If it were absolutely assured that legal marriage benefits would not be abolished within the next 50 years, would you still oppose gay marriage for that time period?
I don't oppose gay marriage. I oppose marriage as a whole. But the addendum to this position directly relating to gay marriage is also well known: I support gay marriage for as long as marriage remains a functional government benefit granting institution. But I still do not support marriage as a whole, and would gladly give time and monetary support to any organizations that were pushing for complete abolishment of ALL marriage from the government.
I support the noble end goal of every person being equal in life and having the same chances to success or fail, regardless of gender, race, age, sexual orientation or the income bracket of their parents. But I do not agree with the methods a lot of people preach to achieve that goal.
Functionally speaking, you'd be against gay rights/equal rights for gay people if you, say, voted against gay marriage as a result of your beliefs, despite that straight marriage would ultimately be left alone.
With a choice like that, I would abstain that vote. I would vote in support of anything that would result in the complete abolishment of all forms of benefit granting marriage under the government.
Family Research Council. Here's a breakdown of who CFA donated to and what they do. Suffice to say, I'm not simply saying "hate group" merely because I disagree with them (as the link says, "The Family Research Council has been labeled a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center"), but because, well, groups like the FRC really are hate groups.
I'll look into this and see why they were labeled as a hate group. But coming from the SPLC, I am inclined to believe it is a legitimate labeling. The SPLC does a pretty good job of being impartial in labeling hate groups.
I don't see how it's possible to be against equality and not be against the marginalized group. It's like saying you oppose women's right to vote but aren't against women per se, or that you support anti-miscegenation but you aren't against black people per se. It's just a silly mental contortion to avoid labeling oneself a bigot for their beliefs.
It can be achieved easily. I am very pro-gay rights, but am anti-gay marriage because of my views on marriage as a whole (I want all forms of marriage abolished as an outdated construct, or at least regulated to a purely religious joining that confers no benefits on the married couple from the government). Am I bigoted against gays because I am against gay marriage by virtue of being against marriage as an institution?
And then Chick-Fil-A, a company placing such emphasis on adherence to religious principles, decides to go and bear false witness by lying about the Jim Henson recall and making up a story about some potential safety risk being the reason.
I'd have to read both sides of the story before passing any judgment on this.
To hate groups, actually (I know the FRC was in there, at least). It's not just donating to anti-gay activities. It's like a company owned by white supremists actively donating to the KKK.
FRC? And do you have documentation that this group is a verified hate group and received donations from Chick-fil-A? Or are you claiming they are a hate group because they run contrary to your beliefs on a subject? And you do realize that the term "hate group" is tossed around with almost as much indifference in the United States today as the word "racist" is, right? The value the terms holds today is a lot less than what it held 10 years ago.
Personally I think there is a big difference between funneling money into helping a minority group and and oppressing a minority group, but I do agree that individuals should make that decision, not government.
I wouldn't say groups like the NBPP or NoI help minorities groups...but a discussion of black hate groups is for another thread.
Also as to you and Popeyes, Al Copeland was a white guy, but thank you for reminding me of your bias. I almost forgot.
You say that like it's a bad thing. Every single person in this world is biased in one way or another - including you. Bias is human nature, some people hide it and repress it and end up miserable for it, others control it and live happy lives. And as I always say, you don't know me. You've never met me. And you most likely will never meet me and never know me. Basing an opinion of me off of some words I wrote on the Internet is the height of ignorance. Go ahead and keep forming opinions of me and wallow in your ignorance. No skin off my back if you have a wrong opinion of who and what I am.
Me? I'm a very happy person with a lot of friends across all races, ages, genders and sexual orientations. Call me a racist. Call me a homophobe. Call me whatever you want. They're just words you're using in ignorance, and mean nothing to me and to those who know me.
It's a matter of priorities. What if, instead of Chik-Fil-A, it was a bank known to give money to terrorist groups? Or drug cartels?
At that point, that company is in direct violation of Federal laws regarding the material support of terrorist organizations. They can and should be shut down immediately.
The big push against Chick-fil-a comes from the fact that the profits are funneled into anti-gay activities.
So while the company doesn't ban gay individuals from entering, the money earned their essentially goes to oppress a segment of the population.
