PC Leadership Race- Redford wins.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Agent86

I would agree with this but if anyone can name the Wildrose Alliance candidate for their riding I would be amazed.

Jeremy Nixon

[moon]

Originally Posted by Agent86

I think that you are being overly optimistic in your seat totals for the Wildrose Party, who I think benefited from Stelmach being viewed as a failure as a Premier more than anything else. Now that Stelmach is gone I think that a great deal of the Wildrose support base will erode as people gravitate back to a familiar political party. I think that it would be agreat success if they were able to get 6-8 seats

I think the vast majority of people who supported the WAP in the polls did so because they disapproved of the direction of the PCs, not because of approval of the WAP policies - many of which I view as being overly socially conservative, something that may play positively in the rural but will cost them big in the cities.

If there was someone running in this race that has the potential to revitalize the party I may agree with you but considering the blandness of the candidates it seems no matter who wins the PC's are going to be left with a Stelmach type leader.

Sure there might not be as much of a backlash as there was with Stelmach but I don't see any of these guys bringing a lot of life or people back the PC's.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by First Lady

So I ask again, where are these policies?

There are red flags from your party that they are, in fact, socially conservative.

For example:

http://www.ffwdweekly.com/article/ne...e-leader-8013/

It may be a policy drawn up from an earlier political incarnation, but Wildrose Party Leader Danielle Smith is sticking by a party members’ wish to “ensure conscience rights for marriage commissioners and health professionals.”

Smith initially made the comment in a civil liberties questionnaire drawn up by the Rocky Mountain Civil Liberties Association and issued to several provincial political leaders and leadership candidates.

So, you might not have a policy denying gays the right to marriage, for example, but your leader supports allowing civil servants to refuse to marry gays (or interracial couples, or whoever else they dislike).

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by SebC

There are red flags from your party that they are, in fact, socially conservative.

For example:

http://www.ffwdweekly.com/article/ne...e-leader-8013/

[FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2]So, you might not have a policy denying gays the right to marriage, for example, but your leader supports allowing civil servants to refuse to marry gays (or interracial couples, or whoever else they dislike).

We don't have such a policy for marriage commisioners.

But if I'm understanding you correctly, you think it's okay for civil servants to have their religious beliefs (practices) dictated by government, rather than protected???

[jtfrogger]

Originally Posted by SebC

There are red flags from your party that they are, in fact, socially conservative.

For example:

http://www.ffwdweekly.com/article/ne...e-leader-8013/

[FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2]So, you might not have a policy denying gays the right to marriage, for example, but your leader supports allowing civil servants to refuse to marry gays (or interracial couples, or whoever else they dislike).

I'm pretty sure marriage commissioners are not civil servants. Clicking a few random links from here, it appears that many of them have private wedding businesses. So, as a political policy, it isn't that much different from allowing a religious leader to refuse a marriage that did not fit within their beliefs.

[moon]

When will the results of the vote be announced?

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by moon

When will the results of the vote be announced?

Polls now closed. I heard results should start to come in around 7:30.

You can watch here: http://fusedlogic.tv/pc-election-results/

Or online Herald chat here: http://www.calgaryherald.com/story.html?id=5419737

[SebC]

Originally Posted by First Lady

We don't have such a policy for marriage commisioners.

But if I'm understanding you correctly, you think it's okay for civil servants to have their religious beliefs (practices) dictated by government, rather than protected???

No they can believe whatever the heck they want. But if it makes them unfit to do their job without infringing on other people's rights, they should do something else.

Religious rights cannot be absolute, without throwing out every other right in society.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by SebC

No they can believe whatever the heck they want. But if it makes them unfit to do their job without infringing on other people's rights, they should do something else.

Religious rights cannot be absolute, without throwing out every other right in society.

So if commissioner A expresses a desire to refuse, but commissioner B is on hand with no such objection, who's right is denied?

You are arguing a false dichotomy.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

So if commissioner A expresses a desire to refuse, but commissioner B is on hand with no such objection, who's right is denied?

You are arguing a false dichotomy.

Commissioner A is discriminating.

[Resolute 14]

You never answered the question: Who's right is denied in that scenario?

[moon]

Originally Posted by SebC

Commissioner A is discriminating.

So what go to Commissioner B,C,D,E,F etc.

If Commissioner A is doing that they will get the reputation and lose business and either change their practices or stop working because of lack of clients.

