Who DOESN'T want to defend this one?

[O-PGManager]

Is the question I'm asking after RGP's resounding defense of "whites only"
high school proms.

Here is a lady fired from her job as a teacher, because she was outted as
being a lesbian in her mother's obituary. Yes, the year is 2013.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/skarlan/high-school-fires-teacher-after-her-partners-name-appeared-i

Have at it team... let's hear why a school's right to fire a veteran
teacher for bigoted, hateful reasons, is "what makes America great"!


Opie G. Manager
Rec.Gambling.Poker
Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator Emeritus (2009-2011)

[popinjay999]

On Apr 23, 9:25 pm, "O-PGManager" <ad63...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:

>
> Have at it team... let's hear why a school's right to fire a veteran
> teacher for bigoted, hateful reasons, is "what makes America great"!
>

What's hateful here is not that they fired her but rather your feeling
about Catholics, and America, that's what is hateful.

[risky biz]

Why would I want to defend that? Coincidentally, I just watched 'The
Children's Hour' a few days ago.

You can see how this is completely different from your other example,
can't you?

[Dave the Clueless]

A shitty thing to do, no doubt. Good ole Christian charity.

-------
JerryFOREX the retard thinks "Cornel Ronald West (born June 2, 1953) is an
American philosopher, academic, activist, author and prominent member of
the Democratic Socialists of America" is a right-winger! LOL! HAHAHAHAH!
What a moron!!!

[Mossingen]

"O-PGManager" wrote in message news:ie3k4ax...@news.ezprovider.com...

Is the question I'm asking after RGP's resounding defense of "whites only"
high school proms.

Here is a lady fired from her job as a teacher, because she was outted as
being a lesbian in her mother's obituary. Yes, the year is 2013.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/skarlan/high-school-fires-teacher-after-her-partners-name-appeared-i

Have at it team... let's hear why a school's right to fire a veteran
teacher for bigoted, hateful reasons, is "what makes America great"!

_________________________________________



I personally think the firing was repugnant, but it looks like she was a
teacher at a Roman Catholic School which has a highly public view on the
matter, which I'm sure she was aware of when she got the job. "Rights"
don't just extend to one person.

[popinjay999]

On Apr 24, 6:58 am, "Dave the Clueless" <a987...@webnntp.invalid>
wrote:

>
> A shitty thing to do, no doubt. Good ole Christian charity.
>

It's a Catholic school, and she knew the deal when she took the job.
The fact that it is 2013, as Opie mentioned, does not change the fact
that lesbianism is a sin. Especially when she looks like that.

[mo_ntresor]

On Apr 24 2013 8:44 AM, Mossingen wrote:

> I personally think the firing was repugnant, but it looks like she was a
> teacher at a Roman Catholic School which has a highly public view on the
> matter, which I'm sure she was aware of when she got the job. "Rights"
> don't just extend to one person.

this opie guy can't seem to get anything right.

mo_ntresor

[popinjay999]

On Apr 24, 8:22 am, "mo_ntresor" <amontilladofortun...@gmail.com>

>
> this opie guy can't seem to get anything right.
>
> mo_ntresor

That's the thing about people like Opie. They're always trying to
force their beliefs on others.

[fffurken]

On Apr 24, 3:44 pm, "Mossingen" <jhanki...@cox.net> wrote:

> I personally think the firing was repugnant, but it looks like she was a
> teacher at a Roman Catholic School which has a highly public view on the
> matter, which I'm sure she was aware of when she got the job.  "Rights"
> don't just extend to one person.

Wouldn't even be legal where I come from, or at least, she could sue
for wrongful dismissal.

Don't you have employment discrimination laws in America?

[BillB]

On 24/04/2013 9:14 AM, fffurken wrote:

> Don't you have employment discrimination laws in America?

They do. Those who fail to discriminate face heavy fines.

[fffurken]

On Apr 24, 5:25 am, "O-PGManager" <ad63...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> Is the question I'm asking after RGP's resounding defense of "whites only"
> high school proms.
>
> Here is a lady fired from her job as a teacher, because she was outted as
> being a lesbian in her mother's obituary.  Yes, the year is 2013.
>

> http://www.buzzfeed.com/skarlan/high-school-fires-teacher-after-her-p...