A lot of companies funnel profits into activities people disagree with. It still isn't a reason to attempt to ban a company from opening a store in a city - especially in a ****ty economy when a brand new restaurant means jobs.
Do you think if I found out Popeyes was funneling profits into black supremacy activities, I would stop eating their delicious chicken and biscuits? Hell no.
The personal beliefs of the owners, whether spoken or not, should have no impact on whether or not the business is allowed to operate as long as the business itself does not discriminate.
Chick-fil-A's owner may support "traditional" marriage, but the business itself does not discriminate against anyone in any way in it's hiring or serving practices. Plus, their chicken sandwiches are insanely good. The only "religious" practice that Chick-fil-A does that I do not agree with is being closed on Sundays because it's the Sabbath. What if I want a delicious Chick-fil-A chicken sandwich on Sunday?!
What makes this even murkier is that Rahm Emanuel supports the actions of Louis Farrakhan and his Nation of Islam members in Chicago - an Louis Farrakhan has gone on record of saying that all homosexuals should be put to death. A bit more extreme than Dan Cathy saying he supports traditional marriage.
The notion that a company should be able to fire you because smoke at home is completely absurd. Smoking is not illegal, and accordingly, a company has no right whatsoever taking this course of action. So what if you work at a cancer center. What you do at home is still your business.
This is just another example of corporations having too much ability to abuse and control their workers. Ugh.
It's not absurd. They told her she couldn't come to work anymore smelling like cigarette smoke. She did not comply. She was fired for not doing as she was told by her employer.
If "addiction" wasn't a choice, then people wouldn't stop smoking, doing drugs, and drinking every day. Granted, they are harder choices to make...but they are still choices people make every day.
Is it your contention that, for example, sexual expression and religion are not choices?
As someone who was born and raised Christian and is currently Pagan, I can personally verify that religion is a choice. I cannot vouch for sexuality, since I've been straight since I discovered what a ***** does to a ******.
My position has never been that CCW carriers are more likely to kill people. Never has been.
But the laws you support passing will impact lawful CCW carriers like me significantly more than it will impact criminals and mass murderers.
There were 55,643 homicides in the United States from 2007 until 2010 (last year the FBI has completed data for). 37,491 on them were homicides using firearms - or 67.37%. 463 non-justifiable homicides (convictions and charged awaiting trial) were committed by lawful CCW permit holders. That is a mere 1.235% of homicides (actual number will be smaller, I am using roughly 5 1/2 years of data from www.vpc.org in comparison to only 4 years of data from www.fbi.gov) that were committed by the group of people who are most impacted by newer stricter gun control laws.
Is it fair to punish all lawful CCW permit holders for the crimes committed by 0.00005716% of lawful CCW permit holders and all other gun-using criminals?
Not even a majority of which were gun crimes. Irrelevant data.
Of course you dismiss it as irrelevant - it erodes your position on gun control to show that licensed CCW permit holders commit a statistically insignificant amount of homicides in comparison to the amount of homicides committed in a city with some of the strictest gun control laws on the books in a state with the strictest gun control laws on the books.
If you would have read the Wikipedia entry, you would have seen that in 2005 75% of homicides were committed with a gun. Using that as a base line, we can estimate that 1,911.75 of the homicides in the 62 month window I provided were committed with a gun. Compare the 1,911.75 to the 463 CCW permit holders who were charged with homicide and you will see that Chicago alone as an estimated 4.129:1 the rate of gun related homicides than all the CCW permit holders combined in 32 states.
Let me rephrase, since I didnt come across correctly the first time. If thy are going to allow someone who has been working for a company for a set time be fired all of a sudden for being a smoker, then what stops companies form firing people becasue of other discriminatory reasons such as race, age, skin color? The slippery slope is the reasoning behind the firing and what it could lead to.
Because smoking or not smoking is a personal choice you have direct control over to make. The other things you listed are things people have no control over - you cannot decide your race, stop age, or change your skin color.
Again, the article doesnt really have enough information. Was she a long time employee? Was the practice in place when she started? If and when was there a grace period for her to change? Were the proper steps taken in dismissing her?
The HuffPuff Post is not known for "complete" coverage of stories when "complete" coverage would make the story not a story. The only piece of information we get is that she was on the job six weeks when she was told she could not come to work anymore smelling like cigarette smoke. And apparently, the ACLU is siding with the business against her.
