Conservatives

[outlaw]

there is absolutely nothing in scripture about skin color --- any info you have heard to the contrary is in error

Racists certainly believe the bible supports their view of racial superiority of whites. Who are you to say they are wrong?



“The first appearance of slavery in the Bible is the wonderful prediction of the patriarch Noah: "Cursed be Canaan, a servant of servants shall he be to his brethren. Blessed be the Lord God of Shem, and Canaan shall be his servant. God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem, and Canaan shall be his servant." (Gen. 9: 25.) The heartless irreverence which Ham, the father of Canaan, displayed toward his eminent parent, whose piety had just saved him from the deluge, presented the immediate occasion for this remarkable prophecy; but the actual fulfillment was reserved for his posterity, after they had lost the knowledge of God, and become utterly polluted by the abominations of heathen idolatry. The Almighty, foreseeing this total degradation of the race, ordained them to servitude or slavery under the descendants of Shem and Japheth, doubtless because he judged it to be their fittest condition. And all history proves how accurately the prediction has been accomplished, even to the present day.
We come next to the proof that slavery was sanctioned by the Deity in the case of Abraham, whose three hundred and eighteen bond-servants, born in his own house, (Gen. 14: 14,) are mentioned along with those who were bought with his money, as proper subjects for circumcision. (Gen. 17:12[?]) His wife Sarah had also an Egyptian slave, named Hagar, who fled from her severity. And "the angel of the Lord" commanded the fugitive to return to her mistress and submit herself. (Gen. 16: 9.) If the philanthropists of our age, who profess to believe the Bible, had been willing to take the counsel of that angel for their guide, it would have preserved the peace and welfare of the Union.
The third proof that slavery was authorized by the Almighty occurs in the last of the Ten Commandments, delivered from Mount Sinai, and universally acknowledged by Jews and Christians as THE MORAL LAW: "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his man-servant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's." (Exod. 20: 17.) Here it is evident that the principle of property -- "any thing that is thy neighbor's" -- runs through the whole. ... I am equally aware that the wives of our day may take umbrage at the law which places them in the same sentence with the slave, and even with the house and the cattle. But the truth is none the less certain. The husband has a real property in the wife, because she is bound, for life, to serve and to obey him. The wife has a real property in her husband, because he is bound, for life, to cherish and maintain her. The character of property is doubtless modified by its design. But whatever, whether person or thing, the law appropriates to an individual, becomes of necessity his property.
The fourth proof, however, is yet more express, as it is derived from the direct rule established by the wisdom of God for his chosen people, Israel, on the very point in question, viz.: "If thou buy a Hebrew servant, six years shall he serve [new page] and in the seventh year he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself. If he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have borne him sons or daughters, the wife and the children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself." (Exod. 21: 2-4.) Here we see that the separation of husband and wife is positively directed by the divine command, in order to secure the property of the master in his bond-maid and her offspring.”
John Henry Hopkins “Bible View of Slavery” 1858



“Curse of Ham (also called the curse of Canaan) refers to the curse that Noah placed upon Canaan (the son of Ham) after Ham saw Noah naked because of drunkenness in his tent.
Most Biblical scholars see the curse of Ham story as an early Hebrew rationalization for Israel's conquest and enslavement of the Canaanites, who were presumed to descend from Canaan.
Much more controversially, however, the "curse of Ham" has been used by some members of major Abrahamic religions to justify racism and the enslavement of people of African ancestry, who were thought to be descendants of Ham (often called Hamites), either through Canaan or his older brothers. This racialist theory was common during the 18th-20th centuries, but has been largely abandoned even by the most conservative theologians since the mid-20th century.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ham,_son_of_Noah











Now, please answer my question:When a racists refuses to hire someone because of the color of their skin that is not prejudice it is just obedience to scripture?

 

[belladonic-haze]

You are NOT allowed to discriminate!

PROHIBITION OF DISCRIMINATION The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.

m) Sexual Orientation and Same-sex Partnership Status

The Code prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of sexual orientation and on the basis of same-sex partnership status. This ground protects gays, lesbians, bisexual and heterosexual persons.
While "sexual orientation" is the term generally used to refer to a person's sexual attraction to persons of another gender and/or one's own gender, it is not defined in the Code. The Human Rights Commission has, however, developed and adopted the following definition of sexual orientation:
Sexual orientation is more than simply a "status" that an individual possesses; it is an immutable personal characteristic that forms part of an individual's core identity. Sexual orientation encompasses the range of human sexuality from gay and lesbian to bisexual and heterosexual orientations.

The Code covers all types of unequal treatment, from the loss of employment to comments, displays and jokes that may make an individual uncomfortable because of sexual orientation.
Example:
An employee discloses to his manager that he is gay. The manager subsequently tells the employee that he will no longer qualify for promotions, postings, or further career training.

A person does not actually have to prove that he or she is of a particular orientation or be lesbian, gay, bisexual or heterosexual, as long as it can be shown that there was unequal treatment because of sexual orientation.
Example:
A female sales representative who shares a house with another woman is not included in a particular sales meeting that also includes employee spouses. The employee's manager has made the decision based on his concerns that the employee might bring the other woman and they would not fit in at the meeting. Whether or not the female sales representative is a lesbian, she can file a complaint with the Commission because she was subject to unequal treatment because of sexual orientation.

"Marital status" and "spouse", as defined in the Code, do not include same-sex relationships. In the case of M. v. H., the Supreme Court of Canada found that an opposite-sex definition of "spouse" in the Family Law Act was unconstitutional and contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and should include same-sex partners. As a result of the landmark decision, the government of Ontario passed Bill 5, An Act to amend certain statutes because of the Supreme Court of Canada decision in M. v. H. The Act amended 67 Ontario statutes, including the Code, to recognize same-sex partners and same-sex partnership status.
Section 10(1) of the Code defines "same-sex partner" as the person with whom a person of the same sex is living in a conjugal relationship outside marriage. "Same-sex partnership status" is defined as the status of living with a person of the same sex in a conjugal relationship outside of marriage.
Section 25(2) of the Code and other provincial statutes that govern provision of benefits include same-sex partnership status. Therefore, individuals in same-sex partnerships are entitled to the same benefits as individuals in opposite-sex relationships with regard to employee superannuation or pension plans or funds or a contract of group insurance between an insurer and an employer that complies with relevant legislation and regulations.
Practice Tips:

• An employer must provide individuals in same-sex relationships with the same spousal benefits provided to individuals in opposite-sex relationships under their pension benefits plan and insured health benefits.
• A pension plan must provide same-sex partners with the same employment survivor benefits that are provided to opposite-sex partners.
• An employer must provide equivalent survivor benefits to its gay and lesbian employees as it does to its heterosexual employees.

 

[Rae]

So this "Code" is only a Canadian law and doesn't apply to the United States. Okay. I can only repeat that in my Midwestern state, there was NO protection for any kind of discrimination against gays and lesbians in housing or employment until our city's local ordinance passed in 1998.