Welcome to the Killington Zone Message Board
https://www.killingtonzone.com/forums/
The equality act seeks to add language to the 1964 Civil Rights Act laws preventing discrimination based on sexual orientation, etc. The existing law prevents discrimination based on race, place of birth, etc, which are things that are determined genetically or from birth, plus religion. If sexual orientation is a behavior due to environmental result or lifestyle choice, why would it be federally protected if other behaviors are not?Kpdemello wrote:Not sure what genetic studies have to do with anti-discrimination law. The reason governments passed laws against such discrimination is because it's unethical and illogical to discriminate against someone based on their sexual preference. Genetics doesn't really enter the equation.
For the same reasons that freedom of religion, free speech, freedom of the press, and the right to be safe from unreasonable searches and seizures should be protected? Because we want people to be free to make choices they personally feel are right for them, that are private and have nothing to do with anyone else, without being discriminated against? Because that's the decent, human, moral thing to do?Highway Star wrote:If sexual orientation is a behavior due to environmental result or lifestyle choice, why would it be federally protected if other behaviors are not?
Some argue there are a plethora of genders. Should all be federally protected and accommodated?Kpdemello wrote:For the same reasons that freedom of religion, free speech, freedom of the press, and the right to be safe from unreasonable searches and seizures should be protected? Because we want people to be free to make choices they personally feel are right for them, that are private and have nothing to do with anyone else, without being discriminated against? Because that's the decent, human, moral thing to do?Highway Star wrote:If sexual orientation is a behavior due to environmental result or lifestyle choice, why would it be federally protected if other behaviors are not?
They already are. You can't discriminate against someone based solely on gender, regardless of what you call the gender.XtremeJibber2001 wrote:Some argue there are a plethora of genders. Should all be federally protected and accommodated?
You draw the line where one person's freedom impacts another's. So freedom of speech is protected right up until you use that freedom of speech to incite violence or yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Freedom of religion is protected until you decide your religion includes humans sacrifice. Etc.XtremeJibber2001 wrote:Where do we draw the line on protecting ones freedom to do what makes them feel nice?
A child can talk about the Bible in the classroom all they want. That is protected speech. What can't be done is a public school teaching about the Bible, because that represents a government establishment of religion. But in private schools that aren't sponsored by the government, you can teach religion all you want.XtremeJibber2001 wrote:There’s freedom of religion, but if a child talks about the Bible in the classroom ... it’s not exactly “protected” in the same way as a child’s homosexuality. Is there a double standard?
Yes, but are they accommodated? Should someone identifying as Androgyne / non-binary have the freedom to use the men and women's bathroom at their leisure? Do Cisgender parents/families have any freedoms in this scenario or may we only yield to the minority?Kpdemello wrote:They already are. You can't discriminate against someone based solely on gender, regardless of what you call the gender.XtremeJibber2001 wrote:Some argue there are a plethora of genders. Should all be federally protected and accommodated?
In my example above, I'd argue the non-binary person is impacting my cisgender family.Kpdemello wrote:You draw the line where one person's freedom impacts another's. So freedom of speech is protected right up until you use that freedom of speech to incite violence or yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Freedom of religion is protected until you decide your religion includes humans sacrifice. Etc.XtremeJibber2001 wrote:Where do we draw the line on protecting ones freedom to do what makes them feel nice?
One question for homosexual rights is whether a person can refuse service to someone who is homosexual due to religious objections to their liefstyle (i.e. the wedding cake case). I'd argue that it's very unchristian behavior to refuse service to someone just because they commit what you view as a sin - how many wedding cakes have been baked for people who were cohabitating before marriage in violation of Christian teaching? But I acknowledge that this is a debatable point. What is not really debatable is whether a person's sexual preference should be protected as an inalienable right - I think it's clear that it should.
If you think a child can talk about how homosexuality is a sin, you're mistaken. This is what I call the double standard ... one can look to the media, many politicians, pride month (how many US companies changed their brand to include a rainbow) for examples. Homosexuality is celebrated and those who feel it's a sin are ostracized. To use a hatter term ... their ostracization is 'the good hate'.Kpdemello wrote:A child can talk about the Bible in the classroom all they want. That is protected speech. What can't be done is a public school teaching about the Bible, because that represents a government establishment of religion. But in private schools that aren't sponsored by the government, you can teach religion all you want.XtremeJibber2001 wrote:There’s freedom of religion, but if a child talks about the Bible in the classroom ... it’s not exactly “protected” in the same way as a child’s homosexuality. Is there a double standard?