Discrimination is discrimination, the reasoning behind it doesnt matter.
As many others love to point out, one person's rights end where another person's rights begin. This is not discrimination. She was told she could not smell like cigarette smoke on company property. She continued to smell like cigarette smoke. She was terminated. I, personally, will not date a woman who smokes - does that mean I should be sued for discrimination by potential dates?
EDIT: Damn...looks like me and one of my nemesis are in agreement again in a thread. Maybe 12/21/2012 will be the end of the world, and this is a sign of the apocalypse.
Why are people assuming that if the other movie goers were armed it would have stopped or even lessened the tragedy?
I haven't seen anyone assume that. We are just pointing out that the theater was designated as a "gun-free" zone by the owners. It COULD have ended the situation sooner and with less causalities, or it COULD have made it worse. But other "massacres" could have been easily mitigated by allowing license people to carry their sidearms - such as Virginia Tech or Columbine. To prove this point, one "massacre" was mitigated because the school (Appalachian School of Law) did permit licensed students and faculty to carry - two armed students subdued the gun man and held him until police arrived after only three casualties. Compare 3 casualties at the Appalachian School of Law to the 32 at Virginia Tech (including the gunman) and 15 at Columbine (including the two gunmen).
This does not even account for the people who would have panicked, pulled out their guns and then started firing at anyone near them.
You'd be surprised how hard it is to shoot another person, even if you're trained to do it (like the Navy PO3 and the Air Force SSgt in the audience would have been trained to do as members of the military). People, especially licensed CCW permit holders, most likely would have not done that. But it pure speculation on both our parts - you are speculating a worst-case-scenario and I am speculating a best-case-scenario.
Ok, I'm a bit confused here. Is it really that crazy to think that people did not even consider to bring a gun with them to a movie theater?
No, it's not really that crazy because registered CCW permit holders are the least likely person to ever shoot someone.
That is statistical - the amount of people shot and killed by registered CCW permit holders not in a self-defense/justifiable homicide situation is below 500...since May 2007. In the past 62 months, 463 people have been killed by registered CCW permit holders in 343 incidents in 32 states. That is 7.468 people killed by lawful CCW permit holders in non-self defense situations per month.
442 homicides in 2007, 510 homicides in 2008, 458 homicides in 2009, 449 homicides in 2010, 440 homicides in 2011, and 250 homicides so far in 2012 as of one month ago. So for a similar time frame, that is 2,549 homicides in the same time frame...from just one city (that happens to have very strict gun control).
So just one city in one state has a much higher homicide rate than all the CCW permit holders in 32 states.
As of this article from one year ago, there are an estimated 6,000,000 CCW permits in circulation. Out of the 6,000,000, only 343 CCW permit holders have committed non-justifiable homicide (as per the VPC link). That means 0.00005716% of CCW permit holders have committed homicide. Or for every CCW permit holder that has committed homicide, 17,492.711 have not.
Clearly, law abiding CCW permit holders like myself and Org are not who you have to be worried about. But law abiding CCW permit holders like myself and Org are who get demonized by the left wing every time someone is shot.
Gary Johnson is running as the Libertarian presidential candidate and this man should be heard. There is another option besides Obama or Romney. A vote unused is truly wasted. Vote Libertarian with me and help create some real change! http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/issues
Unfortunately, there is little to no chance of anyone who is not a Democrat or Republican getting elected. Thus a vote for a third party Presidential candidate is a vote wasted, or a vote for the incumbent.
I don't oppose gay marriage. I oppose marriage as a whole. But the addendum to this position directly relating to gay marriage is also well known: I support gay marriage for as long as marriage remains a functional government benefit granting institution. But I still do not support marriage as a whole, and would gladly give time and monetary support to any organizations that were pushing for complete abolishment of ALL marriage from the government.
I support the noble end goal of every person being equal in life and having the same chances to success or fail, regardless of gender, race, age, sexual orientation or the income bracket of their parents. But I do not agree with the methods a lot of people preach to achieve that goal.
With a choice like that, I would abstain that vote. I would vote in support of anything that would result in the complete abolishment of all forms of benefit granting marriage under the government.
