PC Leadership Race- Redford wins.

[Resolute 14]

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.

Irrelevant argument since company A can't refuse to hire someone on the basis of sexual orientation either.

Stop dodging the question and answer: in the scenario I outlined above, who's rights are being denied?

[SebC]

Originally Posted by moon

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.

Forcing people is a great way to get stuff done. Force them to free their slaves. Force them to educate their children. Force vaccinations. Force blood transfusions. Force safe-sex education. Force hiring equality. Force them to marry gays. Force them to perform abortions.

(Obviously, if you don't want to marry gays you can simply opt not to become a marriage commissioner.)

[Slava]

Originally Posted by moon

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?

The problem to me is that you can't allow people to discriminate when it comes to something like marriage. There are property rights and advantages that come with that contract. If you believe that they should be permitted for all people, homosexual or heterosexual, then you can't allow some people to discriminate.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Slava

The problem to me is that you can't allow people to discriminate when it comes to something like marriage. There are property rights and advantages that come with that contract. If you believe that they should be permitted for all people, homosexual or heterosexual, then you can't allow some people to discriminate.

Next you will be saying the churches have to perform them as well.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Irrelevant argument since company A can't refuse to hire someone on the basis of sexual orientation either.

Stop dodging the question and answer: in the scenario I outlined above, who's rights are being denied?

The person being discriminated against by Commissioner A.

I'm advocating that we apply the same rules to Commissioner A that we do to Company A, as they pertain to black people, homosexuals, or any other grouping that is constituationally protected from discrimination (or should be).

[Resolute 14]

But who's rights are being denied, SebC? It is an easy question, yet you seem incapable of answering it.

My point is that commissioners office A is being held to the same standard of Company A. So answer, who's rights are being denied?

[SebC]

Originally Posted by First Lady

Next you will be saying the churches have to preform them as well.

When logic fails, appeal to fear.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

But who's rights are being denied, SebC? It is an easy question, yet you seem incapable of answering it.

My point is that commissioners office A is being held to the same standard of Company A. So answer, who's rights are being denied?

Umm... you seem incapable of reading. I provided a direct and explicit answer.

Commissioner A, under a "protection of conscience rights" policy, would not be held to the same standards as Company A.

Company A is not allowed to discriminate, whether it's against gays, blacks, or anyone else.

Commissioner A, under a "protection of conscience rights" policy, would be allowed to discriminate against gays, blacks or anyone else.

[moon]

Originally Posted by SebC

Forcing people is a great way to get stuff done. Force them to free their slaves. Force them to educate their children. Force vaccinations. Force blood transfusions. Force safe-sex education. Force hiring equality. Force them to marry gays. Force them to perform abortions.

(Obviously, if you don't want to marry gays you can simply opt not to become a marriage commissioner.)

If you allow people to have slaves or not educate thier children there is no other option for those people. People not getting hired or not getting married by a certain individual have many other options.

If I thought that the marriage commissioner or hiring company would treat the person properly if forced perhaps I would think differently but because there is going to be discrimination anyways I don't see the point.

Also again I don't see why someone would want to deal with these people who want to discriminate them in the first place as their views aren't changed because they were forced.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by First Lady

Next you will be saying the churches have to perform them as well.

Funny you should bring that up. Wasn't it a WRA push to say that churches should decide on who can be married? I think it was your buddy Link Byfield who wrote all about that.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by SebC

When logic fails, appeal to fear.

Actually, its exactly the same logic. You just fail to see that.

[moon]

Originally Posted by Slava

The problem to me is that you can't allow people to discriminate when it comes to something like marriage. There are property rights and advantages that come with that contract. If you believe that they should be permitted for all people, homosexual or heterosexual, then you can't allow some people to discriminate.

But people can still easily get the marriage and all the benefits.

Nobody is saying that all marriage commissioners should discriminate and there is no way that it will ever come close to happening that all or even many would.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Slava

Funny you should bring that up. Wasn't it a WRA push to say that churches should decide on who can be married? I think it was your buddy Link Byfield who wrote all about that.

Don't think Link would like you calling him my buddy..... I'm in favor of SSM.

I think the PC's also spoke out in this regard. And churches do currently have a choice on who they marry (IIRC)

[Slava]

Originally Posted by moon

But people can still easily get the marriage and all the benefits.

Nobody is saying that all marriage commissioners should discriminate and there is no way that it will ever come close to happening that all or even many would.

I don't know....I do things for work all the time that I don't particularly agree with. I don't see why these guys should be allowed to pick and choose.

[jtfrogger]

Would someone please start a "Should marriage commissioners be allowed to discriminate thread" and leave this one to talk about the PC leadership.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by moon

If I thought that the marriage commissioner or hiring company would treat the person properly if forced perhaps I would think differently but because there is going to be discrimination anyways I don't see the point.

Also again I don't see why someone would want to deal with these people who want to discriminate them in the first place as their views aren't changed because they were forced.

At an individual level, equality legislation may not effective in shifting people's views. At a societal level and over time, it absolutely is.

To me that's something worth fighting for.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by First Lady

Don't think Link would like you calling him my buddy..... I'm in favor of SSM.

I think the PC's also spoke out in this regard. And churches do currently have a choice on who they marry (IIRC)

Theres a difference between having a choice on who they marry in their buildings, and deciding on who gets to be married. IIRC Link was pushing for churches to make that call.

He might not be your buddy, I was just giving you a hard time. I just figure he's a big Wildroser though, and you know how birds of a feather flock together!

[killer_carlson]

those sites aren't giving me anything. My connection might be too slow. Can I get a recap of where things sit right now in terms of results, please?

[jtfrogger]

The election results are starting to come in.

Mar & Redford blowing away the rest in Calgary - Shaw.

[starseed]

Mar also takes Taber... Interesting to see Morton not doing so well down there!