Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

The Ethics of political association

124

Posts

  • arod_77arod_77 __BANNED USERS
    edited November 2008
    Jeffe, I don't buy this hypothetical. If he's a card-carrying member of the BNP, which would very clearly indicate his beliefs, but it's not coloring his interactions with, say, a Muslim coworker, then is he really a member of the BNP or is he just one of the people inappropriately associated with them because of their loose membership standards?

    I just don't do hypotheticals like this because I see no reasons to believe that they exist in any substantial number. This person would have taken the action to associate themselves with the BNP, and on that standard alone I wouldn't want them acting as a representative under my employ because of what would likely happen.

    And, again, the comparison between the GOP and the BNP is not appropriate because there are many members of the GOP that eschew social conservativism. I doubt many of the willing members of the BNP are not white nationalists.

    I see your bullshit hypothetical and raise you a bullshit generalization.

    glitteratsigcopy.jpg
  • Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS
    edited November 2008
    arod, stop being a cock and actually explain whatever stupid thing you're trying to say.

    Spoiler:
  • japanjapan Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Shadowfire wrote: »
    japan wrote: »
    saggio wrote: »
    Does the BNP engage in terrorist acts? Do they have an armed wing?

    In answer to the first: Possibly. Members have been arrested for possession of explosives before, and David Copeland detonated nailbombs in Brixton and Brck Lane, though the BNP insist that he was no longer a member of the party at the time of the attacks.

    In answer to the second, there is a group called "Combat 18" which is allegedly a splinter group, and the BNP officially denies any connection to them. However they have acted as stewards at BNP rallies before. They've conducted campaigns of violence against those perceived to be "enemies" of the far-right cause, and routinely publish the names and addresses of the same, with the intention of making them targets for violence.

    EDIT: I strongly get the impression that some people may not be fully understanding the nature of the BNP. They're not merely a party that says unpopular things, they're generally regarded as being one of the public faces of the British Fascist movement, in a similar way to Sinn Fein being the public face of Irish Republicanism.

    Alright, so let us adapt this one to a situation in the U.S. the best way I can think of.

    PETA has members who are violent, but not acting on PETA's behalf. There are a couple of groups (ALF, ELF) that are allegedly splinter groups, and PETA officially denies any connection to them. However, they have acted as stewards at PETA rallies before. They have conducted campaigns of violence against those perceived to be "enemies" of PETA's cause, and routinely publish the names and addresses of the same, with the intention of making them targets for violence.

    So that said, should I be allowed to fire a member of my staff who is a member of PETA? Keep in mind Iam a manager in a grocery store, and we sell meat and other animal products.

    I don't think there's the same potential for harm when talking about militant animals rights protesters as there is when talking about militant racists. I'm pretty comfortable with the courts protecting someone's right to campaign for animal rights, and not extending that protection to campaigning for racist causes.

  • AldoAldo Hippo Hooray the swamp, always the swampRegistered User regular
    edited November 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Aldo wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    You know, some people - and I think you're one of them - consider some of the central tenets of the Republican party's mission statement disgusting. Things like prohibiting all abortion and keeping gays from marrying. So what's the difference?

    Beyond that, say you suddenly discover the guy you hired 5 years ago has been a member of a racist party all this time. Now, presumably, he hasn't been racism-ing up the place, since if he was you already would've fired him. What this says is that his retarded beliefs genuinely don't impact his ability to perform his job or work with his coworkers, even though he may find some of their beliefs horrible or want some of them to get the fuck out of the country. If he can keep his beliefs from interfering, I think you and his coworkers can manage the same.
    Republican party is not similar to the BNP, it is absolutely impossible to compare them on any grounds.

    Bullshit. The differences are quantitative, not qualitative. The Pubs are hardliners against illegal immigration, and have strong undercurrents of general anti-immigrant sentiment. I don't think the Pubs are anywhere near as bad, but that's not because of some fundamental, objective difference between the two. ANd, like I said, there are people who find the Pubs genuinely disgusting. What makes them wrong and us right? Hating women and gays (as some believe they do) is okay, but hating minorities isn't?

    You need to stand back and look at this from others' perspectives. The BNP is retarded and offensive, but not in a legally distinguishable fashion.

