Bernie and fellow hate heathens trying to keep Christians out of government

[DQ12]

That is quite a jump to get to "highly likely to discriminate" based on this dude's thoughts about Wheaton college. I mean, to work there you literally have to sign a statement of faith that you believe in the trinity, that Jesus was God, that Mary was a virgin etc. By that logic anyone who has ever worked at Wheaton or almost any seminary, church, religious institution etc should be barred from public service.

No, just people who publicly support the university for being discriminatory. Vought said that many faculty and alumni were outraged by the firing in his blog post, so it's not like all of them are bad people. I wouldn't be surprised if Vought is in the minority with his opinion.

There's nothing outrageous at all about the firing.  It's a private religious school.  They have a particular theological view that, ostensibly, they want their students to share.  If one of the professors is sending a message (whether or not she explains the context of her message on her facebook) that doesn't fit within that school's theological view, it makes perfect sense to get rid of her. 

I don't think that thinking that makes me a bad person, I think it makes that professor a bad fit for that particular school.

[Rage Against the McKee]

That is quite a jump to get to "highly likely to discriminate" based on this dude's thoughts about Wheaton college. I mean, to work there you literally have to sign a statement of faith that you believe in the trinity, that Jesus was God, that Mary was a virgin etc. By that logic anyone who has ever worked at Wheaton or almost any seminary, church, religious institution etc should be barred from public service.

No, just people who publicly support the university for being discriminatory. Vought said that many faculty and alumni were outraged by the firing in his blog post, so it's not like all of them are bad people. I wouldn't be surprised if Vought is in the minority with his opinion.

There's nothing outrageous at all about the firing.  It's a private religious school.  They have a particular theological view that, ostensibly, they want their students to share.  If one of the professors is sending a message (whether or not she explains the context of her message on her facebook) that doesn't fit within that school's theological view, it makes perfect sense to get rid of her. 

I don't think that thinking that makes me a bad person, I think it makes that professor a bad fit for that particular school.

Well, I believe that discrimination is wrong even when it is legal, so I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

[420seriouscat69]

Stud!

https://twitter.com/KassyDillon/status/875079423862726659

[DQ12]

That is quite a jump to get to "highly likely to discriminate" based on this dude's thoughts about Wheaton college. I mean, to work there you literally have to sign a statement of faith that you believe in the trinity, that Jesus was God, that Mary was a virgin etc. By that logic anyone who has ever worked at Wheaton or almost any seminary, church, religious institution etc should be barred from public service.

No, just people who publicly support the university for being discriminatory. Vought said that many faculty and alumni were outraged by the firing in his blog post, so it's not like all of them are bad people. I wouldn't be surprised if Vought is in the minority with his opinion.

There's nothing outrageous at all about the firing.  It's a private religious school.  They have a particular theological view that, ostensibly, they want their students to share.  If one of the professors is sending a message (whether or not she explains the context of her message on her facebook) that doesn't fit within that school's theological view, it makes perfect sense to get rid of her. 

I don't think that thinking that makes me a bad person, I think it makes that professor a bad fit for that particular school.

Well, I believe that discrimination is wrong even when it is legal, so I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

Yeah but I don't view that as "discrimination."  At least not discrimination in any wrongful sense. 

I don't think a private institution should have to employ someone who is sending a different message than that private institution wants to send.  That seems unfair.  Maybe that's where we disagree. 

Let me use an example that is extreme, but i think still analogous.  Let's say we have a catholic high school math teacher who, one day, decides he wants to show his devotion to satan by getting a large visible forearm tattoo of Beelzebub himself, complete with "666" underneath and a nice big heart around it.   Students can see the tattoo.  It's wrong for the school to say "wtf" and part ways with him?

[Rage Against the McKee]

Yeah but I don't view that as "discrimination."  At least not discrimination in any wrongful sense. 

I don't think a private institution should have to employ someone who is sending a different message than that private institution wants to send.  That seems unfair.  Maybe that's where we disagree. 

