![]() |
|
Register | FAQ | Donate | PW Store | PW Trivia | Members List | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
Civil Rights & Abortion Discuss 2 Dozen Examples of Conscience at the Political Forums; Two Dozen Examples of Conscience •An online retailer might choose not to sell the Confederate Flag because of its association ... |
![]() |
|
Share | LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
||||
![]() Two Dozen Examples of Conscience
Quote:
Personally i can give a couple of examples on refusing to do certain work while i was on the Job. I worked in a newspaper advertising dept. where we were assigned to create the ads for whatever AD clients the newspaper had. That was the job. I refused to work on 1 liqueur ad i thought was over the line. I refused to work on couple of lowlife Bar ads that advertised very thinly veiled sexual hook ups events. And there was this one local store that was selling this really racist black Aunt Jeremiah on crack looking doll. I said i'm not working on that. Got more backlash from that than the others. But since there were 4 others in the office doing the same work it was fairly easy enough to accommodate in most cases. And most people outside of the office never knew it happened... most of the time. And BTW the Paper itself refused to print some clients Advertising based on it's own ethical standards.. The only other thing like that which wasn't even really job related was my boss wanted me to carve a couple of pumpkins for halloween. But i don't even celebrate halloween at home. Well it pissed people off that i didn't do it for them since i was always doing fun stuff like characatures of employees, cartoons and weird sic fi art. My boss was really pissed that i didn't "help". But what could he say, it wasn't even a real job. Just office decoration. And I wasn't saying things like: " i'm not going to work around all you philistines and your pagan devil worshipping decorations...."see you in November... HEATHENS!!". Not even close. It's just that i didn't want to JOIN in CREATING it. I don't know if that boss ever got that. or really got over that. He was in shock and seemed to take it personally that i refused. "it's just for fun." But thankfully overall i was able to ride out most of my work life without having to compromise much and most of my bosses were able to accommodate myself and others i knew of who navigated issues of conscious --major and minor-- on the job. It's seems to me something that's just Humane to do. you don't ask at home nurses that are allergic to cats to visit people with cats. you don't ask the orthodox Jewish sales guy to make the Hog House is Main account. You don't ask the truck driver with a drinking problem to make all the deliveries to the bars. That's respecting other people IMO. It's doesn't mean they Hate cats, or hogs, or bars. but rather than accommodate people's individual humanity some people would like to SUE others for "not doing their jobs".
__________________
. "It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents." ..James Madison . "Live as free people, yet without employing your freedom as a pretext for wickedness; but live at all times as servants of God." ..1 Peter 2:16 Last edited by mr wonder; 07-21-2015 at 06:31 PM.. |
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to mr wonder For This Useful Post: | ||
The Following User Says Thank You to foundit66 For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
Btw I don't think anyone believes Jesus is God. Son of God perhaps.. Conscience is not about anything you posted. It is what is in the hearts and minds of people, and can not be "legislated" by anyone. Regards, Kirk |
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Part of the trinity- all one in the same. |
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Lollie For This Useful Post: | ||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
![]()
__________________
On a more positive note, people still can't order dialysis w/o a referral. ![]() |
|
||||
![]() Quote:
![]() Did you see the last comment in the first post? "... rather than accommodate people's individual humanity some people would like to SUE others for "not doing their jobs"." This does involve the law. ![]() Quote:
![]() I agree wholeheartedly that hearts and minds of people cannot be legislated by anyone. But in freely stating that, some will refuse to comprehend what that means and insist that I have an intent I readily admit cannot be achieved. ![]()
__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.” ~Abraham Lincoln |
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Quote:
this is the concept that some FAIL to want to admit into to their thinking. Secularly speaking the civil rights laws were addressing an issue on an deeply damaging level. But if the world were a better place then the laws would NOT have been appropriate. The civil rights laws would have been anti freedom. But hard cases make some laws that are sadly necessary. the issue for homosexuals is NOT one where they're shut out of general commerce or free association in daily life. there's no real compelling interest to right the imagined wrong by completely overriding clear rights of conscience. The law becomes tool for hurt feelings and personal outrage. Not a way to address a real problem navigating society. But a way to punishment of those some see as "bigots". bu bu bu bu but the LAW. well the law is wrong. just as the Dred Scott case law was wrong, and laws on indefinite detention, and NSA spying and many others are wrong. Laws forcing people to do things against CLEAR long standing religious prohibitions are unjust and against the basic religious freedoms the country was founded on. Just because the law or civil suits say it can force a baker "not to discriminate" it does not mean it's right. Anymore than the president saying he can "detain indefinitely without trial" makes it right.
