Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

Fair or Discrimination on gays?

belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2010 8:03:21 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
why does sexual orientation need to be mentioned explicitly? i was under the impression that discrimination is discrimination no matter what the trait involved. as in.. they don't need a law banning discrimination against blondes because the law is already clear that folks should be hired/judged on merit rather than irrelevant traits.

however, given his politics and his position it seems likely that wasn't his intent. if he was simply trying to make the kind of statement he made in his memo (about merit based hiring practices) then he wouldn't have listed a bunch of other specific conditions. sounds to me like he's using "achievement on merit" as a screen for his bigoted attitude.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2010 8:13:28 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Shouldn't it just be the law that you can only discriminate on ability, or rather 'fitness' for the job?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2010 8:15:09 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
It shouldn't be the law that "You" can only discriminate based on ability.

The state on the other hand should have exactly that limit.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2010 8:17:06 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/4/2010 8:15:09 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
It shouldn't be the law that "You" can only discriminate based on ability.

The state on the other hand should have exactly that limit.

Only reply if you have a genuine non-semantic quibble.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2010 8:19:24 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/4/2010 8:17:06 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 3/4/2010 8:15:09 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
It shouldn't be the law that "You" can only discriminate based on ability.

The state on the other hand should have exactly that limit.

Only reply if you have a genuine non-semantic quibble.

A genuine meaningless quibble? What the hell is that?

Semantics is nothing more than what things mean.

While in this scenario the specific policy is indeed the state jobs policy, declaring that "You" should be forbidden to means removing the control of private property owners over their own property and who gets to interact with it.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2010 8:27:57 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/4/2010 8:19:24 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 3/4/2010 8:17:06 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 3/4/2010 8:15:09 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
It shouldn't be the law that "You" can only discriminate based on ability.

The state on the other hand should have exactly that limit.

Only reply if you have a genuine non-semantic quibble.

A genuine meaningless quibble? What the hell is that?

Semantics is nothing more than what things mean.

While in this scenario the specific policy is indeed the state jobs policy, declaring that "You" should be forbidden to means removing the control of private property owners over their own property and who gets to interact with it.

You really are a pointless pompous fool, if you have anything valid to say then say it, but I am not interested in your misuse of English nor your presumption that your politics are divinely ordained.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2010 8:29:47 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
You seem to be confusing me for a fellow named Ahmadinejad, or perhaps someone in Obama's office of faith-based initiatives.

And if you can point to an error in my use of English, perhaps you'll be justified in calling it misuse, otherwise...
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2010 8:30:29 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/4/2010 8:27:57 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
You really are a pointless pompous fool, if you have anything valid to say then say it, but I am not interested in your misuse of English nor your presumption that your politics are divinely ordained.

damn
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2010 8:32:19 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/4/2010 8:27:57 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 3/4/2010 8:19:24 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 3/4/2010 8:17:06 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 3/4/2010 8:15:09 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
It shouldn't be the law that "You" can only discriminate based on ability.

The state on the other hand should have exactly that limit.

Only reply if you have a genuine non-semantic quibble.

A genuine meaningless quibble? What the hell is that?

Semantics is nothing more than what things mean.

While in this scenario the specific policy is indeed the state jobs policy, declaring that "You" should be forbidden to means removing the control of private property owners over their own property and who gets to interact with it.

You really are a pointless pompous fool, if you have anything valid to say then say it, but I am not interested in your misuse of English nor your presumption that your politics are divinely ordained.

Yes, the -atheist- Ragnar_Rahl thinks his politics are divinely ordained.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2010 8:39:52 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/4/2010 8:32:19 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 3/4/2010 8:27:57 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 3/4/2010 8:19:24 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 3/4/2010 8:17:06 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 3/4/2010 8:15:09 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
It shouldn't be the law that "You" can only discriminate based on ability.

The state on the other hand should have exactly that limit.

Only reply if you have a genuine non-semantic quibble.

A genuine meaningless quibble? What the hell is that?