Kpdemello wrote:They already are. You can't discriminate against someone based solely on gender, regardless of what you call the gender.XtremeJibber2001 wrote:Some argue there are a plethora of genders. Should all be federally protected and accommodated?
You draw the line where one person's freedom impacts another's. So freedom of speech is protected right up until you use that freedom of speech to incite violence or yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Freedom of religion is protected until you decide your religion includes humans sacrifice. Etc.XtremeJibber2001 wrote:Where do we draw the line on protecting ones freedom to do what makes them feel nice?
One question for homosexual rights is whether a person can refuse service to someone who is homosexual due to religious objections to their liefstyle (i.e. the wedding cake case). I'd argue that it's very unchristian behavior to refuse service to someone just because they commit what you view as a sin - how many wedding cakes have been baked for people who were cohabitating before marriage in violation of Christian teaching? But I acknowledge that this is a debatable point. What is not really debatable is whether a person's sexual preference should be protected as an inalienable right - I think it's clear that it should.I'm sure epstein would have agreed with you...
A child can talk about the Bible in the classroom all they want. That is protected speech. What can't be done is a public school teaching about the Bible, because that represents a government establishment of religion. But in private schools that aren't sponsored by the government, you can teach religion all you want.XtremeJibber2001 wrote:There’s freedom of religion, but if a child talks about the Bible in the classroom ... it’s not exactly “protected” in the same way as a child’s homosexuality. Is there a double standard?
You're allowed to discriminate against people based on what they say.Kpdemello wrote:For the same reasons that freedom of religion, free speech, freedom of the press, and the right to be safe from unreasonable searches and seizures should be protected? Because we want people to be free to make choices they personally feel are right for them, that are private and have nothing to do with anyone else, without being discriminated against? Because that's the decent, human, moral thing to do?Highway Star wrote:If sexual orientation is a behavior due to environmental result or lifestyle choice, why would it be federally protected if other behaviors are not?
Kpdemello wrote:There's a difference between banning speech and social ostracism. Children are free to speak, and the children around them are free to ostracize them for it.
The bathroom and accommodation arguments I feel are a different category. The laws prevent discrimination based in sexual preference- i.e. you can't refuse to hire someone or refuse them services just because they are gay/trans. That doesn't guarantee someone a certain bathroom situation.
I'm not sure I understand how someone's sexual preference harms you or your family at all?ask Epstein's victims...
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
You're allowed to discriminate against people if you are liberal democrat. If not, keep your mouth shut, get in line and obey.Highway Star wrote:You're allowed to discriminate against people based on what they say.Kpdemello wrote:For the same reasons that freedom of religion, free speech, freedom of the press, and the right to be safe from unreasonable searches and seizures should be protected? Because we want people to be free to make choices they personally feel are right for them, that are private and have nothing to do with anyone else, without being discriminated against? Because that's the decent, human, moral thing to do?Highway Star wrote:If sexual orientation is a behavior due to environmental result or lifestyle choice, why would it be federally protected if other behaviors are not?
First and foremost acceptance and celebration of it by society exposes my family to it and normalizes it. I might be making too simple an example here, but to me it's just like how I protect my kids from violent television/games, cursing, etc. because if I didn't they may be influenced/drawn to it especially at young / formative ages.Kpdemello wrote:I'm not sure I understand how someone's sexual preference harms you or your family at all?
pretty sure the imaginary science says they are born that way so no worries about societal influence, it's not a factor...XtremeJibber2001 wrote:First and foremost acceptance and celebration of it by society exposes my family to it and normalizes it. I might be making too simple an example here, but to me it's just like how I protect my kids from violent television/games, cursing, etc. because if I didn't they may be influenced/drawn to it especially at young / formative ages.Kpdemello wrote:I'm not sure I understand how someone's sexual preference harms you or your family at all?