[peck420]

Lemmy Lemmy:

So you found, through Google, that this actor didn't vote? Is that what you're telling me?

Correct.

$1:

Who is this "they" that you're talking about? I thought we were talking about a "him".

They is in regard the the leads for the play. Whomever did the fact digging decided to look up all the lead actors.

$1:

Now what are you talking about? And did you mean to say "predicate" or "predict"?

It's just going to be one of those days today...if it ain't attached, I will probably lose it.

I indeed meant predict.

Edited because it is just going from bad to worse.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

This is classic. A racist and rape advocate lecturing the VP on human rights. Just more proof how utterly phony neo-liberals really are.

[N_Fiddledog]

Tricks Tricks:

Does the constitutional right to freedom of religion not apply much the same way the freedom of speech does? In that the government can not persecute you in anyway for your religious beliefs, or your spoken beliefs?

Originally you used a label of "biological" rights. You gave them priority. I assumed you were talking about what some call natural and the constitution calls unalienable rights such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These are seen as universal rights you are supposedly born with as part of being biologically you. The constitution later makes amendments to specify freedoms and protections from government interventions.

And then you have civil rights. "Civil rights are those rights which provide opportunity to each person to lead a civilized social life."

Where the right to run a business the way you like fits in I'm not sure. Legal rights maybe? I'm not sure.

I know this. All these rights can conflict. So what do you do when they do? For example, throughout the texts of Islam they demand the priority over and even subjugation of unbeliever religions. This of course conflicts with unbelievers' right to freely express their religion.

Then you say this:

$1:

If someone is at work and tells everyone they hate black people, they're probably going to be fired, and there is no ground of defense based on freedom of speech.

There's conflicts of rights all over the place there - natural, civil, legal - but ultimately legal would solve that one. I hasten to point out though, Mike Pence never claimed to hate gay people. In fact what he claimed was he didn't.

He claimed the new proposed law of non-discrimination in the hiring of gays might conflict with the way convention had allowed other employees to practice religion.

You're not actually talking about rights here. You're talking about an argument over priority of societal privilege. Christians had it. Gays want it. And so they argue.

You're seeing non-discrimination as a universal right. It's not. As a radical example to clarify the lines does a 5'7" punt returner have the right to decide he'd rather be on the offensive line or does the coach have the right to discriminate?

The discriminatory producers of Hamilton thought they had the right to put out a casting call for non-whites. Did they have that right? Maybe not, but how about this one?

Suppose a vegan applies for a job in a slaughterhouse. So the employer interviews him and discovers he's pretty vocal with his views against the killing of animals for food. He has pamphlets he plans to hand out to the employees at lunch hour. Why he might want to work in a slaughterhouse, we can only guess, but should the employer see a potential conflict there? Should he be allowed to "discriminate?"

[BeaverFever]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

This is classic. A racist and rape advocate lecturing the VP on human rights. Just more proof how utterly phony neo-liberals really are.

Trump is lecturing Pence too?

[rickc]

Lemmy Lemmy:

rickc rickc:

Read your lines, take your bows, and keep your fucking mouth shut while on company time. Is that too much to ask?

Yes, it is because: "To sin by silence when we should protest makes cowards out of men" - E. W. Wilcox

Well let me quote one of the great minds of our time. I think you will recognise him. He is a professor in Ontario.

$1:

Are we back to this nonsense again?

So the emergency doctor is justified in letting the gay-guy bleed to death because of his "beliefs"?

If your business is cake decorating, you decorate the cake the way you're asked and leave your beliefs at home. Or else you don't go into the cake decorating business. FULL STOP.

Sound familiar? It should. That was you just a few days ago stating that the baker needed to shut his pie hole, and do his job. He does not get to lecture his customers on the evils of homosexuality. He needs to leave his beliefs at home, and do his job. OK so why then does Mr. Brandon Victor Dixon not have to leave his beliefs at home as well? Why the double standard? If the baker has to bite his tongue, so then too should Mr. Dixon. When I am paying hundreds of dollars for a ticket to a play, I am not paying to hear some starving artist's opinions on ANYTHING. I do not care to hear his political beliefs (even if they are in agreement with my own ), thats not what I am there for. I am there to be entertained by theatre. FULL STOP. If I am going to pay money to hear someone express their political beliefs, I will go see Ben Shapiro, or Alan Dershowitz. Whoever it will be, it will be my choice to hear their beliefs. Whats good for the goose, is good for the gander. Lets keep it fair for everyone. If the right has to leave their beliefs at home, than so does the left. Everyone can bite their tongue equally. No favoritism for the snowflakes.

