Although I do not approve of discrimination in any form, there are certain occupations when common sense should be the ultimate criteria. Just as it would not be discrimination to not hire a blind person to work as a life-guard at a public beach, it should not be considered illegal to not hire those with 'sexual issues' to be around children.
The Senate held a hearing on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) this week. ENDA would enshrine special rights for homosexuals in the workplace, based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
Craig Parshall, senior vice president and general counsel for National Religious Broadcasters, was the only witness to speak against the bill, although a number of pro-family groups are campaigning against it. Throughout the hearing, Parshall heard cries for fundamental fairness and rights.
"What about the civil rights, the civil opportunities and privileges of private enterprise," he said, "to conduct its business free of these exotic new value systems?"
Bill sponsors claim there is a religious exemption in the bill, but Parshall said it won't protect for-profit Christian organizations.
"They will, as a practical matter, get absolutely no exemption," he said. "They will be required to hire homosexuals and those with other 'gender identities' that violate Scripture's mandate."
> Although I do not approve of discrimination in any form, there are certain > occupations when common sense should be the ultimate criteria.
And although I do not approve of language mavens, there are certain languages -- English, for example -- in which "criterion" is ultimately the singular noun form.
(and this response has been more useful, informative, and entertaining than the original post)
> Although I do not approve of discrimination in any form, there are certain > occupations when common sense should be the ultimate criteria. Just as it > would not be discrimination to not hire a blind person to work as a > life-guard at a public beach, it should not be considered illegal to not > hire those with 'sexual issues' to be around children.
So I'm guessing you don't want young heterosexual men teaching adolescent girls in high school.
> On Nov 9, 5:14 pm, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote: > > Although I do not approve of discrimination in any form, there are > > certain > > occupations when common sense should be the ultimate criteria. Just as > > it > > would not be discrimination to not hire a blind person to work as a > > life-guard at a public beach, it should not be considered illegal to not > > hire those with 'sexual issues' to be around children.
> So I'm guessing you don't want young heterosexual men teaching > adolescent girls in high school.
Definitely not in close proximity to the girl's gym locker room or shower room. That is a great example you offered where common sense, not some discrimination law, should be the ultimate 'criterion' ( with special thanks to Haiku Jones for the lesson in proper English )
> > On Nov 9, 5:14 pm, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote: > > > Although I do not approve of discrimination in any form, there are > > > certain > > > occupations when common sense should be the ultimate criteria. Just as > > > it > > > would not be discrimination to not hire a blind person to work as a > > > life-guard at a public beach, it should not be considered illegal to not > > > hire those with 'sexual issues' to be around children.
> > So I'm guessing you don't want young heterosexual men teaching > > adolescent girls in high school.
> Definitely not in close proximity to the girl's gym locker room or shower > room.
Why's that, J? Are girls only horny when they're naked or getting dressed? Or do you fear for the man who is "unable" to control himself?
> That is a great example you offered where common sense, not some > discrimination law, should be the ultimate 'criterion' ( with special thanks > to Haiku Jones for the lesson in proper English )
Haiku kicked the shit out of any credibility your source had, J, correctly implying that the writer is an idiot. Just thought you should know. Since it's your source.
Oh, BTW: Where are the "SPECIAL" rights? What exactly ARE those special rights? Cuz I'm gay, and if there are special rights being doled out, I want to be sure to partake!
> > On Nov 9, 5:14 pm, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote: > > > Although I do not approve of discrimination in any form, there are > > > certain > > > occupations when common sense should be the ultimate criteria. Just as > > > it > > > would not be discrimination to not hire a blind person to work as a > > > life-guard at a public beach, it should not be considered illegal to not > > > hire those with 'sexual issues' to be around children.
> > So I'm guessing you don't want young heterosexual men teaching > > adolescent girls in high school.
> Definitely not in close proximity to the girl's gym locker room or shower > room. That is a great example you offered where common sense, not some > discrimination law, should be the ultimate 'criterion' ( with special thanks > to Haiku Jones for the lesson in proper English )
So, you, too, think guys have so little discipline that any glimpse of naked female flesh will send them into a rapine frenzy, eh? Sorry, Junkie Young, not all guys are like you.