    Not bullshit, you're American, a British person just explained it to you. Either you believe him or you start citing some sources proving him wrong.
    japan wrote: »
    EDIT: I strongly get the impression that some people may not be fully understanding the nature of the BNP. They're not merely a party that says unpopular things, they're generally regarded as being one of the public faces of the British Fascist movement, in a similar way to Sinn Fein being the public face of Irish Republicanism.

    Elendil wrote: »
    said Aldo hazily, before clop-clop-clopping out of the room
  • arod_77arod_77 __BANNED USERS
    edited November 2008
    arod, stop being a cock and actually explain whatever stupid thing you're trying to say.

    You won't engage in a hypothetical because they don't exist in a "substantial number"

    which means to say that you generalize groups of people without knowing their minds or their hearts.

    I judge people base on their actions.

    The court system judges people based on their actions.

    As El Jeffe said, intent is used in determining motive.

    glitteratsigcopy.jpg
  • jungleroomxjungleroomx Aaron Hernandez shot me through the heartRegistered User regular
    edited November 2008
    I'm all for not hiring people that like Good Charlotte, by the way.

    This group shouldn't be discriminated against unless their belief systems inferfere with their work. People who discriminate against them at work when the person has done nothing wrong should be looked at with a bit of disdain, as it's counterproductive and not much different than not working with someone who is Muslim or black or what have you.

    Basically, bring them on board and let them work. They will either be a good employee or a bad one, judge them on that basis and that basis only.

    Spoiler:
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited November 2008
    Jeffe, I don't buy this hypothetical. If he's a card-carrying member of the BNP, which would very clearly indicate his beliefs, but it's not coloring his interactions with, say, a Muslim coworker, then is he really a member of the BNP or is he just one of the people inappropriately associated with them because of their loose membership standards?

    You're honestly asserting that no more than a dismissable minority of people are capable of maintaining professionalism when confronted with people they strongly dislike or disagree with? I was able to act with professional courtesy towards a woman who accused me of slacking off because I left work when my wife was hemmorhaging and had to be taken to the ER and treated me like shit directly to my face. She was an evil bitch and I hated her, yet I was able to interact with her professionally. I don't think my behavior was all that remarkable.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • arod_77arod_77 __BANNED USERS
    edited November 2008
    People who hold strange views can still have people skills. Business relationships are entirely different from religious and social relationships.

    There is a good reason for this.

    glitteratsigcopy.jpg
  • Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS
    edited November 2008
    No substantial number, if even at all.

    Here we go, here's how it'll work. Members of the BNP are white nationalists. Period. If they are a willful member, they are white nationalists. I am stating that an employer should have the right to dismiss or refuse employment to people based on the fact that they are white nationalists. How many times do I have to restate that before you'll read it and comprehend it? I'm not talking about making white nationalism a crime, for fuck's sake.

    Spoiler:
  • Jealous DevaJealous Deva Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    I think you all are missing a very important fact here:


    It is already, in the United States and many if not most western nations, completely and totally legal to not hire or fire someone for political affilitations. Not only is there legal precedent for this, there has never been a legal precedent in the other direction.

    If someone decides tomorrow they want to fire you for being a republican (and this could certainly come up if you were working for, say, a democratic congressional campaign), they can, barring the existance of a contract between the two of you setting specific terms for termination.

  • jungleroomxjungleroomx Aaron Hernandez shot me through the heartRegistered User regular
    edited November 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Jeffe, I don't buy this hypothetical. If he's a card-carrying member of the BNP, which would very clearly indicate his beliefs, but it's not coloring his interactions with, say, a Muslim coworker, then is he really a member of the BNP or is he just one of the people inappropriately associated with them because of their loose membership standards?

    You're honestly asserting that no more than a dismissable minority of people are capable of maintaining professionalism when confronted with people they strongly dislike or disagree with? I was able to act with professional courtesy towards a woman who accused me of slacking off because I left work when my wife was hemmorhaging and had to be taken to the ER and treated me like shit directly to my face. She was an evil bitch and I hated her, yet I was able to interact with her professionally. I don't think my behavior was all that remarkable.