I'll look into this and see why they were labeled as a hate group. But coming from the SPLC, I am inclined to believe it is a legitimate labeling. The SPLC does a pretty good job of being impartial in labeling hate groups.
I've never heard of the FRC, who are they? And is there proof Chick-fil-A donated money to them?
It can be achieved easily. I am very pro-gay rights, but am anti-gay marriage because of my views on marriage as a whole (I want all forms of marriage abolished as an outdated construct, or at least regulated to a purely religious joining that confers no benefits on the married couple from the government). Am I bigoted against gays because I am against gay marriage by virtue of being against marriage as an institution?
I'd have to read both sides of the story before passing any judgment on this.
FRC? And do you have documentation that this group is a verified hate group and received donations from Chick-fil-A? Or are you claiming they are a hate group because they run contrary to your beliefs on a subject? And you do realize that the term "hate group" is tossed around with almost as much indifference in the United States today as the word "racist" is, right? The value the terms holds today is a lot less than what it held 10 years ago.
I wouldn't say groups like the NBPP or NoI help minorities groups...but a discussion of black hate groups is for another thread.
You say that like it's a bad thing. Every single person in this world is biased in one way or another - including you. Bias is human nature, some people hide it and repress it and end up miserable for it, others control it and live happy lives. And as I always say, you don't know me. You've never met me. And you most likely will never meet me and never know me. Basing an opinion of me off of some words I wrote on the Internet is the height of ignorance. Go ahead and keep forming opinions of me and wallow in your ignorance. No skin off my back if you have a wrong opinion of who and what I am.
Me? I'm a very happy person with a lot of friends across all races, ages, genders and sexual orientations. Call me a racist. Call me a homophobe. Call me whatever you want. They're just words you're using in ignorance, and mean nothing to me and to those who know me.
At that point, that company is in direct violation of Federal laws regarding the material support of terrorist organizations. They can and should be shut down immediately.
A lot of companies funnel profits into activities people disagree with. It still isn't a reason to attempt to ban a company from opening a store in a city - especially in a ****ty economy when a brand new restaurant means jobs.
Do you think if I found out Popeyes was funneling profits into black supremacy activities, I would stop eating their delicious chicken and biscuits? Hell no.
But why should a business that employs a very large amount of people be punished for the beliefs of it's owner?
EDIT: Alright there _...this needs to stop. We aren't allowed to have similar view points on this many topics in one week.
Chick-fil-A's owner may support "traditional" marriage, but the business itself does not discriminate against anyone in any way in it's hiring or serving practices. Plus, their chicken sandwiches are insanely good. The only "religious" practice that Chick-fil-A does that I do not agree with is being closed on Sundays because it's the Sabbath. What if I want a delicious Chick-fil-A chicken sandwich on Sunday?!
What makes this even murkier is that Rahm Emanuel supports the actions of Louis Farrakhan and his Nation of Islam members in Chicago - an Louis Farrakhan has gone on record of saying that all homosexuals should be put to death. A bit more extreme than Dan Cathy saying he supports traditional marriage.
It's not absurd. They told her she couldn't come to work anymore smelling like cigarette smoke. She did not comply. She was fired for not doing as she was told by her employer.
If "addiction" wasn't a choice, then people wouldn't stop smoking, doing drugs, and drinking every day. Granted, they are harder choices to make...but they are still choices people make every day.
As someone who was born and raised Christian and is currently Pagan, I can personally verify that religion is a choice. I cannot vouch for sexuality, since I've been straight since I discovered what a ***** does to a ******.
But the laws you support passing will impact lawful CCW carriers like me significantly more than it will impact criminals and mass murderers.
There were 55,643 homicides in the United States from 2007 until 2010 (last year the FBI has completed data for). 37,491 on them were homicides using firearms - or 67.37%. 463 non-justifiable homicides (convictions and charged awaiting trial) were committed by lawful CCW permit holders. That is a mere 1.235% of homicides (actual number will be smaller, I am using roughly 5 1/2 years of data from www.vpc.org in comparison to only 4 years of data from www.fbi.gov) that were committed by the group of people who are most impacted by newer stricter gun control laws.
Is it fair to punish all lawful CCW permit holders for the crimes committed by 0.00005716% of lawful CCW permit holders and all other gun-using criminals?
