what ever you want to pretend dudeNo lying is necessary to keep their jobs.
Yes, that is exactly right. If a Catholic teacher at a Catholic school uses contraceptive methods in private, nothing will happen to her. The school and the students do not even know about it so it causes them no harm. If she is unmarried and fornicates 3 times a day in private, nothing will happen to her. If she makes a public post on FB indicating that she uses birth-control drugs, then she should be fired because the Catholic church teaches that that is immoral. If she posts a photo of herself and her 3 F buddies in a hotel room after a sex-bout while on spring break, she should be fired. She is undermining the things that her school desires to convey to its students by her public action.
There is no demonization of gay people whatsoever. I already wrote that being gay is not a sin.I don't know why there's the need to try and demonize gay people like this but for some reason it seems like a common practice.
I must have misunderstood you. I thought that was the general topic of this thread.Also, I wasn't talking about firing gay people.
Shouldn't that be the topic of a new thread?I was talking about employers whose religious views require them to promote equality firing people who, say, post on public forums endorsing policies of firing people because of their gender.
There is no demonization of gay people whatsoever. I already wrote that being gay is not a sin.
Notwithstanding, most Christian denominations teach that two people of the same gender engaging in sexual intercourse is sin, and that two people of the same gender may not marry.
Shouldn't that be the topic of a new thread?
I believe this is only legal for religious organizations. I would certainly hope so.Not really - seems to fit in with the arguments that employers firing people who don't fit in with their religious beliefs is a valid expression of religious freedom.
I can't give you an exact number, but they do. Some do it for money, for example, by engaging in prostitution or inappropriate contentography. Other straight people experiment from time to time.How many straight people do that?
No, that activity is not inherent in being gay.If one is working hard to single out behaviors that are inherent in the definition of being gay then it is kind of hard to make a distinction between targeting gays and targeting the behavior.
And bakeries, if I remember the arguments back when they didn't want to serve the wrong type of minorities.I believe this is only legal for religious organizations. I would certainly hope so.
I can't give you an exact number, but they do. Some do it for money, for example, by engaging in prostitution or inappropriate contentography. Other straight people experiment from time to time.
That’s customers, not employees. The customer case hasn’t gotten to the Supreme Court yet. They managed to avoid deciding the issue for the one case they got.And bakeries, if I remember the arguments back when they didn't want to serve the wrong type of minorities.
Also, some hobby supply store seems to think their executives' religious beliefs gives them a reason to meddle in their employees' insurance.
It seems to be a pretty broadly applied concept.
Source of the court's language?as i noted the studies did just that. I get you want to pretend that employment discrimination doesn't happen. But it does and there are the numbers
and can you guess what the courts said about the police officer you say can't be counted? Yep the courts said it was job discrimination.
if it helps counter the kind of hate you put out then it's time well spentSource of the court's language?
All I can find is this about what he does now: POLICE RECRUITS IN DISCUSSION ABOUT GAYS
"In the 12 years that Det. Michael Carney has been teaching police recruits about gay and lesbian issues, no future officer has ever stood up in class and admitted his or her sexual orientation.
Carney, president of the Gay Officer's Action League of New England, certainly didn't expect it at the Connecticut State Police Academy Thursday, where he and two other gay officers provided a training course for the first time in the department's history."
Yeah, THIS is what the police should be spending time on.
The Hobby Lobby stuff was about using employer's claims about religious beliefs as an excuse to impose restrictions on their employees.That’s customers, not employees. The customer case hasn’t gotten to the Supreme Court yet. They managed to avoid deciding the issue for the one case they got.
You're right. It would be interesting to see whether the Supreme Court would allow Hobby Lobby to fire gay workers.The Hobby Lobby stuff was about using employer's claims about religious beliefs as an excuse to impose restrictions on their employees.
Don't confuse me with your mirror.if it helps counter the kind of hate you put out then it's time well spent