__________________
. "It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents." ..James Madison . "Live as free people, yet without employing your freedom as a pretext for wickedness; but live at all times as servants of God." ..1 Peter 2:16 Last edited by mr wonder; 07-22-2015 at 05:56 AM.. |
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to mr wonder For This Useful Post: | ||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
It's really begging the actual question. I am asking about religion and why it was included as well. If somebody used that to say "We want racial issues addressed by business anti-discrimination legislation but not gay issues", I could sympathize with that position. (I wouldn't agree, but I could respect it) But that's not all that happened with the 1964 Civil Rights act and the last 50 years, was it. It's not just racial discrimination that's addressed in the 1964 Civil Rights Act, is it. ![]() ![]() WHY was "religion" tacked on if you guys just want to compare race and sexual orientation and say that sexual orientation comes out as not as bad? How about we compare religion and sexual orientation? Or, follow your example and compare religion and race? We could just as easily substitute "religion" in for sexual orientation in your article. Mr. Wonder, do YOU believe that the 1964 Civil Rights act should be canned? I suspect your answer is yes. And I honestly believe your position is heartfelt out of this. As you put it "well the law is wrong." But for others (including those who thanked your post), I find it rather interesting that I have pointed out this "Christians protected Christianity from business discrimination, but whine when gays want to do likewise" and left and right they run like cockroaches from addressing that point. Some people talk incessantly about how awful gays are for wanting this protection and how they imagine our goal is to drive Christians out of business, but they never talk about their own motivation when Christians passed the exact same legislation protecting themselves. THAT is the hypocrisy I want to expose. ![]() So far, I have found NOBODY who claims gays are awful for wanting to pass anti-discrimination laws who will make the same proclamation (i.e. just as awful) for Christians who did the exact same damn thing 50+ years ago. If you will be the first to make that explicit acknowledgement, I will consider that profound progress.
__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.” ~Abraham Lincoln Last edited by foundit66; 07-22-2015 at 11:35 AM.. |
|
||||||
![]() Quote:
"begging the question". uh NO. Not at all. Please don't randomly toss in another ill fitting logical fallacy here too c'mon. Quote:
Thankfully most of those issues have been addressed. Quote:
But the employment sections of the act is where those groups were most addressed WITH blacks. There where those ---like some on this board today-- who wanted to fire people for "not doing their jobs" because of various religious convictions. Not working on Saturdays or Sundays for instance. Even when there was plenty of room for accommodation. Or they just didn't want to hire a jew, catholic or woman. Quote:
But i've already compared the Cake baking or photo taking issue in other threads. And I'm perfectly FINE with a homosexual baker refusing to bake a cake that quotes Romans 1. I feel NO NEED to SUE the baker on the grounds of discrimination... UNLESS i go in the next day and ask for a birthday cake and they refuse. At that point it's groundless discrimination based on general dislike of my faith or person. NOT A SPECIFIC personally, ethically or morally offensive request. It seems homosexuals and their supporters automatically want to LUMP a specific decline of service for religious conviction into a general fog of illegal "discrimination". And assume that ANYTHING not passing their skewed sniff test automatically fits THEIR definition. And reject OUT OF HAND all sincere religious conviction. Quote:
I have no problem with most of the 1964 act. As written in 1964. But I think at this point ...thankfully... it's becoming more an more obsolete, like laws a against horses on the highway. Quote:
Give me some examples then maybe get how your making your comparison. The only cases I can think of that compare are some equal access cases where a public venue is for rent by a gov't or private biz and a church tries to rent it but is denied. In most cases this is just plain old religious discrimination. Churches or christian groups have sued for access, but not with the intent of putting out of biz. But most thinking Christians aren't shocked if a secular Jewish org or Kosher Deli doesn't want it's venue used for "Jewish Evangelism Week". It's stupid to assume that the org would allow it or that they should be forced to. ... Should Christians they think the Jewish org or deli owners are just closet bigots and "cultural Judaism" is just a cover for "discrimination.". LOOK they don't even GO to synagogue that often, And some have christmas trees at home!! huh?!! huh?!! It CAN ONLY BE plain ol bigoted discrimination!!! right?
__________________
. "It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents." ..James Madison . "Live as free people, yet without employing your freedom as a pretext for wickedness; but live at all times as servants of God." ..1 Peter 2:16 |
|
||||||||||
![]() Quote:
If the answer is no, then it's a red herring to insist that we compare gays to the black discrimination to verify whether gays qualify... ![]() 2) Your very admission indicates a lowering of the bar. It's easily recognized that being gay IS "an issue". By your reasoning, gays are just as legitimately included. Unless you want to start making up NEW reasons... ![]() Quote:
![]() Quote:
Quote:
![]() Let's rephrase the question. Was tacking on "religion" to the 1964 Civil Rights Act okay? If it was okay, WHY is it okay to do that for Christians but not for gays? Are religious / "moral" objections to people's religions somehow not okay in a way that we refuse to allow for gays? And can that last question be answered in an OBJECTIVE way which demonstrates something other than an opinion which was simply voted upon and did not win? Quote:
When a vote was held that results in legislation which creates the appropriate law, THEN it IS lumped in with the other categories. ![]() But that's what already happened in 1964 Show me ANY "sincere religious conviction" exception allowed for the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Quote:
Or to NOT to assist in a bar mitzvah. Are those laws also wrong? Quote:
People wanting to discriminate. They can have "sincere religious beliefs" for both cases, can they not? Quote:
Quote:
But to run with your flawed analogy, then why did Christians write the law that way in the first place? Quote:
I am not using it so it's just emotional sensationalism for you to try to present that.
__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.” ~Abraham Lincoln |
![]() |
Tags |
conscience, dozen, examples |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|