17 May 06
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemI'm confused. How did whiteness get into this conversation, or Christian?
You're pushing for the right to do far more than 'merely request politely'. In your sick little 'perfect' world, a hotel owner could deny lodging to anyone who was not a married white christian.
In the real world, such an owner richly deserves to be called a bigot, and sued repeatedly until he goes out of business.
Furthermore, if you repeatedly ...[text shortened]... for it. It's harrassment, plain and simple, and has no place in a professional workplace.
Also, let's be clear. We're not talking about "repeatedly criticizing the lifestyle of your co-workers." Just like it is not sexual harrassment to ask someone for a date. It becomes sexual harrassment when it is repeated after being made clear that it is unwelcome.
I've worked in the professional world for a long time. I've talked with co-workers about religion, politics, sports, auto repair, marriage, child raising, lawn maintenance, home repair, sex, humor, and much much more. None of this was relative to my job. Your telling me that if I'm overheard at work telling someone as a part of normal conversation that I don't believe homosexual acts are moral, that I should be fired?
But of course I can be subject to unlimited verbage suggesting that it is immoral to even think homosexuality is immoral, and that is okay.
Hey, I'm just hoping to get someone to admit that there is a lot of irony here in just who is being more intolerant.
17 May 06
1 edit
Originally posted by EsotericI intended to be concialtory by using the word 'odd' in that context.
An example of bigotry. Where the hell did anyone mention anything about a Muslim demanding tolerance for his "odd" beliefs in this thread? Seems to me you are pretty intolerant. Nearly every one of your posts somehow reverts to slagging off Muslims. It's really quite pathetic.
However it still remains risible to see the parties concerned chasing each others intolerant tails.
17 May 06
Originally posted by techsouthI made two very simple statements. Both were more or less related to the issues you raise.
So which is it? Are my guests reasonable to think I am condoning the behaviour if I sit quietly while a man has sex with an aardvark in my living room? If so, do you admit that you cannot always ignore behaviour without condoning it? It's okay if this is an extreme. I freely admit that this is a very extreme case. But seems like you'd have to admit that you cannot always ignore behaviour without condoning it.
Attempting to limit, alter, or otherwise inhibit another person's life because you happen to disagree with their sexual orientation is not acceptable.
If I must expand on this comment, I will obviously add that impeding on another person's rights or property without just cause is also not acceptable.
Therefore your admittedly absurd questions of home-invasion gay sex fall under this category. While not quite as "ironic" as you seem to think, actions which resemble the descriptions above cannot be tolerated - including those who might enjoy doing lines off your kitchen counter.
On the other hand we have people who seem to believe homosexuals should be unable to have sex in their own homes. There also seems to be a decent number of those who think it is somehow okay to act in a negative - and by extension, harmful - fashion toward gay human beings.
Here we find the key to my distaste for this debate. You take what are inherently violent actions toward other people, justify those actions by using outlandish and non-viable analogies of the imagination, and when someone eventually bothers with a confrontation, you dare to claim persecution as your defense.
If you refuse to accept your own behavior as immoral and unjust there is very little any of us can do. In the mean time I will not allow you to claim victim status.
-JC
17 May 06
Originally posted by techsouthI'm confused. How did whiteness get into this conversation, or Christian?
I'm confused. How did whiteness get into this conversation, or Christian?
Also, let's be clear. We're not talking about "repeatedly criticizing the lifestyle of your co-workers." Just like it is not sexual harrassment to ask someone for a date. It becomes sexual harrassment when it is repeated after being made clear that it is unwelcome.
I've wor ...[text shortened]... meone to admit that there is a lot of irony here in just who is being more intolerant.
It is the logical extension of what you are advocating. We can't, after all, criticize a christian business owner for refusing to serve 'heathens', because it goes against his principles, and we'd hate to force him to condone heathen behavior, now, wouldn't we?
Also, let's be clear. We're not talking about "repeatedly criticizing the lifestyle of your co-workers." Just like it is not sexual harrassment to ask someone for a date. It becomes sexual harrassment when it is repeated after being made clear that it is unwelcome.
Harrassment can exist even without the offended party revealing that it is unwelcome. If a few co-workers are sitting around slamming your lifestyle (marital status, sexual preference, religion, etc.), it can feel intimidating. The offended party has the unpleasant choice of keeping silent, or making a scene by confronting the offenders, or they can bail out by making an anonymous complaint to management. This is always a risk when discussing controversial topics, particularly around people you don't know very well.
Should the offenders be fired? It depends on the situation and the severity of the harrassment. People make tactless comments from time to time, and I don't want to see people canned over it. In most cases, I advocate a warning to the employee to cease the harrassment, followed by termination if they don't comply.
But of course I can be subject to unlimited verbage suggesting that it is immoral to even think homosexuality is immoral, and that is okay.
In a workplace, you should not be subjected to it. Harrassment works both ways.
Hey, I'm just hoping to get someone to admit that there is a lot of irony here in just who is being more intolerant.
'Tolerance' isn't always a virtue. The word itself is neutral. Once you realize that, the irony evaporates.
This issue boils down to a question of equal rights and equal access. In my opinion, the law should be decidely intolerant of those who deny the above.