Posts by DJS

274

Indiana "Religious Freedom" (right to discriminate)

by Simon in

sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".

"oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?

you're fired!"..

DJS

EOM,

I read that and I agree with you. That type of behavior accomplishes nothing.

274

Indiana "Religious Freedom" (right to discriminate)

by Simon in

sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".

"oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?

you're fired!"..

DJS

NeverADub,

The one thing I do like about Libertarians is that they seek to limit government's reach into our lives. I believe we need them on the wall as a counter-balance to those who believe government should control everything. I believe government should do only what is necessary; the issue is one man's need is another man's want and another man's indifference.

274

Indiana "Religious Freedom" (right to discriminate)

by Simon in

sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".

"oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?

you're fired!"..

DJS

NeverADub,

Yes, as I mentioned in one of my initial posts, churches and religions have not faced any serious threats or incursions, including in the recent past, for rituals, policies, etc. that occur within the church and are church specific. The laws protecting and securing gay rights do not infringe on religious institutions - only on commerce or state supported agencies such as a justice of the peace or one conducting civil weddings.

That, based on the separation of church and state where commerce is an interest of the state - not the church, is what the framers of the Constitution evidently had in mind. They were geniuses. The courts have consistently ruled in this manner for a loooooonnng time. It amazes me that so many have been so unaware or delusional about how the US works.

One poster commented that Canada has forced a church to marry gays, but I cannot find any references to it. I kinda sorta doubt it. I do believe that some countries in Europe - Scandanavian I think - are moving toward requiring churches to perform gay ceremonies. They have a different framework for both religion and constitutional rights of which I am no expert. I'm not aware of gay couples trying to force REAL churches to marry them; I will research to see if it has occurred. I agree with you on this point. There are many other options.

Religions were neither threatened nor impeded in any manner when laws supporting gay rights to marry and to not face discrimination in commercial, for profit engagements were passed. The X-tian right and fundies would have us believe they are the ones being 'forced' and discriminated against, which is not only completely untrue but in my eyes is obscene. The laws recently passed on in the queue in the various states, and I will say this again, were mean-spirited attempts by the X-tian fundies and the Far R. politicos to keep the door forced closed against gays and were driven by their anger at losing so many battles in the courts (38 states allow gay marriage, more are on the way). The laws were not necessary, did nothing to secure religious freedom and were intended to put gays back behind the door.

96

21 Years as an Elder, 5 as an MS, I will never be that guy again.

by James Jack in

i was deleted as the cobe after i let my adult child move back home and he admitted that he fornicated under my roof while my wife and i where away on a rbc project.

of course the elder mode in me kicked him out of the house.. the elders moved quickly to remove me because i was too involved in "theocractic activities", i had neglected my adult son.. i accepted this primarily because i didn't want to serve with a boe that did not want me.

i was devastated however because it was the only life i knew.

DJS

@ Magnum: "I would not kiss a$$es anymore. I would not treat COs anymore special than the lowliest publisher in the congregation. I would be honest and point out things that seem wrong and/or don't make sense. I just couldn't be the JW I was - constantly praising the organization and going along with the silly, embarrassing stuff."

Really? That was you? You do not seem like that person. I was exactly opposite. I am genetically incapable of ass kissing, treated the CO exactly like the lowest of low and routinely criticized the dumbassedness of the Dark Lords' decisions. That really worked out well for me.

As to the OPer: Welcome!!! We understand. James Jack, the most wondrous thing about your situation is you have time to fix a lot of the mess created by your time in Borgland.

274

Indiana "Religious Freedom" (right to discriminate)

by Simon in

sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".

"oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?

you're fired!"..

DJS

JD,

I assumed you would feel that way; that is a Libertarian view. It has no data or evidence to support it, however. After initial push-back, society typically begins accepting social changes much quicker than it otherwise would. There are other costs incurred by society and individuals alike when governments sit back and do nothing. Libertarians don't typically consider opportunity costs for damaged individuals and the resulting costs to society (unemployment, welfare, food stamps, law enforcement, courts, drug and alcohol rehab, crime, etc.), lost or mitigated ambition and accomplishment, family considerations, etc. that go along with doing nothing. Ann didn't consider these things when she opined.

This is a slam dunk. I know you will continue to 'feel' otherwise, but the humanist and the economist in me is A-OK with the laws. I have family deeply impacted by these types of prejudices, both inside and outside of the Borg.

