those are precisely the reasons why I don’t use facebook. Aside from FB prying into your privacy and your email and telephone contacts, its is also a place for gossip where too much information is divulge in front of our eyes. Information we do not need which can only damage our spiritual lives.
Unless one is helping someone with disabilities, yes.
Strawman.
Would have been better if they would not have needed to.
When behaviors are involved, no. :nope:
See #2.
Public schools are not part of the private sector.
Public or private?
That’s damaging property. Also a behavior.
Yes, because all of these entitlements are now leading to the persecution of Catholics, well, straight, white ones anyways----and because natural law is based in human incentive.
Irrelevant.
When a company buys another company higher ups often get let go or leave. If they had a person with less experience they could pay them less and save money. It could of been a decision based on finances. Some companies want people that they trained themselves. Being smart and well educated does not always make a person good at their job. He could of just been a bad fit. I am sorry this person lost their job, I am not sure it was because the color of their skin.I remind myself that it is also useful. There are lots of people I don’t see very often and it’s nice to see what’s going on in their lives. A childhood friend moved away and was in a terrible accident. I would of m ver known this without FB. If your savvy you can form groups so only the people you want can see certain information. its a good way to keep people updated if a person is sick or going through a tough time. I can be encouraging and not intrusive, people don’t have to repeat the same bad news over and over, friends can organize meals or help for people. FB isn’t all bad.
So the powerful can be relied upon to do the right thing in free markets, and it is the weak who are always the problem to be handled?
Abortion and same sex “marriage” are in direct opposition to various religious beliefs, including Catholicism. In opposing them, she is expressing her religious beliefs
I don’t think its ok. I don’t think most people would think it was ethical. I think that the point others were making was that though it’s not ethical and they don’t agree with it the employer should have the legal right to hire or not hire who they want. The hope being if someone was an outright racist it would harm the reputation and the business. My concearn in making that legal would in a way make people think it’s ok to be bigoted.
Her point was that not necessarily. Most people don’t care what your beliefs are. They may care if you feel the need to go on and on about them and make others uncomfortable. If you want to express how Christian you are at work you should do so by being a good employee. That will leave a longer lasting and more meaningful impression on people than making sure everyone around you knows how Christian you are by telling them.
I guess this is where the social aims of a society may clash with individual rights. I don’t have a problem with societies agreeing where that balance lies. I believe it is the law of the land that a man cannot be sacked because he is black, and personally I think that is a good thing. I don’t believe the personal right sacrificed in such a case has any merit.
I don’t want you to think I am ignoring you.
But Hoosier, could I point you to post #39 - how say you to the 2 questions posed there?I don’t want you to think I am ignoring you.
First, I think the examples are a tad over the top. But lets explore some things here.
I think there is a difference between a personal “Dog” sitting job and employment across corporations. The extreme examples you cite are a good reasons unions were needed at one point in our country (until the unions became the very thing they were supposed to protect against) However, lets stick with me, a private citizen who wants to hire a dog sitter for the weekend. And I choose any number of criteria to use. And sure, lets include your extreme examples. Let’s say I wished to hire a good Catholic person from my parish (Do you think I am acting immoral by choosing a specific religion to give my 20 dollars to to feed my dog while I go on vacation?) Or lets get really nasty and say I don’t want a black/ asian, hispanic or blue person to watch my dog.(for whatever misguided reason) Should I be bound to have to hire a one and only black applicant? Should we have laws that force my hand into my pocket to give someone I do not like money and the keys to my house?
In the OP we get all riled up because it is against people who “think like us” but honestly I have no problem with a Jew not wanting a dog sitter who has a swastika bumpersticker and runs a pork packing plant.
Our employment and race and religion laws are a joke. If I wish to have a sitcom on BET starring all white people should they have to give me a job? Do I have the right to be a hooters waitress even if I am a man, 40 and 20 lbs overweight? To be fair, my bust is probably bigger than many of their employees… I probably have bigger “owls”
Or even in seedier, but still legal mind you, pornography employment. Where race and gender become part of the title of the films…
Racism is wrong. But it is also historically natural. Italian pride among Catholics, Irish pride among Catholics is prevalent even in the most prestigious Catholic College in the land. Ask the polish how they feel about finally having a Polish Pope who is now a saint.
All of these sources of pride have to do with stereotypes and nationality and race.
This is something to remember this next week when we as an entire culture forget our faith and one of our greatest saints and all become a stereotype of a drunk Irishman.
Geesh, corned beef and cabbage! Imagine if we did this as an african american meal.
In this case, it’s a private contractor, and therefore many of the “employment laws” don’t apply. My main point is though, is that the person who dismissed the dog sitter was doing so on grounds which were not related to job performance, but rather on personal feelings about that person’s religious views. I would also call that bigotry. I just find it ironic that a bigot dismisses someone for being a bigot.
Hehe… it sounds to me like you might be happier to live in the 1890’s.Unless one is helping someone with disabilities, yes.
Strawman.
Would have been better if they would not have needed to.
When behaviors are involved, no. :nope:
See #2.
- That’s a behavior—and another strawman.
- Police power is reserved to the states. Besides, many Western liberals are fine with that if it’s part of the “culture”.
Public schools are not part of the private sector.
Public or private?
That’s damaging property. Also a behavior.
Yes, because all of these entitlements are now leading to the persecution of Catholics, well, straight, white ones anyways----and because natural law is based in human incentive.
Irrelevant.
I’ve encountered any number of pro-abortionists/gay rights supporters who express their positions actively and vocally, also those (often the same people) who feel quite comfortable slagging of religion… I find a lot of people *do *care about what you believe, and have somewhat double standards on who can express what
I can see why she fired her for being a “religious bigot”
here in Europe, it sounds like we have more rights than you do over there…at least theoretically
Exactly. I guess the more I look at history, the more I see it repeating itself. As you say, in the past (like America in the 1600s), you only had to accuse a woman of witchcraft in order to shun her, or have her imprisoned or executed. Nowadays, private corporations are so terrified of lawsuits that they’d rather fire someone who is religious than potentially offend another worker who might object to hearing about another’s religious beliefs. Of course, totally lost in all of this is society’s overall freedom of expression. When people are ostracized for their opinions and beliefs, that’s never a salutary development. Secondly, it never seems to occur to those doing the firing that they’re simply repeating the bad habits of the past. Why was it wrong for religious people in the past to overly proselytize, but it’s now NOT wrong to fire or otherwise persecute religious people merely for being religious? I very much see the whole debate over so-called same-sex “marriage” going this way. If gay people were discriminated against in the past, now they are the ones doing the discriminating. History shows us that settling scores and taking revenge never go very well.
It’s already gone that way. It might as well be illegal to even *question *whether homosexuality is right or not, natural or not, or even whether gay relationships are the same kind of thing as straight ones… to question whether religion is right or wrong or not - ah, well, that’s very much allowed.