    "I ain't never been to jail!" What do you want, a cookie?! You're not supposed to go to jail, you low-expectation-having motherfucker! - Chris Rock

    Sorry, it just reminded me of that quote.

    Spoiler:
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited November 2008
    Aldo wrote: »
    Not bullshit, you're American, a British person just explained it to you. Either you believe him or you start citing some sources proving him wrong.

    I'm basically imagining the BNP as the KKK. Are they worse? Because if the KKK suddenly formed a political party, I would argue the same in their defense.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited November 2008
    No substantial number, if even at all.

    Here we go, here's how it'll work. Members of the BNP are white nationalists. Period. If they are a willful member, they are white nationalists. I am stating that an employer should have the right to dismiss or refuse employment to people based on the fact that they are white nationalists. How many times do I have to restate that before you'll read it and comprehend it? I'm not talking about making white nationalism a crime, for fuck's sake.

    Fine. And I am saying that being a white nationalism should not be grounds for dismissal provided your workplace behavior is indistinguishable from non-white nationalists.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited November 2008
    And now I must go stop my son from eating my guitar.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS
    edited November 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Jeffe, I don't buy this hypothetical. If he's a card-carrying member of the BNP, which would very clearly indicate his beliefs, but it's not coloring his interactions with, say, a Muslim coworker, then is he really a member of the BNP or is he just one of the people inappropriately associated with them because of their loose membership standards?

    You're honestly asserting that no more than a dismissable minority of people are capable of maintaining professionalism when confronted with people they strongly dislike or disagree with? I was able to act with professional courtesy towards a woman who accused me of slacking off because I left work when my wife was hemmorhaging and had to be taken to the ER and treated me like shit directly to my face. She was an evil bitch and I hated her, yet I was able to interact with her professionally. I don't think my behavior was all that remarkable.

    Do you believe that every woman is going to be an intolerable bitch to you and that they don't have the right to share your country?

    Again, there's a difference, please grok. It's not about maintaining a professional face in spite of adverse situations, it's about contradicting very fundamental beliefs. If a person is doing this, they're probably changing their beliefs anyway, otherwise they're not very likely to keep up that professional manner.

    Spoiler:
  • jungleroomxjungleroomx Aaron Hernandez shot me through the heartRegistered User regular
    edited November 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Jeffe, I don't buy this hypothetical. If he's a card-carrying member of the BNP, which would very clearly indicate his beliefs, but it's not coloring his interactions with, say, a Muslim coworker, then is he really a member of the BNP or is he just one of the people inappropriately associated with them because of their loose membership standards?

    You're honestly asserting that no more than a dismissable minority of people are capable of maintaining professionalism when confronted with people they strongly dislike or disagree with? I was able to act with professional courtesy towards a woman who accused me of slacking off because I left work when my wife was hemmorhaging and had to be taken to the ER and treated me like shit directly to my face. She was an evil bitch and I hated her, yet I was able to interact with her professionally. I don't think my behavior was all that remarkable.

    Do you believe that every woman is going to be an intolerable bitch to you and that they don't have the right to share your country?

    Again, there's a difference, please grok. It's not about maintaining a professional face in spite of adverse situations, it's about contradicting very fundamental beliefs. If a person is doing this, they're probably changing their beliefs anyway, otherwise they're not very likely to keep up that professional manner.

    I work with people from all over the damn country, and while I've discovered some of them are hopelessly racist and homophobic I've never seen one act out in such a manner.

    Spoiler:
  • AldoAldo Hippo Hooray the swamp, always the swampRegistered User regular
    edited November 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    And now I must go stop my son from eating my guitar.
    Sure he's not mimicking Jimi Hendrix?

    If not: save your guitar! run! run faster!

    Elendil wrote: »
    said Aldo hazily, before clop-clop-clopping out of the room
  • japanjapan Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Aldo wrote: »
    Not bullshit, you're American, a British person just explained it to you. Either you believe him or you start citing some sources proving him wrong.

    I'm basically imagining the BNP as the KKK. Are they worse? Because if the KKK suddenly formed a political party, I would argue the same in their defense.

    I'd say they're broadly similar. Are you saying you think that someone should not be fired/denied a job because they are a racist, assuming that the evidence of their racism is their membership of the KKK?