>
> Have at it team... let's hear why a school's right to fire a veteran
> teacher for bigoted, hateful reasons, is "what makes America great"!
>
> Opie G. Manager
> Rec.Gambling.Poker
> Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator Emeritus (2009-2011)

Pretty galling that she was there for 19 years too.

Hey, maybe the Catholic school was worried because she's a lesbian and
a physical education teacher. lol That's pretty hilarious isn't it.

[Dave the Clueless]

I can pretty much guarantee that she isn't competing with you for pussy.
Settle down, junior.

[Dave the Clueless]

A lesbian with long fingers is well hung.

[risky biz]

Sounds like the student body doesn't think so.

[risky biz]

On Apr 24 2013 7:44 AM, Mossingen wrote:

> I personally think the firing was repugnant, but it looks like she was a
> teacher at a Roman Catholic School which has a highly public view on the
> matter, which I'm sure she was aware of when she got the job. "Rights"
> don't just extend to one person.

Is a Catholic school considered a completely private school? I question
that. A school of that probable size may be considered public especially
if they receive any kind of state or federal funding for anything.

"According to a contract between the Columbus diocese and the Central Ohio
Association of Catholic Educators, teachers can be terminated for
"immorality" or "serious unethical conduct."

Will private sexual orientation stand up in a court as "immorality" or
"serious unethical conduct"? I doubt it.

Even if the school is defined as private why should their right to privacy
trump her right to privacy?

It's telling that the denouncer didn't have the character to open their
mouth publicly. It could be someone who just wants her job.

[Truthseeker]

On 4/23/13 10:25 PM, O-PGManager wrote:
> Is the question I'm asking after RGP's resounding defense of "whites only"
> high school proms.

Are you in an alternate universe? I did not see anyone here defend
"whites only" proms. Some of us defended the right of people to have
them, while also deploring them. And some of us resisted the attempts
to use the issue as a wedge.



--
Truthseeker

"On the Internet, no one knows you're a dog."

[Truthseeker]

We have freedom of religion. Or at least we used to, it's been under
attack lately.

Where you come from, would you require a Muslim school to server pork in
the cafeteria?

[fffurken]

On Apr 24, 7:30 pm, Truthseeker <truthsee...@nospam.us> wrote:

> > Don't you have employment discrimination laws in America?
>
> We have freedom of religion.  Or at least we used to, it's been under
> attack lately.

How exactly in your opinion does firing this woman based on her
sexuality uphold your freedom of religion?

Or, conversely, how would not firing this woman based on her sexuality
restrict your freedom of religion?

[VegasJerry]

On Wednesday, April 24, 2013 9:25:25 AM UTC-7, fffurken wrote:
> On Apr 24, 5:25 am, "O-PGManager" <ad63...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> > Is the question I'm asking after RGP's resounding defense of "whites only"
> > high school proms.
> >
> > Here is a lady fired from her job as a teacher, because she was outted as
> > being a lesbian in her mother's obituary. Yes, the year is 2013.
> >
> > http://www.buzzfeed.com/skarlan/high-school-fires-teacher-after-her-p...
> >
> > Have at it team... let's hear why a school's right to fire a veteran
> > teacher for bigoted, hateful reasons, is "what makes America great"!
> >
> > Opie G. Manager
> > Rec.Gambling.Poker
> > Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator Emeritus (2009-2011)

.
.> Pretty galling that she was there for 19 years too.

Another reasons for unions. And to get religion out of schooling.

"I am a racist. I hate niggers and spics and slants. I was born here.
We are not Africans. They stand on the corner and they can't speak
English. I can't even talk the way these people talk: These knuckleheads
say, Why you ain't, Where you is, What he drive, Where he stay, Where
he work, Who you be... These lower economic people are not holding up
their end. These People put their clothes on backward, their hats on
backward, pants down around the crack. With names like Shaniqua,
Taliqua and Mohammed and all of that crap. The same applies to 99
percent of all the black Americans. What part of Africa did they come
from? We have got to take the neighborhoods back. I should have included
kikes and lesbos too. Put all of them are in jail."
-- Susan the right-wing racist (April 11, 10:50 am)

[Truthseeker]

On 4/24/13 12:37 PM, fffurken wrote:
> On Apr 24, 7:30 pm, Truthseeker <truthsee...@nospam.us> wrote:
>
>>> Don't you have employment discrimination laws in America?
>>
>> We have freedom of religion. Or at least we used to, it's been under
>> attack lately.
>
> How exactly in your opinion does firing this woman based on her
> sexuality uphold your freedom of religion?