> > > On Nov 9, 5:14 pm, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote: > > > > Although I do not approve of discrimination in any form, there are > > > > certain > > > > occupations when common sense should be the ultimate criteria. Just as > > > > it > > > > would not be discrimination to not hire a blind person to work as a > > > > life-guard at a public beach, it should not be considered illegal to not > > > > hire those with 'sexual issues' to be around children.
> > > So I'm guessing you don't want young heterosexual men teaching > > > adolescent girls in high school.
> > Definitely not in close proximity to the girl's gym locker room or shower > > room.
> Why's that, J? Are girls only horny when they're naked or getting > dressed? Or do you fear for the man who is "unable" to control > himself?
> > That is a great example you offered where common sense, not some > > discrimination law, should be the ultimate 'criterion' ( with special thanks > > to Haiku Jones for the lesson in proper English )
> Haiku kicked the shit out of any credibility your source had, J, > correctly implying that the writer is an idiot. Just thought you > should know. Since it's your source.
> Oh, BTW: Where are the "SPECIAL" rights? What exactly ARE those > special rights? Cuz I'm gay, and if there are special rights being > doled out, I want to be sure to partake!
You know, 'special rights,' like the right not to be harrassed. Since the christbots are the only ones demanding 'special rights,' there's no need to worry.
> > On Nov 9, 5:14 pm, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote: > > > Although I do not approve of discrimination in any form, there are > > > certain > > > occupations when common sense should be the ultimate criteria. Just as > > > it > > > would not be discrimination to not hire a blind person to work as a > > > life-guard at a public beach, it should not be considered illegal to not > > > hire those with 'sexual issues' to be around children.
> > So I'm guessing you don't want young heterosexual men teaching > > adolescent girls in high school.
> Definitely not in close proximity to the girl's gym locker room or shower > room. That is a great example you offered where common sense, not some > discrimination law, should be the ultimate 'criterion' ( with special thanks > to Haiku Jones for the lesson in proper English )
So, you, too, think guys have so little discipline that any glimpse of naked female flesh will send them into a rapine frenzy, eh? Sorry, Junkie Young, not all guys are like you.
J <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote: >Although I do not approve of discrimination in any form,
Because you nazi turds really believe that women should be kept in the kitchen, gays really are immoral, blacks really are inferior, all religions except yours are evil.
> Why's that, J? Are girls only horny when they're naked or getting > dressed? Or do you fear for the man who is "unable" to control > himself?
You mean that you would have no problem with a young, heterosexual male school teacher being around your teenage daughter while she was showering and getting dressed? Even if he controls his sexual urges, you'd still be comfortable knowing he was leering at her? And you call me sick?
> > That is a great example you offered where common sense, not some > > discrimination law, should be the ultimate 'criterion' ( with special > > thanks > > to Haiku Jones for the lesson in proper English )
> Haiku kicked the shit out of any credibility your source had, J, > correctly implying that the writer is an idiot. Just thought you > should know. Since it's your source.
Are you that stupid? The *only* point haiku made was to correct my usage of the word 'criteria'. The source of the article was never addressed.
> > > On Nov 9, 5:14 pm, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote: > > > > Although I do not approve of discrimination in any form, there are > > > > certain > > > > occupations when common sense should be the ultimate criteria. Just as > > > > it > > > > would not be discrimination to not hire a blind person to work as a > > > > life-guard at a public beach, it should not be considered illegal to not > > > > hire those with 'sexual issues' to be around children.
> > > So I'm guessing you don't want young heterosexual men teaching > > > adolescent girls in high school.
> > Definitely not in close proximity to the girl's gym locker room or shower > > room. That is a great example you offered where common sense, not some > > discrimination law, should be the ultimate 'criterion' ( with special thanks > > to Haiku Jones for the lesson in proper English )
> So, you, too, think guys have so little discipline that any glimpse ofnaked female fleshwill send them into a rapine frenzy, eh? > Sorry, Junkie Young, not all guys are like you.