    If that's what you're arguing, I don't think this is a difference of opinion that can be resolved.

  • Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS
    edited November 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Jeffe, I don't buy this hypothetical. If he's a card-carrying member of the BNP, which would very clearly indicate his beliefs, but it's not coloring his interactions with, say, a Muslim coworker, then is he really a member of the BNP or is he just one of the people inappropriately associated with them because of their loose membership standards?

    You're honestly asserting that no more than a dismissable minority of people are capable of maintaining professionalism when confronted with people they strongly dislike or disagree with? I was able to act with professional courtesy towards a woman who accused me of slacking off because I left work when my wife was hemmorhaging and had to be taken to the ER and treated me like shit directly to my face. She was an evil bitch and I hated her, yet I was able to interact with her professionally. I don't think my behavior was all that remarkable.

    Do you believe that every woman is going to be an intolerable bitch to you and that they don't have the right to share your country?

    Again, there's a difference, please grok. It's not about maintaining a professional face in spite of adverse situations, it's about contradicting very fundamental beliefs. If a person is doing this, they're probably changing their beliefs anyway, otherwise they're not very likely to keep up that professional manner.

    I work with people from all over the damn country, and while I've discovered some of them are hopelessly racist and homophobic I've never seen one act out in such a manner.

    These people are racist to the extent of joining a white nationalist party. Belief predicates behavior. Phobias and hatred come in a lot of flavors and intensities, and these people seem to be of the more intent, less given-to-cognitive-dissonance variety.

    Spoiler:
  • Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Phobias and hatred come in a lot of flavors and intensities, and these people seem to be of the more intent, less given-to-cognitive-dissonance variety.
    Of course, this is all supposition and/or anecdotal.

    sig.png
  • Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS
    edited November 2008
    So I can't assume a member of the KKK is a racist asshole now?

    So what's it like to operate completely free of context, reason, and rational judgment?

    Spoiler:
  • ÆthelredÆthelred Registered User
    edited November 2008
    I think you all are missing a very important fact here:


    It is already, in the United States and many if not most western nations, completely and totally legal to not hire or fire someone for political affilitations. Not only is there legal precedent for this, there has never been a legal precedent in the other direction.

    If someone decides tomorrow they want to fire you for being a republican (and this could certainly come up if you were working for, say, a democratic congressional campaign), they can, barring the existance of a contract between the two of you setting specific terms for termination.

    In the UK (and Western Europe, I assume) you have to have a "reasonable" reason to fire someone. America is exceptional in having widespread at-will employment - which is absurd.

    pokes: 1505 8032 8399
  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    and people wonder why unions are popular in the US. :P

  • ElJeffeElJeffe Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited November 2008
    japan wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Aldo wrote: »
    Not bullshit, you're American, a British person just explained it to you. Either you believe him or you start citing some sources proving him wrong.

    I'm basically imagining the BNP as the KKK. Are they worse? Because if the KKK suddenly formed a political party, I would argue the same in their defense.

    I'd say they're broadly similar. Are you saying you think that someone should not be fired/denied a job because they are a racist, assuming that the evidence of their racism is their membership of the KKK?

    If that's what you're arguing, I don't think this is a difference of opinion that can be resolved.

    Denied a job? Sure. If you have two candidates, and one is almost certainly a racist and the other, as far as you know, isn't, you'd be retarded to hire the former. All things equal, a non-racist is better than a racist. Not because he's simply a better person, but because he's more likely to be able to get along with other coworkers.

    When the guy has already worked there for some amount of time and has given every indication that he can function without his racism becoming an issue, then you have zero reason to fire him other than simply not liking what he believes in. Now, you have every reason to not like what he believes in. He's an asshole. But unless you want to argue that being an asshole outside the workplace is justifiable grounds for termination, I don't think you have much of an argument.

    And if you do think that being an asshole outside the workplace is justifiable grounds for termination even when such attitudes have no effect on work performance and wouldn't even be detectable absent outside information, where do you draw the line? Adultery is a total dick move. Should we fire people who cheat on their wives? How about fathers who weasel out of child support? People who flip off boxes of kittens?

