such a religious school be forced to employ openly gay teachers? Does it make a difference how openly they talk about their lifestyle, relationship(s), etc.? 

 

 

[Ric Flair]

56 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Take a look at Trump's statement and it's pretty clear he's saying the worst about most Mexicans. The last sentence gives it away:

 

Just think about if the same statement was made about Republicans, conservatives, Christians, <insert group you're part of> and you know what the implications are.

 

I don’t think that’s at all clear. I don’t like his language, as I’ve said a few times now. He should be less inflammatory and much more precise. But I think his meaning is open to interpretation, which is why people read or hear it to mean different things.

[Nebfanatic]

22 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

 

The scenario isn’t at all ridiculous. It occurred at Skutt in Omaha within the last few years. I’ve heard of other instances of it. Is putting an openly gay teacher in charge of a classroom at a religiously affiliated school consistent with the religion’s teachings that a gay lifestyle or gay marriage is immoral? Should such a religious school be forced to employ openly gay teachers? Does it make a difference how openly they talk about their lifestyle, relationship(s), etc.? 

 

 

If the teacher was already employed before you found out about their sexual orientation and is being fired specifically for that reason and that reason alone I don't think that is right. If a math teacher is gay that does not at all affect his ability to do his job nor is it inconsistent with school curriculum. If a teacher is being a teacher their sexual orientation shouldn't come up at any point. The school has the right to hire or not hire whomever they choose but firing someone already employed for that alone is discrimination that should not be allowed.  To the bold, I only brought it up because you specifically talked in your post about the gay teacher telling the children about sexuality. That would not happen and if it did that teacher would be punished regardless of their orientation. If a gay teacher isn't talking about it to students and doing their job satisfactorily, why should they be fired by an employer who has already hired them? Because of beliefs they hold outside of work time? So should christian organizations be able to fire Muslim and athiest employees because their lifestyles and beliefs aren't in line with the employer? 

[Ric Flair]

1 minute ago, Nebfanatic said:

If the teacher was already employed before you found out about their sexual orientation and is being fired specifically for that reason and that reason alone I don't think that is right. If a math teacher is gay that does not at all affect his ability to do his job nor is it inconsistent with school curriculum. If a teacher is being a teacher their sexual orientation shouldn't come up at any point. The school has the right to hire or not hire whomever they choose but firing someone already employed for that alone is discrimination that should not be allowed.  To the bold, I only brought it up because you specifically talked in your post about the gay teacher telling the children about sexuality. That would not happen and if it did that teacher would be punished regardless of their orientation. If a gay teacher isn't talking about it to students and doing their job satisfactorily, why should they be fired by an employer who has already hired them? Because of beliefs they hold outside of work time? So should christian organizations be able to fire Muslim and athiest employees because their lifestyles and beliefs aren't in line with the employer?

 

The short answer to the bolded part is probably yes. I hate to see that happen. I was disappointed when Skutt fired the gay teacher. But as a private religious-based institution, I think they have to be able to make those decisions.

[Nebfanatic]

14 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

 

The short answer to the bolded part is probably yes. I hate to see that happen. I was disappointed when Skutt fired the gay teacher. But as a private religious-based institution, I think they have to be able to make those decisions.

As long as that right is consistantly held up for every religious group its hard to argue with that on a legal basis due to the First Amendment, though morally of course I'd like to see my fellow people in God be more accepting and not resort to that. I'll concede on this one, Ric! Good debating with you.

[RedDenver]

9 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

 

I don’t think that’s at all clear. I don’t like his language, as I’ve said a few times now. He should be less inflammatory and much more precise. But I think his meaning is open to interpretation, which is why people read or hear it to mean different things.

Christians have a lot of problems. They're hypocrites. They're pedophiles. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.

[Enhance]

15 hours ago, Making Chimichangas said:

@Ric Flair and his artful dodging of facts:

 

https://goo.gl/images/osChYx

 

How do you imbed gifs?  Aarrrrgggghhh!!!!

I usually use the Giphy website, copy the link, click the 'Insert other media' function, click 'Insert image from URL,' past the link and click 'Insert into post.'

 

Voila.

 

[sho]

13 hours ago, Nebfanatic said:

If the teacher was already employed before you found out about their sexual orientation and is being fired specifically for that reason and that reason alone I don't think that is right. If a math teacher is gay that does not at all affect his ability to do his job nor is it inconsistent with school curriculum. If a teacher is being a teacher their sexual orientation shouldn't come up at any point. The school has the right to hire or not hire whomever they choose but firing someone already employed for that alone is discrimination that should not be allowed.  To the bold, I only brought it up because you specifically talked in your post about the gay teacher telling the children about sexuality. That would not happen and if it did that teacher would be punished regardless of their orientation. If a gay teacher isn't talking about it to students and doing their job satisfactorily, why should they be fired by an employer who has already hired them? Because of beliefs they hold outside of work time? So should christian organizations be able to fire Muslim and athiest employees because their lifestyles and beliefs aren't in line with the employer? 

 

Here's the question for you @Nebfanatic last year, in 6th grade, my daughter was coming home and telling me about her teacher, Mrs X.  She was telling me all about Mrs X, her wife and the her son.  Her wife and kids attended the class concert and other class functions.   The kids had all met her wife and her son.   My daughter goes to public school, so it's not a problem.  That said, if she went to any church based school where her teacher's orientation is viewed as a sin, a 'choice' against God, should that teacher be allowed to continue to teach there?  For my daughter's class, there was no talk about sexuality, but it was common to talk about her life outside of school.  What her and family did over the weekend or upcoming events that her family was attending etc. Her wife and child visited on occasion.   I can tell you, as open as she was, she would have been terminated from the schools I attended, and they have the right to do so.   What @Ric Flairis saying isright.  Not only with the gay baker, or the Skutt school teacher, but should Jewish owned business be forced to do business with a nazi group?  Should any minority be forced to do business with a group that promotes race separation/discrimination?  If no, they shouldn't be forced to, then the school should be able to terminate a member of the LGBTQ+ community as well, regardless of how well they teach.

 

Heck, there was a case in MN a few years back I can't remember all the details, but there was a health food/gym company that changed their policy to require all employees to be tobacco free.  They gave them a year to do so, and after a year, if they were not tobacco free, they were let go.  And they had random testing for verification.   If I remember right, that case held up in the state supreme court that allowed the company to fire employees for using tobacco, even if it was never during company time.

[knapplc]