[Tricks]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Originally you used a label of "biological" rights. You gave them priority. I assumed you were talking about what some call natural and the constitution calls unalienable rights such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These are seen as universal rights you are supposedly born with as part of being biologically you. The constitution later makes amendments to specify freedoms and protections from government interventions.

Is working not part of the pursuit of happiness? Does it not fall under that umbrella?

$1:

I know this. All these rights can conflict. So what do you do when they do? For example, throughout the texts of Islam they demand the priority over and even subjugation of unbeliever religions. This of course conflicts with unbelievers' right to freely express their religion.

Pretty simple to me, if your religion calls for you to have influence or control over someone else, it isn't valid.

$1:

There's conflicts of rights all over the place there - natural, civil, legal - but ultimately legal would solve that one. I hasten to point out though, Mike Pence never claimed to hate gay people. In fact what he claimed was he didn't.

Of course he did. He can't actually say it. C'mon man even you can't take a politician at his words. You expect a politician to take a firm stance on an extremely controversial and potential career ending opinion? Or to lie about it? Generally speaking, people who don't dislike groups of people, don't need to say they don't.

$1:

He claimed the new proposed law of non-discrimination in the hiring of gays might conflict with the way convention had allowed other employees to practice religion.

You're not actually talking about rights here. You're talking about an argument over priority of societal privilege. Christians had it. Gays want it. And so they argue.

I disagree. I think the pursuit of happiness is inclusive of being able to work where you want, and being denied a job because of a biological trait is ridiculous and flies in the face of the pursuit. That trumps religious freedom.

$1:

You're seeing non-discrimination as a universal right. It's not. As a radical example to clarify the lines does a 5'7" punt returner have the right to decide he'd rather be on the offensive line or does the coach have the right to discriminate?

We aren't talking about being incapable of doing the job and you know it.

$1:

The discriminatory producers of Hamilton thought they had the right to put out a casting call for non-whites. Did they have that right? Maybe not, but how about this one?

Yes, because that's based on art. The parts were specifically written for non-white actors. It's literally part of the show. It's part of the commentary on the founding fathers.

$1:

Suppose a vegan applies for a job in a slaughterhouse. So the employer interviews him and discovers he's pretty vocal with his views against the killing of animals for food. He has pamphlets he plans to hand out to the employees at lunch hour. Why he might want to work in a slaughterhouse, we can only guess, but should the employer see a potential conflict there? Should he be allowed to "discriminate?"

Of course you can. That's an opinion that will more than likely damage the business. Being gay is not an opinion or a choice, it is biological and not damaging to a business. That's a horrible comparison.

[N_Fiddledog]

Pence's example was, 'say Christians have been working at a job where as convention some form of religious practice has been allowed.'

He postulated a situation where that practice would have to be banned to accommodate homosexual disapproval of the religion.

So who's pursuit of happiness is threatened there? How is Pence's concern over the possible conflict illustrating hate? There is no evidence of hate.

I agree with you that there are situations where it can be reasonable to discriminate. We don't necessarily agree on the specific situations when it might be reasonable, of course, but we are both saying non-discrimination is not a universal right.

Hopefully you see how this means you have yet to produce this evidence you say you have that Mike Pence wants to deprive anybody of "rights". What you presented as a right was non-discrimination in employment.

Here's one.

Suppose a homosexual wants the position of preacher at Mike Pence's church. The applicant has all the basic credentials. The parishioners discriminate. His belief homosexuality can be endorsed within their religion are contrary to the beliefs they hold. Are they depriving the job applicant of his rights? They are not saying they oppose his humanity only his beliefs.

[Lemmy]

e

[rickc]

Lemmy Lemmy:

rickc rickc:

Sound familiar? It should. That was you just a few days ago stating that the baker needed to shut his pie hole, and do his job. He does not get to lecture his customers on the evils of homosexuality. He needs to leave his beliefs at home, and do his job. OK so why then does Mr. Brandon Victor Dixon not have to leave his beliefs at home as well? Why the double standard? If the baker has to bite his tongue, so then too should Mr. Dixon. When I am paying hundreds of dollars for a ticket to a play, I am not paying to hear some starving artist's opinions on ANYTHING. I do not care to hear his political beliefs (even if they are in agreement with my own ), thats not what I am there for. I am there to be entertained by theatre. FULL STOP. If I am going to pay money to hear someone express their political beliefs, I will go see Ben Shapiro, or Alan Dershowitz. Whoever it will be, it will be my choice to hear their beliefs. Whats good for the goose, is good for the gander. Lets keep it fair for everyone. If the right has to leave their beliefs at home, than so does the left. Everyone can bite their tongue equally. No favoritism for the snowflakes.