Let me use an example that is extreme, but i think still analogous.  Let's say we have a catholic high school math teacher who, one day, decides he wants to show his devotion to satan by getting a large visible forearm tattoo of Beelzebub himself, complete with "666" underneath and a nice big heart around it.   Students can see the tattoo.  It's wrong for the school to say "wtf" and part ways with him?

Yes. If he uses his classroom time to try to convert the students to satanism, refuses to participate in any religious activities that might be a condition of his employment, etc, then I think the school would be right to fire him. Firing him for having a tattoo so that the someone who makes me uncomfortable parents can send their kids to a safe space is wrong, though. I do agree that it is legal for the school to fire him and support their right to do so. I just wouldn't support the school actually firing him.

Right is right and wrong is wrong, imo. I can't justify something being wrong for one person to do and right for somebody else only because the other person happens to be a Christian employer.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Dlew, do you think it is right for a catholic school to fire a teacher for getting pregnant when she isn't married?

[michigancat]

That is quite a jump to get to "highly likely to discriminate" based on this dude's thoughts about Wheaton college. I mean, to work there you literally have to sign a statement of faith that you believe in the trinity, that Jesus was God, that Mary was a virgin etc. By that logic anyone who has ever worked at Wheaton or almost any seminary, church, religious institution etc should be barred from public service.

No, just people who publicly support the university for being discriminatory. Vought said that many faculty and alumni were outraged by the firing in his blog post, so it's not like all of them are bad people. I wouldn't be surprised if Vought is in the minority with his opinion.

There's nothing outrageous at all about the firing.  It's a private religious school.  They have a particular theological view that, ostensibly, they want their students to share.  If one of the professors is sending a message (whether or not she explains the context of her message on her facebook) that doesn't fit within that school's theological view, it makes perfect sense to get rid of her. 

I don't think that thinking that makes me a bad person, I think it makes that professor a bad fit for that particular school.

Well, I believe that discrimination is wrong even when it is legal, so I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

Yeah but I don't view that as "discrimination."  At least not discrimination in any wrongful sense. 

I don't think a private institution should have to employ someone who is sending a different message than that private institution wants to send.  That seems unfair.  Maybe that's where we disagree. 

Let me use an example that is extreme, but i think still analogous.  Let's say we have a catholic high school math teacher who, one day, decides he wants to show his devotion to satan by getting a large visible forearm tattoo of Beelzebub himself, complete with "666" underneath and a nice big heart around it.   Students can see the tattoo.  It's wrong for the school to say "wtf" and part ways with him?

taking another extreme example, what if the school interpreted scripture to take the position that blacks were an inferior race and fired someone who questioned this interpretation? Would someone who supported that school's action be fit for a high profile position in the federal government? How do you draw the line where "religious freedom" trumps non-discrimination?

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Good grief, you loons are still at this? You haven't made one remotely compelling point.

All you've done is tacitly admit you're prejudiced against all Christians by taking these absurd conjectural positions to create a pretext to advance your deep seated belief that Christians are inellectually inferior and predisposed to prejudice. Which means, by your own standard, you and bern and every other like minded cognitive dissonance ignorant nut is not fit for office.

[star seed 7]

fsd sees right through us guys

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

It's a mirror, you dolt

[michigancat]

It's a mirror, you dolt

[Cartierfor3]

Dlew, do you think it is right for a catholic school to fire a teacher for getting pregnant when she isn't married?

I don't know how catholic schools operate, but if the teacher had signed a moral clause to remain celibate then the school would be within their rights to fire her. There are churches where you have to sign agreements not to drink alcohol etc. I doubt those clauses exist for catholic schools, but if the requirement to work there is stated clearly then the school is within their rights.

taking another extreme example, what if the school interpreted scripture to take the position that blacks were an inferior race and fired someone who questioned this interpretation? Would someone who supported that school's action be fit for a high profile position in the federal government? How do you draw the line where "religious freedom" trumps non-discrimination?