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited November 2008
    I think you all are missing a very important fact here:


    It is already, in the United States and many if not most western nations, completely and totally legal to not hire or fire someone for political affilitations. Not only is there legal precedent for this, there has never been a legal precedent in the other direction.

    If someone decides tomorrow they want to fire you for being a republican (and this could certainly come up if you were working for, say, a democratic congressional campaign), they can, barring the existance of a contract between the two of you setting specific terms for termination.

    In the UK (and Western Europe, I assume) you have to have a "reasonable" reason to fire someone. America is exceptional in having widespread at-will employment - which is absurd.

    In the US, we do discriminate between being fired and being dismissed for other reasons for purposes of unemloyement benefits. If you're fired for cause, you can't collect unemployment. If you're let go for other reasons, you can.

    The downside, of course, being that unscrupulous employers can try to manufacture reasons why you were "fired" rather than "laid off", which happened to my wife.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • japanjapan Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    So, do you disagree with the Police and the Prison Service policies that membership of the BNP disqualifies candidates, and is grounds for immediate dismissal? Those policies stem from the fact that there is a clear and obvious conflict between what is expected of the role and the publicly expressed views of a hypothetical officer who is also a BNP member.

    Basically I think that there are very few circumstances in which belonging to the BNP would not represent a conflict of interest as far as an employer is concerned. I don't think the same could be said of adulterers, deadbeat fathers, etc.

  • ElJeffeElJeffe Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited November 2008
    In line with what I said above, I think it would be legitimate grounds for disqualification, but not for dismissal. Though I can see a reasonable argument that extra consideration is required of police officers, and it's more difficult to supervise them directly, and so such a revelation would be grounds for an immediate review.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    japan wrote: »
    So, do you disagree with the Police and the Prison Service policies that membership of the BNP disqualifies candidates, and is grounds for immediate dismissal? Those policies stem from the fact that there is a clear and obvious conflict between what is expected of the role and the publicly expressed views of a hypothetical officer who is also a BNP member.

    Basically I think that there are very few circumstances in which belonging to the BNP would not represent a conflict of interest as far as an employer is concerned. I don't think the same could be said of adulterers, deadbeat fathers, etc.

    Most of whom would not be qualified for police service either, so that argument doesn't quite hold. As ElJeffe noted, police generally have fairly strict hiring standards. They also have appearance issues few other professions have to deal with.

  • japanjapan Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    I don't think there's any possible way that the Police Force could practically be seen to have an active BNP member amongst them.

    People have rioted over far less, any city that didn't instantly dismiss BNP officers would burn.
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Most of whom would not be qualified for police service either, so that argument doesn't quite hold. As ElJeffe noted, police generally have fairly strict hiring standards. They also have appearance issues few other professions have to deal with.

    What are you basing this on? The policy came from a mass expulsion of closet BNP activist from the police force in about 2004, and the massive corruption problems that resulted.

  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    I don't have experience with the UK police, but over here? The deadbeat would sure as hell not be getting in. Adulterer, meh, possible.

  • Knuckle DraggerKnuckle Dragger Explosive Ovine Disposal Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    I am probably going to get slammed for it, but this is one of the two main reasons why I have no support or sympathy for the anti-prop 8 crowd (nor do I support those who are pro-8). No matter how much I disagree with the proposition, the harassment of individuals because they voted a particular way or donated to a particular campaign is absolutely abhorrent behavior in a democratic system. You want to go after them for what they do or what they say, feel free, but they have a right to vote how they see fit, and I cannot condone any attempt to force someone to do otherwise.

    sig-2699.jpg Iosif is friend. Come, visit friend.
  • japanjapan Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    I don't have experience with the UK police, but over here? The deadbeat would sure as hell not be getting in. Adulterer, meh, possible.

    Ah, misinterpreted, I thought you meant that most BNP members wouldn't qualify for Police service.

  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    the anti-prop 8 crowd
    So... everyone that opposes prop 8?

    PSN: allenquid
  • override367override367 Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    I am probably going to get slammed for it, but this is one of the two main reasons why I have no support or sympathy for the anti-prop 8 crowd (nor do I support those who are pro-8). No matter how much I disagree with the proposition, the harassment of individuals because they voted a particular way or donated to a particular campaign is absolutely abhorrent behavior in a democratic system. You want to go after them for what they do or what they say, feel free, but they have a right to vote how they see fit, and I cannot condone any attempt to force someone to do otherwise.