Not so fast...I think that `J' may actually be on to something here. Hey, when he's right, he's right.
Putting his undeniable insights into practice, we should ensure that only gay men are allowed to teach school-age girls, and only lesbians will be allowed to teach young boys.
> > Why's that, J? Are girls only horny when they're naked or getting > > dressed? Or do you fear for the man who is "unable" to control > > himself?
> You mean that you would have no problem with a young, heterosexual male > school teacher being around your teenage daughter while she was showering > and getting dressed? Even if he controls his sexual urges, you'd still be > comfortable knowing he was leering at her? And you call me sick?
> > > That is a great example you offered where common sense, not some > > > discrimination law, should be the ultimate 'criterion' ( with special > > > thanks > > > to Haiku Jones for the lesson in proper English )
> > Haiku kicked the shit out of any credibility your source had, J, > > correctly implying that the writer is an idiot. Just thought you > > should know. Since it's your source.
> Are you that stupid? The *only* point haiku made was to correct my usage of > the word 'criteria'. The source of the article was never addressed.
An oversight since addressed. In fact, in that later post, I suggest that we act on some of your insights, using them to formulate a more sane social policy.
> On Nov 9, 5:14 pm, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote: > > Although I do not approve of discrimination in any form,
> Lie in sentence one. > No need to continue.
> PDW
So what? The subject got it right. What the Democrats are doing is utterly despicable. Every single one of them should be taken out and horsewhipped within an inch of their worthless lives.
> > Why's that, J? Are girls only horny when they're naked or getting > > dressed? Or do you fear for the man who is "unable" to control > > himself?
> You mean that you would have no problem with a young, heterosexual male > school teacher being around your teenage daughter while she was showering > and getting dressed?
Why are you answering a question with a question?
Which of the parties do you not trust? The horny teenage girl, or the horny heterosexual male? Are straight men REALLY so weak that they can't keep their enormous manly cocks in their pants around teenage girls?
> Even if he controls his sexual urges,
LOL!!!!!!!!!!! "If"?? The poor straight man, being tempted and all by a teenage girl. LOL!!!!!!!!
> you'd still be > comfortable knowing he was leering at her? And you call me sick?
Well, YOU'RE the one who has this locker-room fantasy involving a teenage girl and an older het male. That ain't MY fantasy, J.
> > > > On Nov 9, 5:14 pm, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote: > > > > > Although I do not approve of discrimination in any form, there are > > > > > certain > > > > > occupations when common sense should be the ultimate criteria. Just as > > > > > it > > > > > would not be discrimination to not hire a blind person to work as a > > > > > life-guard at a public beach, it should not be considered illegal to not > > > > > hire those with 'sexual issues' to be around children.
> > > > So I'm guessing you don't want young heterosexual men teaching > > > > adolescent girls in high school.
> > > Definitely not in close proximity to the girl's gym locker room or shower > > > room. That is a great example you offered where common sense, not some > > > discrimination law, should be the ultimate 'criterion' ( with special thanks > > > to Haiku Jones for the lesson in proper English )
> > So, you, too, think guys have so little discipline that any glimpse ofnaked female fleshwill send them into a rapine frenzy, eh? > > Sorry, Junkie Young, not all guys are like you.
> Not so fast...I think that `J' may actually be on to something > here. Hey, when he's right, he's right.
> Putting his undeniable insights into practice, we should > ensure that only gay men are allowed to teach school-age > girls, and only lesbians will be allowed to teach young > boys.
That really is the only acceptable way, I think, and J would have to agree.
One fine day in alt.atheism, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
> Although I do not approve of discrimination in any form, there are > certain occupations when common sense should be the ultimate criteria. > Just as it would not be discrimination to not hire a blind person to > work as a life-guard at a public beach, it should not be considered > illegal to not hire those with 'sexual issues' to be around children.
As usual, a strawman is your spokesperson.