I think that is a stretch and a different scenario, because you are then talking about a people group and not a faith system. Those are very different. But if you sign up to teach at KKK University and then are fired for that blacks are not inferior, yeah, I'm fine with KKK University firing you. Why the eff would you want to teach at a private school that's core value system is based upon something you feel is oppressive or untrue or immoral?

Vought's position is one based on faith, not race, and therein lies the difference. 

I guess I draw the line in that a religious organization that employs people to teach a specific theology and dogma has the right to expect teachers they employee to adhere to that dogma and theology. An Islamic school who employed a teacher who started wearing a cross and stating that Jesus is Lord or whatever would be 100% justified in firing that person. I mean, if you agree to a standard of living as part of your employment that's part of a job. Sure you have a legal right to grow a beard or get a face tattoo and are free to do so as your expression, but certain jobs forbid that as a clause to employment.

[renocat]

Bernie Sanders quote defending himself.
"I’m not the most religious of folks. I don’t know if heaven exists. But if it does, then everybody has the right to eternal life there. Nobody should be “condemned” just because he doesn’t have enough money or the right skin color or doesn’t believe in the God who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Whoever God is, I am certain that he/she/zir will save everyone, and nothing will ever convince me otherwise, not even God explicitly telling me that those who reject the salvation of Jesus will not be saved.?

[michigancat]

Dlew, do you think it is right for a catholic school to fire a teacher for getting pregnant when she isn't married?

I don't know how catholic schools operate, but if the teacher had signed a moral clause to remain celibate then the school would be within their rights to fire her. There are churches where you have to sign agreements not to drink alcohol etc. I doubt those clauses exist for catholic schools, but if the requirement to work there is stated clearly then the school is within their rights.

taking another extreme example, what if the school interpreted scripture to take the position that blacks were an inferior race and fired someone who questioned this interpretation? Would someone who supported that school's action be fit for a high profile position in the federal government? How do you draw the line where "religious freedom" trumps non-discrimination?

I think that is a stretch and a different scenario, because you are then talking about a people group and not a faith system. Those are very different. But if you sign up to teach at KKK University and then are fired for that blacks are not inferior, yeah, I'm fine with KKK University firing you. Why the eff would you want to teach at a private school that's core value system is based upon something you feel is oppressive or untrue or immoral?

Vought's position is one based on faith, not race, and therein lies the difference. 

I guess I draw the line in that a religious organization that employs people to teach a specific theology and dogma has the right to expect teachers they employee to adhere to that dogma and theology. An Islamic school who employed a teacher who started wearing a cross and stating that Jesus is Lord or whatever would be 100% justified in firing that person. I mean, if you agree to a standard of living as part of your employment that's part of a job. Sure you have a legal right to grow a beard or get a face tattoo and are free to do so as your expression, but certain jobs forbid that as a clause to employment.

You're totally missing the point. No one is saying Wheaton or KKKU didn't have the right to fire this woman - they absolutely did. The issue is whether or not you let someone who shares that philosophy and went on the record supporting it hold an appointed position of power in government.

Also I was thinking more of the Mormons who banned black clergy until 1978. They used their faith to justify it.
 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people_and_priesthood_(LDS)

[Rage Against the McKee]

Dlew, do you think it is right for a catholic school to fire a teacher for getting pregnant when she isn't married?

I don't know how catholic schools operate, but if the teacher had signed a moral clause to remain celibate then the school would be within their rights to fire her. There are churches where you have to sign agreements not to drink alcohol etc. I doubt those clauses exist for catholic schools, but if the requirement to work there is stated clearly then the school is within their rights.

taking another extreme example, what if the school interpreted scripture to take the position that blacks were an inferior race and fired someone who questioned this interpretation? Would someone who supported that school's action be fit for a high profile position in the federal government? How do you draw the line where "religious freedom" trumps non-discrimination?

