WokeSpeak

Scann said:

Translation:Force someone to agree and use the law if possible.

Click to expand...

It's not about agreement. People in the US are free to disagree about sexual ethics. However, discrimination in employment based on sexual orientation is not legal in the US.

FireDragon76 said:

A red herring. No heterosexual talks like that about their sexual orientation in the real world.

Click to expand...

Who said any homosexual talked a specific way? The point is that a sexual preference is a sexual preference whether it is innate or not.

grasping the after wind said:

Who said any homosexual talked a specific way? The point is that a sexual preference is a sexual preference whether it is innate or not.

Click to expand...

"preference" and "orientation" have distinct connotations in actual usage.

Quartermaine said:

i should respect individuals who fire or refuse to hire some just because of their skin color?

Click to expand...

You can disrespect them all you like.But what is relevant is that the law being mentioned is one that disallows you from firing someone whom you are going to be at loggerheads with for like how long?Eternity?So you can disrespect them all you like but don't use the law to force them to hire someone else.

what do they disagree with? That gays are people? Do they disagree that they shouldn't live in fear of loosing their careers, their homes, their retirement because their new boss chooses to hate them?

Click to expand...

You didn't answer my question. Would you be okay if someone got fired because they said they didn't agree with homosexuality as overheard in a conversation by someone else?

live in fear of loosing their careers, their homes, their retirement because their new boss chooses to hate them?

Click to expand...

The same can apply to someone being fired by a new boss just because he/she doesn't agree with homosexuality.

that they shouldn't have to live in fear about being attacked on the streets just because they are gay?

Click to expand...

Now things are different. If today anyone overheard you say in a conversation at the lunch or dinner table in the US,Canada or Western Europe, that you disagree with homosexuality, you would get beaten up.

are you a minority?

Click to expand...

If I went to the US and became a citizen of course I would be a minority. I would still resign myself if the boss didn't like a trait of mine.

FireDragon76 said:

It's not about agreement. People in the US are free to disagree about sexual ethics.

Click to expand...

Forcing someone to hire someone whose lifestyle you don't agree with is forcing someone to agree

However, discrimination in employment based on sexual orientation is not legal in the US.

Click to expand...

Then that law is oppressive. Not everybody agrees with their excremist lifestyle.

Scann said:

Forcing someone to hire someone whose lifestyle you don't agree with is forcing someone to agree

Click to expand...

No. People are capable of complying with laws and respecting people with whom they disagree.

FireDragon76 said:

No. People are capable of complying with laws and respecting people with whom they disagree.

Click to expand...

By complying with a law made by people who disagree with their right to disagree.

FireDragon76 said:

"preference" and "orientation" have distinct connotations in actual usage.

Click to expand...

Yes they do. What about the term preference is more untrue than orientation is? If one is innately oriented to prefer to have sexual relations with those of either the same or the opposite sex that is a preference as well as an orientation. How is one of those words inappropriate in describing the situation? It is not as if there is some physical barrier imposed for either hetero or homo in terms of having sexual relationships with those they have less preference for or orientation away from. If you have a linguistic preference for orientation are you linguistically oriented toward orientation and therefore incapable of saying preference? Of course not. you have a preference as well as an orientation and either term is quite reasonable.

FireDragon76 said:

No. People are capable of complying with laws and respecting people with whom they disagree.

Click to expand...

Speaking more generally and not about any specific law, if a law is unreasonable one ought to refuse to comply. Respect must be earned but being treated with decency and kindness ought to be the norm even when dealing with those one disagrees with. Insisting that one can use the force of law to place words or remove words from someone else's mouth is neither reasonable , decent or kind behavior.

grasping the after wind said:

Yes they do. What about the term preference is more untrue than orientation is? If one is innately oriented to prefer to have sexual relations with those of either the same or the opposite sex that is a preference as well as an orientation. How is one of those words inappropriate in describing the situation? It is not as if there is some physical barrier imposed for either hetero or homo in terms of having sexual relationships with those they have less preference for or orientation away from. If you have a linguistic preference for orientation are you linguistically oriented toward orientation and therefore incapable of saying preference? Of course not. you have a preference as well as an orientation and either term is quite reasonable.

Click to expand...

It's inappropriate because the historical usage of "preference" in this situation has been to delegitimize the sexual orientations of gay men and women, implying that they are not characteristics of the person worthy of respect.

grasping the after wind said:

Speaking more generally and not about any specific law, if a law is unreasonable one ought to refuse to comply. Respect must be earned but being treated with decency and kindness ought to be the norm even when dealing with those one disagrees with. Insisting that one can use the force of law to place words or remove words from someone else's mouth is neither reasonable , decent or kind behavior.

Click to expand...

This is rich irony coming from the crowd that believes its "decent" to refuse service to other human beings merely because they don't live by your values.