Nothing is ultimately more efficient in effecting change than societal pressure. Just ask Indiana's governor. Their RFRA has been gutted of its intended mean-ness. As of today it is a kinder and gentler meaningless mean spirited law. Neutered if you will, and that is most excellent. That shrill, shrieking whine emanating from the X-tian fundies and R Wing politicos sounds like heaven to me.

However, the changing laws legalizing gay marriage and protecting gays from discrimination were the first push of the dominoes, and to discount that is to place one's head squarely up one's ass.

274

Indiana "Religious Freedom" (right to discriminate)

by Simon in

sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".

"oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?

you're fired!"..

DJS

Marvin,

Ditto. They are called bona fide occupational qualifications. Employers can legally require employees to work shifts, weekends, retire at a certain age, etc. and the employee does not typically have a legal right to sue, but the employer must include the BOQs in the job description and they must be 'bonafide' or legitimate essential job duties/requirements. If they are, employers are almost always A-ok, unless they administer these BOQs in an unfair manner (some get favors, some don't). Courts will always look at practices as more compelling than policies or procedures.

In a past life I worked with an HR employee hiring/relations team.

274

Indiana "Religious Freedom" (right to discriminate)

by Simon in

sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".

"oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?

you're fired!"..

DJS

INDIANAPOLIS (AP) — Indiana's Republican legislative leaders have unveiled changes to the state's new religious objections law that has faced criticism it could allow discrimination against lesbians and gays.

The amendment to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act released Thursday prohibits service providers from using the law as a legal defense for refusing to provide services, goods, facilities or accommodations. It also bars discrimination based on race, color, religion, ancestry, age, national origin, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or United States military service.

274

Indiana "Religious Freedom" (right to discriminate)

by Simon in

sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".

"oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?

you're fired!"..

DJS

JD,

You are speaking for yourself. I understand. You aren't speaking for Libertarians as a group. I understand. Otherwise I don't understand what you mean about forcing people into groups. The laws supporting gay marriage aren't forcing anything on anyone. Those who think they are simply don't want others to have legal rights that they have enjoyed forever.

Laws requiring for profit commercial businesses to serve everyone regardless of race, religion, gender or sexual orientation aren't force. They simply allow access that they themselves have enjoyed forever. The only 'force' is coming from the X-tians, the Libertarians and the Far R, which want to force their own views down everyone's throat. They've lost a lot of court cases recently and they are striking back in mean spirited ways with needless laws that allow X-tians and other haters to continue discriminating and validate their hate.

Within a generation or so this will be a moot point. Gay marriage and equal access will be the norm, and people in the future will look back at the haters in 2015 and compare them to the KKK and other 20th Century hate mongers. And that's not an opinion.

274

Indiana "Religious Freedom" (right to discriminate)

by Simon in

sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".

"oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?

you're fired!"..

DJS

Rand Paul has gone on record stating that privately owned establishments should be able to decide whom to serve without government interference. This is in lockstep with the Libertarian's darling Ayn Rand, who believed that race issues would be better resolved without government intervention.

Let's see if Mr. Paul starts moon walking as fast as he can backwards if he decides to run a national campaign. My bet is that he will make Brother Michael look like an amateur. He has already started softening some of his more rhetorical and hard-line Libertarian views. Like the X-tian fundies and the Far Right, he plays better at home.

As for Ms. Rand, history has shown how pathetically mean and misinformed she was about this and other topics.

Libertarianism is an ideal. A grand concept. That's all it is. In theory I wish government would go away and leave us all alone. But I live in the real world; I hope that government only does what is necessary. Leading the way in ending discrimination, IMHO, is necessary.

274

Indiana "Religious Freedom" (right to discriminate)

by Simon in

sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".

"oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?

you're fired!"..

DJS

Yes I think you are a hater; you mask it and hide it behind Libertarianism. In theory I'm a Libertarian; I would love to do what I want whenever I want. I get it. But as nice as all of that sounds, we have one planet, and we are better as a species if we are tolerant of others. I also wish that there were no government controls on anything, but I'm smart enough to know that we can't live in a world like that.

Although it is a nice theory, and I wished we could all practice it, in reality it is immature to think that we can all get along, play nice and build a better world without rules and laws. I hate lawyers and laws and avoid the inside of a courtroom at all costs, just like you, but others who feel discriminated against have the legal and constitutional right to file suit, especially when enough is fukking enough, in order to level playing fields and to gain access and acceptance. Carrying out the Libertarian viewpoint to its obvious conclusion would lead us back to discrimination against blacks, the disabled, women, etc. Just because you think that you would just find another option so everyone else should as well is also an immature, childish behavior.