I think that is a stretch and a different scenario, because you are then talking about a people group and not a faith system. Those are very different. But if you sign up to teach at KKK University and then are fired for that blacks are not inferior, yeah, I'm fine with KKK University firing you. Why the eff would you want to teach at a private school that's core value system is based upon something you feel is oppressive or untrue or immoral?

Vought's position is one based on faith, not race, and therein lies the difference. 

I guess I draw the line in that a religious organization that employs people to teach a specific theology and dogma has the right to expect teachers they employee to adhere to that dogma and theology. An Islamic school who employed a teacher who started wearing a cross and stating that Jesus is Lord or whatever would be 100% justified in firing that person. I mean, if you agree to a standard of living as part of your employment that's part of a job. Sure you have a legal right to grow a beard or get a face tattoo and are free to do so as your expression, but certain jobs forbid that as a clause to employment.

Cartier, do you think a good person would ever fire a woman because she got pregnant?

[Rage Against the McKee]

If Donald Trump appoints Fred Phelps to a cabinet position, is it religious discrimination to bring up his hatred of gay people as a reason you won't be voting for him?

[meow meow]

If Donald Trump appoints Fred Phelps to a cabinet position, is it religious discrimination to bring up his hatred of gay people as a reason you won't be voting for him?

i would lmao if Trump appointed a dead person to a cabinet position

[Rage Against the McKee]

 

I forgot he died.

[meow meow]

all i can picture now is dead corpse Freddy Phelps sitting in a nice chair at the capitol and Trump behind him moving Fred's arms and lips and talking out of the side of his mouth

[Emo EMAW]

Dlew, do you think it is right for a catholic school to fire a teacher for getting pregnant when she isn't married?

I don't know how catholic schools operate, but if the teacher had signed a moral clause to remain celibate then the school would be within their rights to fire her. There are churches where you have to sign agreements not to drink alcohol etc. I doubt those clauses exist for catholic schools, but if the requirement to work there is stated clearly then the school is within their rights.

taking another extreme example, what if the school interpreted scripture to take the position that blacks were an inferior race and fired someone who questioned this interpretation? Would someone who supported that school's action be fit for a high profile position in the federal government? How do you draw the line where "religious freedom" trumps non-discrimination?

I think that is a stretch and a different scenario, because you are then talking about a people group and not a faith system. Those are very different. But if you sign up to teach at KKK University and then are fired for that blacks are not inferior, yeah, I'm fine with KKK University firing you. Why the eff would you want to teach at a private school that's core value system is based upon something you feel is oppressive or untrue or immoral?

Vought's position is one based on faith, not race, and therein lies the difference. 

I guess I draw the line in that a religious organization that employs people to teach a specific theology and dogma has the right to expect teachers they employee to adhere to that dogma and theology. An Islamic school who employed a teacher who started wearing a cross and stating that Jesus is Lord or whatever would be 100% justified in firing that person. I mean, if you agree to a standard of living as part of your employment that's part of a job. Sure you have a legal right to grow a beard or get a face tattoo and are free to do so as your expression, but certain jobs forbid that as a clause to employment.

Cartier, do you think a good person would ever fire a woman because she got pregnant?

I think a good person could, depends on the woman.  Christianity espouses forgiveness.  If the woman was repentant I think it would be Christian to forgive.

[star seed 7]

Getting fired for being pregnant seems like an incentive to get an abortion

[Emo EMAW]

Good way to double down on a mistake.

[Rage Against the McKee]

all i can picture now is dead corpse Freddy Phelps sitting in a nice chair at the capitol and Trump behind him moving Fred's arms and lips and talking out of the side of his mouth

I think Donald would be having a nice conversation with him about how much he loves evangelicals while somebody else (probably Spicer) got weekend at Freddy's duty.

[Rage Against the McKee]

I think a good person could, depends on the woman.  Christianity espouses forgiveness.  If the woman was repentant I think it would be Christian to forgive.

It would be Christian to forgive, regardless.

[Gooch]

Good way to double down on a mistake.

Or simply make a choice about your body and correcting what you feel was a mistake.