That is a pathetic false equivalency. First, you, as an audience member, wouldn't have been required to hear anything the cast had to say after the show. You would have been perfectly free to leave or ignore it. Whatever the cast said didn't affect the quality of the production you paid to see.

Regardless, you don't seriously view the right to free expression, to challenge your leaders, as the same thing as a right to discriminate against those you disagree with, do you? Because if that's truly the way your values and sense of honour and justice work, you're a morally bankrupt human being.

It seems like you want to have your cake and eat it too. You say I am perfectly free to leave the theater or ignore the bullshit being spouted by the starving artist. I am the guy paying hundreds of dollars to attend the event. Why should I have to scurry out to avoid hearing a bunch of left wing bullshit? Maybe I wish to hang around and get some autographs, or shoot the shit with the cast. Maybe I am related to one of the cast members, and have dinner plans after the show. I as a money paying customer should not have to leave, or ignore anything. I am the customer. These full time baristas/ part time actors have a job in theater because of ME. I am the guy keeping the lights on. I don't want to hear their political bullshit, thats not what I am paying for. I like Charlie Daniels, always have. He comes to my town every Dec. for the rodeo finals, you can check out his website. I seen him a fews ago. About one fourth of his show was him ramming his right wing politics down the crowds throat. I could see that he was making a large part of the crowd uncomfortable. I might agree with his politics, but that is not what I was paying to hear.I was paying to hear him play songs that I have been listening to since I was in elementary school. I was there for "uneasy rider" "long haired country boy" "the devil went down to Georgia" etc., not to hear him ripping President Obama a new asshole, or his views on global warming. I would never pay to see him again. He has his right to free speech, and I have the right to vote with my wallet. He works for himself. If he chooses to alienate customers with his politics, thats his choice. The casino that books him have no control over his content. He is not an employee. The cast members of Hamilton ARE employees. Their employer does have creative control of the show. The actors are paid to read lines, thats all. Its not rocket science. Every bus station in America is full of wannabe actors, and Tony award winners. The people who visit my hotel are free to leave or ignore my political/ sports/ religeious rantings. Why should they have to? They are paying to relax and enjoy life for a while. They do not want to hear my, or anyones else bullshit on any topic. Thats why discussing any of this crap with the guests is strictly verboten, and a fireable offense.

You state that people are free to leave when they disagree with speech that they do not agree with. For the most part, I agree. On the street, in a forum, on a board like this one, sure I agree. You can say that I am a morally bankrupt human being on this forum. I will support your right to say that. I am free to walk away from the discussion, or debate you back as I please. If I were to report you to the mods and claim that you are "triggering me" or offending me, well that would just make me a pussy in my book. I do not want the Canadian authorities to come into your classroom monday and take you away in chains for offending me. You absolutely have the right to offend me. I fully support that right. I do not want the American authorities to round up Hamilton cast members and take them away for what they said to Gov. Pence. Free speech is all about the government. One does not have the same free speech rights at their place of employment. I am not free to call my boss a dickhead. I am not free to piss off money paying guests at my place of employment. I think the cast members of Hamilton were out of line for what they said to Gov. Pence. Do I want them arrested? No. Do I want them audited by the IRS? No. Whoever owns the show of Hamilton is responsibile for the behavior of the cast. If they are happy with pissing off half of the American public, so be it. Let the chips fall where they may. I won't be going. We have the right to speak out against our leaders, ON OUR OWN TIME. If someone wants to talk politics on their job, they can be fired. Thats the way it is. Free speech is not absolute.

You are a smart man, but lately I don't get you. I think you are letting your dislike for Mr. Trump get the better of you. You think that paid employees should be allowed to voice their own political opinions AT THEIR PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT, and harrass money paying customers simply because they are public servants. Yet you state that someone wearing a kilt offends you, and should represent a "learning experience". To your credit you are not calling for a sanction for the non Scott kilt wearer. However a "learning experience" for someone who is on their own time, not at work, not representing their employer, at a private party with no tax dollars involved sounds like a slippery slope to me. I am of the exact opposite mind. I think that a private Halloween party is EXACTLY where free speech should be at its most absolute. I would much rather see someone insulting my political beliefs at a free Halloween party that I have no financial stake in, than at an event that I am paying large amounts of money to attend.One I truely am FREE to leave. The other I have a vested financial interest in. Just my two cents worth.