It wouldn't uphold mine specifically, I'm not Catholic. But I believe
in defending everyone's rights, not just my own.

> Or, conversely, how would not firing this woman based on her sexuality
> restrict your freedom of religion?

Again, not mine, but the religious freedom of her employers, who
consider her lifestyle immoral. You and I do not agree with that
position, but it is not for you or I to decide what someone else regards
as immoral or sinful. That's what freedom of religion is about.

As someone else pointed out, this teacher knew the tenets of the school
where she applied for work. She hid her lifestyle from them, knowing
that they would not accept it. IMO the dishonesty of that alone is
sufficient grounds for her firing, on its own, no matter if you believe
that a religious school should not have the right to have religious
standards for the teachers that they employ.

Too many people have a narrow, biased view of rights: they demand that
the rights that they want be respected, but refuse to respect the rights
of others. These threads put the spotlight on that hypocrisy.

[fffurken]

On Apr 24, 11:49 pm, Truthseeker <truthsee...@nospam.us> wrote:

> >>> Don't you have employment discrimination laws in America?
>
> >> We have freedom of religion.  Or at least we used to, it's been under
> >> attack lately.
>
> > How exactly in your opinion does firing this woman based on her
> > sexuality uphold your freedom of religion?
>
> It wouldn't uphold mine specifically, I'm not Catholic.  But I believe
> in defending everyone's rights, not just my own.

How exactly in your opinion does firing this woman based on her

sexuality uphold freedom of religion?

> > Or, conversely, how would not firing this woman based on her sexuality
> > restrict your freedom of religion?
>
> Again, not mine, but the religious freedom of her employers, who
> consider her lifestyle immoral.

How would firing this woman based on her sexuality restrict the
freedom of religion of those, in this case her employers according to
you, who think her lifestyle is immoral?

[Dutch]

Truthseeker wrote:
> On 4/24/13 12:37 PM, fffurken wrote:
>> On Apr 24, 7:30 pm, Truthseeker <truthsee...@nospam.us> wrote:
>>
>>>> Don't you have employment discrimination laws in America?
>>>
>>> We have freedom of religion. Or at least we used to, it's been under
>>> attack lately.
>>
>> How exactly in your opinion does firing this woman based on her
>> sexuality uphold your freedom of religion?
>
> It wouldn't uphold mine specifically, I'm not Catholic. But I believe
> in defending everyone's rights, not just my own.
>
>> Or, conversely, how would not firing this woman based on her sexuality
>> restrict your freedom of religion?
>
> Again, not mine, but the religious freedom of her employers, who
> consider her lifestyle immoral. You and I do not agree with that
> position, but it is not for you or I to decide what someone else regards
> as immoral or sinful. That's what freedom of religion is about.

Freedom of religion means freedom to believe and worship as you wish.

>
> As someone else pointed out, this teacher knew the tenets of the school
> where she applied for work. She hid her lifestyle from them, knowing
> that they would not accept it. IMO the dishonesty of that alone is
> sufficient grounds for her firing, on its own, no matter if you believe
> that a religious school should not have the right to have religious
> standards for the teachers that they employ.

The school should not have the right to ask for an applicant's sexual
orientation.

> Too many people have a narrow, biased view of rights: they demand that
> the rights that they want be respected, but refuse to respect the rights
> of others. These threads put the spotlight on that hypocrisy.

What if my religion says that non-believers are to be killed? <cough>
Islam </cough>

Isn't sexual orientation protected by your constitution like race,
creed, etc? I'm asking because I don't know. If so, then it can't be
used as the basis for discrimination in applying for a job or
accommodations.

The religious freedom these people have extends as far as not to have a
*personal* association with anyone they disagree with. They can also
dictate the curriculum being taught by any teacher, but not to deny them
employment based on a constitutionally protected right.