    Democratic systems don't apply when the rights of a minority are being stomped underfoot, otherwise we'd still have "WHITES ONLY" bathrooms. The constitution makes this pretty clear.

    If my understanding of it is correct the government doesn't technically even have the authority to do it, I mean it isn't stopping them, but then again it generally doesn't. Not allowing gays the same rights and freedoms as couples as straight people is an affront to the principles this country was founded on.

    XBLIVE: Biggestoverride
    League of Legends: override367
  • Knuckle DraggerKnuckle Dragger Explosive Ovine Disposal Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Quid wrote: »
    the anti-prop 8 crowd
    So... everyone that opposes prop 8?
    I don't oppose them, but due to the tactics used in their name (and even some of the arguments made on this board), it is not something I will associate myself with.

    sig-2699.jpg Iosif is friend. Come, visit friend.
  • Knuckle DraggerKnuckle Dragger Explosive Ovine Disposal Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    I am probably going to get slammed for it, but this is one of the two main reasons why I have no support or sympathy for the anti-prop 8 crowd (nor do I support those who are pro-8). No matter how much I disagree with the proposition, the harassment of individuals because they voted a particular way or donated to a particular campaign is absolutely abhorrent behavior in a democratic system. You want to go after them for what they do or what they say, feel free, but they have a right to vote how they see fit, and I cannot condone any attempt to force someone to do otherwise.

    Democratic systems don't apply when the rights of a minority are being stomped underfoot, otherwise we'd still have "WHITES ONLY" bathrooms. The constitution makes this pretty clear.

    If my understanding of it is correct the government doesn't technically even have the authority to do it, I mean it isn't stopping them, but then again it generally doesn't. Not allowing gays the same rights and freedoms as couples as straight people is an affront to the principles this country was founded on.

    Democratic systems still apply; they just cannot violate the Constitution. Like I said, if you want to challenge it in the courtrooms, like they did with "Separate but Equal", more power to you. Just don't demand people let you speak your piece while taking action against someone else for speaking theirs.

    sig-2699.jpg Iosif is friend. Come, visit friend.
  • arod_77arod_77 __BANNED USERS
    edited November 2008
    Quid wrote: »
    the anti-prop 8 crowd
    So... everyone that opposes prop 8?
    I don't oppose them, but due to the tactics used in their name (and even some of the arguments made on this board), it is not something I will associate myself with.

    You won't associate yourself with a push for civil rights because....some people get angry about not having civil rights?

    glitteratsigcopy.jpg
  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Quid wrote: »
    the anti-prop 8 crowd
    So... everyone that opposes prop 8?
    I don't oppose them, but due to the tactics used in their name (and even some of the arguments made on this board), it is not something I will associate myself with.
    I think you're kind of missing something here.

    Opposing prop 8 =/= being a dick. Like, by a long shot. In fact, opposing prop 8 pretty much just means you are for civil rights.

    PSN: allenquid
  • Knuckle DraggerKnuckle Dragger Explosive Ovine Disposal Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    arod_77 wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    the anti-prop 8 crowd
    So... everyone that opposes prop 8?
    I don't oppose them, but due to the tactics used in their name (and even some of the arguments made on this board), it is not something I will associate myself with.

    You won't associate yourself with a push for civil rights because....some people get angry about not having civil rights?

    Not unless the groups behind that push can disassociate themselves from the harassment of opposing voters. As of yet, I have only seen support or silence from the anti-8 groups. Their position may have the moral high ground, but I see no difference between harrassing or boycotting people who voted for prop 8 than I do harassing or boycotting the people who voted against it ("but we are in the right" is not a valid argument, since I am sure both sides believe that).

    sig-2699.jpg Iosif is friend. Come, visit friend.
  • arod_77arod_77 __BANNED USERS
    edited November 2008
    "Silence" isn't tacit endorsement when you are talking about a decentralized movement composed of probably close to 50 percent of the country.

    glitteratsigcopy.jpg
Sign In or Register to comment.