What makes gender orientation so morally important that it's a protected class?

[KarateCowboy]

When someone discriminates on the basis of religion it's not a problem then.

If you don't want to work with Catholics then fine by me.

 

[quatona]

What's wrong with that? "Discriminate". 1620s, from Latin discriminatus, past participle of discriminare "to divide, separate," from discrimen (genitive discriminis) "interval, distinction, difference," derived noun from discernere (see discern)

This isn´t 1620.

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

It's never right to dispose of other people dignity because you are against what you assume they do as consenting adults in the comforts of their own home. The law is the law because it protects everyone equally. If not it's only a fight for survival and that places everybody in the position of defending themselves by whatever means is necessary

The only trouble most people have with protected classes is that they aren't yet in the situation of being one. Times change, People change and ideals change. We as Christians could very well find ourselves in that position. It is that way in many parts of the world and If we continue to push people away because it suits our own definition of morality we could hasten that reality to our own back doors.

 

[KarateCowboy]

It's never right to dispose of other people dignity because you are against what you assume they do as consenting adults in the comforts of their own home. The law is the law because it protects everyone equally. If not it's only a fight for survival and that places everybody in the position of defending themselves by whatever means is necessary

The only trouble most people have with protected classes is that they aren't yet in the situation of being one. Times change, People change and ideals change. We as Christians could very well find ourselves in that position. It is that way in many parts of the world and If we continue to push people away because it suits our own definition of morality we could hasten that reality to our own back doors.

Having protected classes means having unprotected classes. That in itself is the law not really protecting equally. Furthermore, this whole minority/protected classes smacks far too much of the feudal minority/royalty classes for my liking.

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

Having protected classes means having unprotected classes. That in itself is the law not really protecting equally. Furthermore, this whole minority/protected classes smacks far too much of the feudal minority/royalty classes for my liking.

No. The feudal system was set up as a privileged not a right. Having protected classes is a stop gap mechanism and is not meant to be determinant unless the discrepancy that necessitates it is permanent.

 

[Cute Tink]

If you don't want to work with Catholics then fine by me.

Yet you claim firing you for what amounts to insubordination is illegal discrimination because of your religion. Reference here.

Are you okay with discrimination or not?

 

[KarateCowboy]

Yet you claim firing you for what amounts to insubordination is illegal discrimination because of your religion. Reference here.

Are you okay with discrimination or not?

Quite the difference between a government fining you for your religion(refusing to bear false witness) vs individuals practicing freedom of association.

 

[Cute Tink]

Quite the difference between a government fining you for your religion and such vs individuals practicing freedom of association.

It's not "because of your religion" if you engage in insubordination.

 

[KarateCowboy]

No. The feudal system was set up as a privileged not a right. Having protected classes is a stop gap mechanism and is not meant to be determinant unless the discrepancy that necessitates it is permanent.

Pretty sure the upper feudal classes considered those things a right. Typically, by birth. That's where we get the term 'birthright'. They had divine right to rule, as well.

 

[KarateCowboy]

It's not "because of your religion" if you engage in insubordination.

Where do we get this insubordination stuff? I owe no suboridnation to sanctimonious, farcically named "human rights" commissions.

Also, you're mingling threads, which is against the rules, and mixing contexts, which is bad form.

 

[Cute Tink]

Where do we get this insubordination stuff? I owe no suboridnation to sanctimonious, farcically named "human rights" commissions.

Refusing to comply with your employer's demands is insubordination. I didn't mention human rights commissions.

Also, you're mingling threads, which is against the rules, and mixing contexts, which is bad form.

Consistency is good form. Have at it though.

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

Pretty sure the upper feudal classes considered those things a right. Typically, by birth. That's where we get the term 'birthright'. They had divine right to rule, as well.

The idea of right was more for the privileges classes and that's what they considered themselves. Rights were not thought of back then as they are today since in no way were they universal.

Birthright came from the idea that the 1st male member of the family deserved a double portion. please look up Jacob and Esau on this.

 

[KarateCowboy]

Refusing to comply with your employer's demands is insubordination. I didn't mention human rights commissions.



Consistency is good form. Have at it though.

Well, my statement was in reference to the committee. Sorry if the other thread got confused and mixed.

 

[Cute Tink]

Well, my statement was in reference to the committee. Sorry if the other thread got confused and mixed.

Thank you for clarifying.

 

[KarateCowboy]

The idea of right was more for the privileges classes and that's what they considered themselves. Rights were not thought of back then as they are today since in no way were they universal.

Birthright came from the idea that the 1st male member of the family deserved a double portion. please look up Jacob and Esau on this.

Birthrights are a fairly universal phenomenon. They exist in everything from primitive tribal societies to feudal Japan. Either way, whatever privileges we talk about in those classes were thought of as a right by those who held them. They never said "My divine privilege to rule".

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

Birthrights are a fairly universal phenomenon. They exist in everything from primitive tribal societies to feudal Japan. Either way, whatever privileges we talk about in those classes were thought of as a right by those who held them. They never said "My divine privilege to rule".

You don't seem to understand that those were the Gentiles as they called themselves were totally dependent on the good will of those who were above you in the hierarchy.

There were no rights beyond that which was guaranteed by those above you. The person who ultimately held your fate in his hands was the King.

I think you are talking more along the line of ancestral heritage which is why family crests were developed.

 

[hedrick]

There's a pretty simple answer to the OP:

Generally protected classes are created for groups that need protection. That is, there's a history of discrimination or attacks. I think that's true in this case.

 

[KarateCowboy]

You don't seem to understand that those were the Gentiles as they called themselves were totally dependent on the good will of those who were above you in the hierarchy.

There were no rights beyond that which was guaranteed by those above you. The person who ultimately held your fate in his hands was the King.

I think you are talking more along the line of ancestral heritage which is why family crests were developed.

We definitely seem to be talking about different, though overlapping, contexts.

Anyways, fun topic of discussion. Feudal norms have a certain romantic appeal to them, provided we keep it in a sort of whitewashed manner.

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

We definitely seem to be talking about different, though overlapping, contexts.

Anyways, fun topic of discussion. Feudal norms have a certain romantic appeal to them, provided we keep it in a sort of whitewashed manner.

Well I think you are interesting. I've read many of your posts and have agreed with a lot of them. this I think was a little forced by the topic and that makes everthing quasi-toxic. These issues of governments and authority figures trying to please a certain voting block or group always tends to bring out intencity in others. I don't blame anyone for this other tan the entity that shoved the issue down peoples throats.

All I can say is we should ignore the ideologues and search out people who are receptive to finding God. The rest of the world can go to heck and from what I've seen, It's well on it's way.

 

[bhsmte]

Quite the difference between a government fining you for your religion(refusing to bear false witness) vs individuals practicing freedom of association.

This would appear then to mean, an individual within a company, can discriminate against an employee based on their religion.