Do you think people want someone presiding over their marriage because they are forced to all the while thinking and acting as though the marriage is wrong or not valid?

[Slava]

So you guys are cool with government permitted discrimination?!

I get that we don't agree on everything politically, but I would think that you are better than that...

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

You never answered the question: Who's right is denied in that scenario?

People have a right to not be discriminated against.

Company A won't hire black people.
Company B will.

Guess that's okay, because it's not like they can't get jobs.

[moon]

Originally Posted by Slava

So you guys are cool with government permitted discrimination?!

I get that we don't agree on everything politically, but I would think that you are better than that...

Originally Posted by SebC

People have a right to not be discriminated against.

Company A won't hire black people.
Company B will.

Guess that's okay, because it's not like they can't get jobs.

SO it is better that the Black guy gets hired by the company that hates blacks? You think that is going to be a good situation for him?

Personally if a Chinese business doesn't want to serve/deal with me because I am white that's fine I don't want to deal with them either. I don't want someone to deal with me because they are forced by the government because I am likely to get crap service whether forced or not.

[moon]

Originally Posted by Slava

So you guys are cool with government permitted discrimination?!

I get that we don't agree on everything politically, but I would think that you are better than that...

If there are other options like there are in this situation than yes I am fine with it.

I don't think a government office/branch should discriminate, but in this case I think that individuals should have the choice if they want to not do a wdding because the people involved are black, gay, white, christian, purple, jewish or whatever.

There are other options and I would bet the amount of commissioners who say no will be miniscule and the fall-out from the denial will be as much a deterrant to either stop the commissioner or limit their clients that they will quickly become irrelevant.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by moon

SO it is better that the Black guy gets hired by the company that hates blacks? You think that is going to be a good situation for him?

Personally if a Chinese business doesn't want to serve/deal with me because I am white that's fine I don't want to deal with them either. I don't want someone to deal with me because they are forced by the government because I am likely to get crap service whether forced or not.

Thats a different situation. We're talking about marriage though, and a whole slew of rights/advantages that come along with that. You can't seriously think its totally fine if the government allows some people to discriminate in that instance. You might not agree with the lifestyle, but even you as a proud redneck don't actually think that makes any sense?

[SebC]

Originally Posted by moon

SO it is better that the Black guy gets hired by the company that hates blacks? You think that is going to be a good situation for him?

Personally if a Chinese business doesn't want to serve/deal with me because I am white that's fine I don't want to deal with them either. I don't want someone to deal with me because they are forced by the government because I am likely to get crap service whether forced or not.

So now you're arguing that discriminatory hiring is okay, for the protection of those being discriminated against? That's absurd. It's not logical to say that the best way to protect someone from discrimination is to allow discrimination.

As for whether you prefer to deal with discrimination by avoidance, that's up to you. I don't see that being your personality though. Unless you're an internet persona.

[moon]

Originally Posted by Slava

Thats a different situation. We're talking about marriage though, and a whole slew of rights/advantages that come along with that. You can't seriously think its totally fine if the government allows some people to discriminate in that instance. You might not agree with the lifestyle, but even you as a proud redneck don't actually think that makes any sense?

I agree with the lifestyle just fine. I have no problem with gay people and have gay friends.

I just think that people should be free to marry who they want and if they don't want to marry gays or whites or blacks that should be their choice.

As I said earlier do people really want marriage commissioners that believe that gay marriage is wrong and invalid but are doing their wedding because the government forced them?

[moon]

Originally Posted by SebC

So now you're arguing that discriminatory hiring is okay, for the protection of those being discriminated against? That's absurd. It's not logical to say that the best way to protect someone from discrimination is to allow discrimination.

As for whether you prefer to deal with discrimination by avoidance, that's up to you. I don't see that being your personality though. Unless you're an internet persona.

You don't see what being my personality? If someone doesn't want to deal with me I move on. Whether their reasoning is because I am white or they think I smell or just plain don't like me.

Not sure what the internet persona BS is but I guess that is probably not worth getting into.

And it is not for the protection of the person being "discriminated" but for the simple fact that forcing people to do something doesn't seem like a good way of getting things done. i.e. They hire the black guy how well do you think he is going to be treated? How much opportunity is he going to get to succeed? It isn't protection but the simple fact that it seems like a crap way to operate and not a very appealing workplace for the person being hired.