Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You can't use religion carte blanc to get out of breaking the law. They violated anti-discrimination laws passed at the state or local level and tried to justify it by saying "But Jesus!"The government forced these people out of business because they refused to compromise their liberal beliefs.
That's liberalism at work.
No, they don't. Nothing like.
Nor in Russia
"Atheist faces a year in prison for saying 'there is no God' during an argument over social media in Russia "
Admittedly he didn't say it that politely.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ying-no-God-argument-social-media-Russia.html
Nope. There's a fellow there who is going to get several thousand lashes and a few years in prison for posting "atheistic" views.
In Saudi Islamistan you can get beheaded for being too free with your opinions.
I had to check on that, because I didn't recall the incident.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...me-ministers-words-Islam-campaign-speech.html
Campaigning for a seat in the European parliament, Paul Weston was arrested in the first place for not moving on ( a dispersal order) when asked to by police, and then for suspicion of of religious or racial harrassment.
The details of what he quoted through a megaphone can be found in the article.
No subsequent action, not even the giving of a caution, was taken concerning the content of his speech.
(Wiki) Police Commissioner Simon Hayes responded to the media coverage on the Hampshire Police and Crime Commission website:
"It has been wrongly suggested that Mr Weston was arrested for reciting passages written by Winston Churchill. I understand he was not welcome outside the Winchester Guildhall, the Police were called and he was asked to move on. I also understand that he was not prepared to move on and was arrested for this reason.
Members of the public are of course at liberty to debate issues of importance to them in private or public spaces. However, there must be a level of decorum and decency."
Nah. He declined to move after several complaints... I don't think he was located on public ground. Guildhall staff than had a fair complaint.. particularly with a megaphone.Weston was arrested based on a single incident and not offered the chance to recant. To me it seems like the Saudi's repression is a bit more liberal..
Checked again: works for me... Yes he was also arrested "on suspicion of..." but that was not proceeded with: on further investigation, no case...For some reason I can't pull up the article you linked, but it sounds like a bit of a whitewashing..
. Amazing in the land of Orwell. Doubly amazing that quoting an English book by a man who earned a Nobel prize for literature fell beneath England's "level of decorum and decency".
I could be wrong but from what I understand, in Saudi Arabia you must commit multiple instances of repeated offensive speech before you're charged with a crime, and even then you're given a chance to recant.
Weston was arrested based on a single incident and not offered the chance to recant.
You're correct, they originally cited the disperal problem, but then dropped that and intended to charge him with a speech crime, which might as well be described as a thought crime. Amazing in the land of Orwell.
People often falsely assume that freedoms extend to the workplace...they don't...
The moment you sign on the dotted line to work for someone else, you're voluntarily waiving certain rights and agreeing to play by their rules.
Same goes for any other case where you're on someone else's property. If someone has a rule that there's no cussing in their house...I can't claim first amendment violation if they ask me to leave for cussing.
Granted...I understand the frustration for some as there have been a number of double standards established in the past few years that make exceptions for certain groups that tread the line of violating a business owner's rights.
Nah. He declined to move after several complaints... I don't think he was located on public ground. Guildhall staff than had a fair complaint.. particularly with a megaphone.
Checked again: works for me... Yes he was also arrested "on suspicion of..." but that was not proceeded with: on further investigation, no case...
Did you see what the passage quoted actually said? I was reluctant to post it here.
This wasn't the "workplace". This was at Uni. A place where he was "purchasing" an education.
Guy walks into a fast food restaurant...
Student goes to Uni in the UK.
Cashier: Now you understand. Everyone is free to do as they please. They can do whatever makes them feel good. Well, except for Christians who actually stick to the tenants of their faith. Now, youre going to have to leave. That will be £450,000, please.
Guy: But I wasn't allowed to finish my education or receive my diploma.
Cashier: Doesn't matter. You ordered an education, you must pay for it, even if we kicked you out.
http://www.christianheadlines.com/b...rsity-for-quoting-bible-on-homosexuality.html
It's so sad that years of study and hard work can be wiped out for posting Biblical views on your FB account.
What you're presenting is a bit of a false equivalency.
In a college environment, you're not buying a degree/diploma, you're paying for class time which earns class credits. You then earn your degree from the institution once you've met their requirement in terms of those credits.
Now, if he's getting kicked out mid-semester, I'd agree that they should refund the money he paid toward that particular semester. However, any amounts he paid up until that point aren't subject for refund as he was able to attend those full classes, and thus, got what he paid for.
That'd be like if I attended the first 5 years of a masters degree program, and in the 6th year, decided I was going to cuss out a teacher and they decided to kick me out...I'd have no valid claim for a refund for those first 5 years, nor a valid grievance as I paid for 5 years, and they gave me 5 years worth of education. It be the current year's payments that would be in dispute.
Now, with that being said, I'll say that my personal opinion is that I think people are far too sensitive these days and if you get offended by what someone else says about you on facebook, my advice would be "be an adult and quit crying about it and just ignore them". ...but in terms of the financial implications of this case, this guy has no leg to stand on.
Its still a business arrangement. So, no false equivalency. If a business cant refuse to sell to someone based on race, gender, sexual orientation, etc., what makes you think that a business can refuse to sell to someone based on their personal beliefs? A university is a business. They provide a product at a price.
Hypocrisy, thy name is liberalism.
Oh, I don't deny that liberalism is riddled with hypocrisy on the topic of the first amendment, I acknowledged that in my first post.
Where our conclusions differ is that I don't feel that the university has reneged on the agreement as it pertains to his prior time at the school.
College is very much a "pay as you go" model. The classes he's taken so far still equate to transferable credits that will be honored at other institutions so they haven't robbed him of anything in that regard. He's paid for a bunch of prior classes, passed them, and as a result has verified credits for each of those classes on the books. He's gotten what he paid for thus far. The university simply chose to no longer accept his payment in exchange for credits. Now, anything that's currently pending...for example, if he paid for this semester, and they're terminating their agreement halfway through...he should be refunded that portion of it.
Ah, I can understand that. That's when you take a step back from the keyboard.Disregard all that. I was just really mad about unrelated things when I psoted that.
If you have a better suggesting to change society-wide mainstream attitudes, be my guest.There is no sacred cows that the public will allow to infringe on their right to speak their mind. This overeaching will soon become tiresome by those who pretty much roll their eyes at all of this, because it wasn't their issue to begin with.
The entire reason that the situation changes is because the standards of one side reflected so little to the average citizen that those values were considered more irritating than beneficial. When the other side becomes so enamored by their victories, which were facilitated tin no small measure to these same middle of the road types, that they become as irritating as the first bunch, how long will it be before the new group gets their lunch handed to them?
Is it true England has banned people from wearing "religious icons" (such as a cross)?
Britain is a theocracy, with a state religion, the head of which is appointed directly by God. Unelected representatives of said state religion are permanent members of the British legislature.Is it true England has banned people from wearing "religious icons" (such as a cross)?
All I said was when one side overreaches those in the middle will stop them. People call out the left and the right for what the crazies on either side do, but it's not those in the mainstream citizenry that try to silence people. It is those who feel that anything spoken will obliterate the hold they think they have on society.If you have a better suggesting to change society-wide mainstream attitudes, be my guest.
If you have a better suggesting to change society-wide mainstream attitudes, be my guest.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?