FireDragon76 said:

It's inappropriate because the historical usage of "preference" in this situation has been to delegitimize the sexual orientations of gay men and women, implying that they are not characteristics of the person worthy of respect.

Click to expand...

I disagree completely with that analysis. There are definitely words, that I won't repeat here because I am not out to insult or shock, that were used to do that but preference was not one of them.

FireDragon76 said:

This is rich irony coming from the crowd that believes its "decent" to refuse service to other human beings merely because they don't live by your values.

Click to expand...

I am not a crowd I am a human being. Perhaps you could try to treat me with a bit of decency and kindness rather than calling me a crowd. . BTW I have never refused service to anyone at all.

Quartermaine said:

in post #25 Nevada Smith linked to the fake story about the transsexual who supposedly was exposing her male genitalia to little girls in a locker room. The story is a lie. That is the hate i'm talking about. Or is false witness one of your values that you think is being threatened.?

Click to expand...

So hate is falsely accusing someone? I can support that. I can't however support that speaking out against trans is hate.

Nevada Smith said:

Here is the actual bill as introduced.

Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Bill [AS INTRODUCED]
An Act of the Scottish Parliament to make provision about the aggravation of offences by prejudice; to make provision about offences relating to stirring up hatred against a group of persons; to abolish the common law offence of blasphemy; and for connected purposes.
https://beta.parliament.scot/-/medi...troduced-hate-crime-and-public-order-bill.pdf

The law of unintended consequences. Title IX was written to promote and protect women's sports. Who would have thought the Democrats would use Title IX to allow grown men to shower with little girls?

"The Department of Education under President Barack Obama instructed colleges to treat transgender students as the gender with which they identify or face sanctions for violating Title IX, said Audrey Anderson, counsel at the law firm Bass, Barry & Sims and former general counsel for Vanderbilt University."

Landmark Supreme Court ruling could redefine Title IX

Colleen Francis: Outrage over transgendered woman permitted to use college women's locker room 'exposing himself' | Daily Mail Online

Any bill only means what some judge says it means, not what it was written to say. Even our Constitution only means what 9 people wearing black robes says it means.

Click to expand...

When you think that a law against stirring up hatred could end up being used against you, it’s time to look in the mirror. We are called to love, to be more loving, in fact, than others. If we are coming across as hateful whatever we are doing will not be effective.

Scann said:

That is the boss' decision. And that right should be respected. You don't get to come into someone's company , behave like you own the place and then tell him/her who they can and cannot fire. If I found out that my boss didn't like a certain trait of mine,or even my ethnicity, he/she doesn't need to fire me. I'd resign myself. Who wants to remain in a company and have a cold shoulder relationship with a boss who doesn't like you every single day anyway? If somebody was fired just because someone overheard they said that they don't agree with homosexuality, you would be okay with it wouldn't you? Yup,that's what I thought. Shows your double standard.
And before you start saying "what if it was a Black or Jew who got fired" which you like to say so much,all I can say is no Black or Jew would want to remain in the company even if the boss had a change of heart. The relationship is already strained.

Click to expand...

And people like who are the reason we need these laws. I hope you are not in a position of power.

grasping the after wind said:

What happens to that protection under a court that has been packed?

Click to expand...

It stays the same.

grasping the after wind said:

It is a preference that is innate. I have an innate sexual preference for those of the opposite sex.

Click to expand...

no you have an orientation that is innate.

a preference is a greater liking for one alternative over another or others meaning you could be just fine with something other than your preference, it's just your first choice. you may have a preference for Chocolate ice cream but you would be fine with vanilla. You have an orientation to the opposite gender but you wouldn't be fine with romancing someone of the same gender.

Sparagmos said:

And people like who are the reason we need these laws. I hope you are not in a position of power.

Click to expand...

And people like you complain about oppression on one hand,while on the other.....

Scann said:

You can disrespect them all you like.But what is relevant is that the law being mentioned is one that disallows you from firing someone whom you are going to be at loggerheads with for like how long?Eternity?So you can disrespect them all you like but don't use the law to force them to hire someone else.

Click to expand...

no the law makes it illegal to fire someone just because they are a member of a minority.

You didn't answer my question. Would you be okay if someone got fired because they said they didn't agree with homosexuality as overheard in a conversation by someone else?

Click to expand...

and i asked what are they disagreeing with

The same can apply to someone being fired by a new boss just because he/she doesn't agree with homosexuality.

Click to expand...

agree with what?

Now things are different. If today anyone overheard you say in a conversation at the lunch or dinner table in the US,Canada or Western Europe, that you disagree with homosexuality, you would get beaten up.

Click to expand...

who are you trying to kid? there are bigots all over the country and they aren't getting beat up

If I went to the US and became a citizen of course I would be a minority. I would still resign myself if the boss didn't like a trait of mine.

Click to expand...

then you woudl be happy to know there are laws in the United States that protect you from employment discrimination and housing discrimination.