Semantics is nothing more than what things mean.

While in this scenario the specific policy is indeed the state jobs policy, declaring that "You" should be forbidden to means removing the control of private property owners over their own property and who gets to interact with it.

You really are a pointless pompous fool, if you have anything valid to say then say it, but I am not interested in your misuse of English nor your presumption that your politics are divinely ordained.

Yes, the -atheist- Ragnar_Rahl thinks his politics are divinely ordained.

It's called sarcasm.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2010 8:43:29 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/4/2010 8:39:52 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 3/4/2010 8:32:19 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 3/4/2010 8:27:57 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 3/4/2010 8:19:24 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 3/4/2010 8:17:06 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 3/4/2010 8:15:09 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
It shouldn't be the law that "You" can only discriminate based on ability.

The state on the other hand should have exactly that limit.

Only reply if you have a genuine non-semantic quibble.

A genuine meaningless quibble? What the hell is that?

Semantics is nothing more than what things mean.

While in this scenario the specific policy is indeed the state jobs policy, declaring that "You" should be forbidden to means removing the control of private property owners over their own property and who gets to interact with it.

You really are a pointless pompous fool, if you have anything valid to say then say it, but I am not interested in your misuse of English nor your presumption that your politics are divinely ordained.

Yes, the -atheist- Ragnar_Rahl thinks his politics are divinely ordained.

It's called sarcasm.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com...
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2010 11:51:45 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/4/2010 8:27:57 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 3/4/2010 8:19:24 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 3/4/2010 8:17:06 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 3/4/2010 8:15:09 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
It shouldn't be the law that "You" can only discriminate based on ability.

The state on the other hand should have exactly that limit.

Only reply if you have a genuine non-semantic quibble.

A genuine meaningless quibble? What the hell is that?

Semantics is nothing more than what things mean.

While in this scenario the specific policy is indeed the state jobs policy, declaring that "You" should be forbidden to means removing the control of private property owners over their own property and who gets to interact with it.

You really are a pointless pompous fool, if you have anything valid to say then say it, but I am not interested in your misuse of English nor your presumption that your politics are divinely ordained.

is that necessary? he in fact *did* say something relevant, re: how far the application of "anti-discrimination" laws should extend. you, on the other hand, simply threw a small tantrum.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2010 4:35:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
It really does not make to much sense.
Discrimination of anyone should be discouraged.
But for it to be law is another story, and if it is law than it should cover any group that has the potential of being discriminated against.
It does not make real sense.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2010 7:02:20 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I am proud of my school today.
I a conservative part of virginia at that!

"Dear Radford Student Body,

A letter was recently sent to Radford and other state funded universities from Virginia's Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli advising state supported institutions not to include sexual orientation in their anti-discrimination polices.

As President Kyle described in an email sent to the University community on March 12th, 2010: "the opinion, based upon the Attorney General's interpretation of the respective roles of the executive and legislative branches of our state government, has caused some consternation on campuses across the Commonwealth, including our own."

After reviewing Governor Bob McDonnell's Executive Directive, President Kyle's letter to the University Community, and student feedback, the Student Government Association does not support the Attorney General's advice to take sexual orientation out of RU's anti-discrimination policy.

The Radford University Student Government Association's Strategic Plan, in accordance with RU's 7-17 Strategic Plan, "supports University awareness and inclusion of all aspects of diversity." Therefore, we believe the Attorney General's advice violates this strategic objective.

We believe diversity enhances a positive university environment and attracts a broader range of students, faculty, and staff to the Radford Community. Taking sexual orientation out of the anti-discrimination policy could potentially tarnish RU's ability to diversify the campus community, which is highly valued at this institution.

The SGA would like to encourage continuing feedback from students on this matter by contacting us at..., by visiting our Facebook site RU Student Government Association/ Student Body, by visiting our website RU SGA or by visiting us in the upstairs Bonnie Student Center, room 209.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,
Radford University Student Government Association"