-- Uncle Vic aa Atheist #2011 Christians are like Slinkys. They're boring, but they'll put a smile on your face when you push them down the stairs.
> > > On Nov 9, 5:14 pm, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote: > > > > Although I do not approve of discrimination in any form, there are > > > > certain > > > > occupations when common sense should be the ultimate criteria. Just a > s > > > > it > > > > would not be discrimination to not hire a blind person to work as a > > > > life-guard at a public beach, it should not be considered illegal to > not > > > > hire those with 'sexual issues' to be around children.
> > > So I'm guessing you don't want young heterosexual men teaching > > > adolescent girls in high school.
> > Definitely not in close proximity to the girl's gym locker room or shower > > room.
> Why's that, J? Are girls only horny when they're naked or getting > dressed? Or do you fear for the man who is "unable" to control > himself?
> > That is a great example you offered where common sense, not some > > discrimination law, should be the ultimate 'criterion' ( with special tha > nks > > to Haiku Jones for the lesson in proper English )
> Haiku kicked the shit out of any credibility your source had, J, > correctly implying that the writer is an idiot. Just thought you > should know. Since it's your source.
> Oh, BTW: Where are the "SPECIAL" rights? What exactly ARE those > special rights? Cuz I'm gay, and if there are special rights being > doled out, I want to be sure to partake!
The Democraps in Congress just gave your degenerate asses a pedophile protectiona act, while holding the lives of American soldiers hostage over a defense spending bill. That was one of the dirtiest things I've ever seen a Congress do. How appropriate that it was for the benefit of sodomites and child molesters.
> > Why's that, J? Are girls only horny when they're naked or getting > > dressed? Or do you fear for the man who is "unable" to control > > himself?
> You mean that you would have no problem with a young, heterosexual male > school teacher being around your teenage daughter while she was showering > and getting dressed? Even if he controls his sexual urges, you'd still be > comfortable knowing he was leering at her? And you call me sick?
Yes, Junkie, you are sick. Sick with hatred for people who are not like you.
> > > That is a great example you offered where common sense, not some > > > discrimination law, should be the ultimate 'criterion' ( with special > > > thanks > > > to Haiku Jones for the lesson in proper English )
> > Haiku kicked the shit out of any credibility your source had, J, > > correctly implying that the writer is an idiot. Just thought you > > should know. Since it's your source.
> > > > On Nov 9, 5:14 pm, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote: > > > > > Although I do not approve of discrimination in any form, there are > > > > > certain > > > > > occupations when common sense should be the ultimate criteria. Just as > > > > > it > > > > > would not be discrimination to not hire a blind person to work as a > > > > > life-guard at a public beach, it should not be considered illegal to not > > > > > hire those with 'sexual issues' to be around children.
> > > > So I'm guessing you don't want young heterosexual men teaching > > > > adolescent girls in high school.
> > > Definitely not in close proximity to the girl's gym locker room or shower > > > room. That is a great example you offered where common sense, not some > > > discrimination law, should be the ultimate 'criterion' ( with special thanks > > > to Haiku Jones for the lesson in proper English )
> > So, you, too, think guys have so little discipline that any glimpse ofnaked female fleshwill send them into a rapine frenzy, eh? > > Sorry, Junkie Young, not all guys are like you.
> Not so fast...I think that `J' may actually be on to something > here. Hey, when he's right, he's right.
> Putting his undeniable insights into practice, we should > ensure that only gay men are allowed to teach school-age > girls, and only lesbians will be allowed to teach young > boys.
> Do it for the children.
I dunno... Remember, Junkie thinks that only gay people are pedophiles. He might think that this is a 'Fox guarding the hen house' scenario.
> > On Nov 9, 5:14 pm, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote: > > > Although I do not approve of discrimination in any form,
> > Lie in sentence one. > > No need to continue.
> > PDW
> So what? The subject got it right. What the Democrats are > doing is utterly despicable. Every single one of them should be > taken out and horsewhipped within an inch of their worthless > lives.
Thank for that touch of conservationist melodrama.
|