Of course you dismiss it as irrelevant - it erodes your position on gun control to show that licensed CCW permit holders commit a statistically insignificant amount of homicides in comparison to the amount of homicides committed in a city with some of the strictest gun control laws on the books in a state with the strictest gun control laws on the books.
If you would have read the Wikipedia entry, you would have seen that in 2005 75% of homicides were committed with a gun. Using that as a base line, we can estimate that 1,911.75 of the homicides in the 62 month window I provided were committed with a gun. Compare the 1,911.75 to the 463 CCW permit holders who were charged with homicide and you will see that Chicago alone as an estimated 4.129:1 the rate of gun related homicides than all the CCW permit holders combined in 32 states.
Because smoking or not smoking is a personal choice you have direct control over to make. The other things you listed are things people have no control over - you cannot decide your race, stop age, or change your skin color.
It is not a slippery slope.
The HuffPuff Post is not known for "complete" coverage of stories when "complete" coverage would make the story not a story. The only piece of information we get is that she was on the job six weeks when she was told she could not come to work anymore smelling like cigarette smoke. And apparently, the ACLU is siding with the business against her.
As many others love to point out, one person's rights end where another person's rights begin. This is not discrimination. She was told she could not smell like cigarette smoke on company property. She continued to smell like cigarette smoke. She was terminated. I, personally, will not date a woman who smokes - does that mean I should be sued for discrimination by potential dates?
EDIT: Damn...looks like me and one of my nemesis are in agreement again in a thread. Maybe 12/21/2012 will be the end of the world, and this is a sign of the apocalypse.
I haven't seen anyone assume that. We are just pointing out that the theater was designated as a "gun-free" zone by the owners. It COULD have ended the situation sooner and with less causalities, or it COULD have made it worse. But other "massacres" could have been easily mitigated by allowing license people to carry their sidearms - such as Virginia Tech or Columbine. To prove this point, one "massacre" was mitigated because the school (Appalachian School of Law) did permit licensed students and faculty to carry - two armed students subdued the gun man and held him until police arrived after only three casualties. Compare 3 casualties at the Appalachian School of Law to the 32 at Virginia Tech (including the gunman) and 15 at Columbine (including the two gunmen).
You'd be surprised how hard it is to shoot another person, even if you're trained to do it (like the Navy PO3 and the Air Force SSgt in the audience would have been trained to do as members of the military). People, especially licensed CCW permit holders, most likely would have not done that. But it pure speculation on both our parts - you are speculating a worst-case-scenario and I am speculating a best-case-scenario.
No, it's not really that crazy because registered CCW permit holders are the least likely person to ever shoot someone.
That is statistical - the amount of people shot and killed by registered CCW permit holders not in a self-defense/justifiable homicide situation is below 500...since May 2007. In the past 62 months, 463 people have been killed by registered CCW permit holders in 343 incidents in 32 states. That is 7.468 people killed by lawful CCW permit holders in non-self defense situations per month.
http://www.vpc.org/ccwkillers.htm
Now let's compare that with the murder rate of just one city (Chicago) from a similar time frame.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Chicago
http://homicides.redeyechicago.com/#chicago-reaches-250-homicides-for-2012
442 homicides in 2007, 510 homicides in 2008, 458 homicides in 2009, 449 homicides in 2010, 440 homicides in 2011, and 250 homicides so far in 2012 as of one month ago. So for a similar time frame, that is 2,549 homicides in the same time frame...from just one city (that happens to have very strict gun control).
So just one city in one state has a much higher homicide rate than all the CCW permit holders in 32 states.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34714389/ns/us_news-life/#.UBL2DqPz3Rw
As of this article from one year ago, there are an estimated 6,000,000 CCW permits in circulation. Out of the 6,000,000, only 343 CCW permit holders have committed non-justifiable homicide (as per the VPC link). That means 0.00005716% of CCW permit holders have committed homicide. Or for every CCW permit holder that has committed homicide, 17,492.711 have not.
Clearly, law abiding CCW permit holders like myself and Org are not who you have to be worried about. But law abiding CCW permit holders like myself and Org are who get demonized by the left wing every time someone is shot.
Unfortunately, there is little to no chance of anyone who is not a Democrat or Republican getting elected. Thus a vote for a third party Presidential candidate is a vote wasted, or a vote for the incumbent.