[risky biz]

On Apr 24 2013 4:06 PM, Dutch wrote:

> What if my religion says that non-believers are to be killed? <cough>
> Islam </cough>

Where does the Islamic religion say that non-believers are to be killed
for non-belief? This sounds odd because their holy scriptures I have read
do not specify this and, in fact, command that they protect believers of
other religions.

It is the Christian religion that commands in it's holy scriptures that
non-believers of Christianity be killed. You and BillB are following
orders very well, by the way.

[fffurken]

On Apr 25, 12:51 am, "risky biz" <a31d...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> On Apr 24 2013 4:06 PM, Dutch wrote:
>
> > What if my religion says that non-believers are to be killed? <cough>
> > Islam </cough>
>
> Where does the Islamic religion say that non-believers are to be killed
> for non-belief?

Please give up the childish defender of Muslims thing. You don't
really give a shit. Can't you annoy another newsgroup with it?

[fffurken]

PS. It's very old fashioned and there has been no need for it since
Irish Mike left RGP years ago.

[risky biz]

You are actually a complete and total moron.

[fffurken]

> I am actually a complete and total moron.

I know.

[Bill Vanek]

On 24/04/2013 9:14 AM, fffurken wrote:
> Don't you have employment discrimination laws in America?

No. None.

[Dutch]

risky biz wrote:
> Where does the Islamic religion say that non-believers are to be killed
> for non-belief?

Remember Salman Rushdie? The Danish cartoonist? Islam may not condemn
to death for simple non-belief, but don't dare show public disrespect
for their prophet. So I am not free in America to act on my religious
beliefs when it involves violating a basic right of another citizen.

[fffurken]

Apostasy in Islam (Arabic: ردة‎ riddah, literally means: "relapse" or
"regress" but usually translates to "apostasy", or ارتداد irtidād) is
commonly defined in Islam as the rejection in word or deed of one's
former religion (apostasy) by a person who was previously a follower
of Islam. Islamic scholarship differs on its punishment, ranging from
execution – based on an interpretation of certain hadiths – to no
punishment at all as long as they "do not work against the Muslim
society or nation."[1] The majority of Muslim scholars hold to the
traditional view that apostasy is punishable by death or imprisonment
until repentance, at least for adult men of sound mind.[2][3][4]
Several contemporary Muslim scholars, including influential Islamic
reformers have rejected this, arguing for religious freedom instead.[3]
[5][6][7]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam

[TruthSeeker]

On 24/4/13 4:59 PM, fffurken wrote:
> On Apr 24, 11:49 pm, Truthseeker <truthsee...@nospam.us> wrote:
>
>>>>> Don't you have employment discrimination laws in America?
>>
>>>> We have freedom of religion. Or at least we used to, it's been under
>>>> attack lately.
>>
>>> How exactly in your opinion does firing this woman based on her
>>> sexuality uphold your freedom of religion?

>> It wouldn't uphold mine specifically, I'm not Catholic. But I believe
>> in defending everyone's rights, not just my own.
>
> How exactly in your opinion does firing this woman based on her
> sexuality uphold freedom of religion?

Are you just playing dumb? It was a religious school, they have a right
to have standards for their employees in accordance with their religious
beliefs. Fundamental.

>>> Or, conversely, how would not firing this woman based on her sexuality
>>> restrict your freedom of religion?
>>
>> Again, not mine, but the religious freedom of her employers, who
>> consider her lifestyle immoral.
>
> How would firing this woman based on her sexuality restrict the
> freedom of religion of those, in this case her employers according to
> you, who think her lifestyle is immoral?

Are you just playing dumb? It was a religious school, they have a right
to have standards for their employees in accordance with their religious
beliefs. Fundamental.

It's about time you began to recognize and support the rights of people
whom you disagree with, as well as those who share your opinions. To do
otherwise is selfish, arrogant, and hypocritical.


--
TruthSeeker

[TruthSeeker]

On 24/4/13 5:06 PM, Dutch wrote:
> Truthseeker wrote:
>> On 4/24/13 12:37 PM, fffurken wrote:
>>> On Apr 24, 7:30 pm, Truthseeker <truthsee...@nospam.us> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Don't you have employment discrimination laws in America?
>>>>
>>>> We have freedom of religion. Or at least we used to, it's been under
>>>> attack lately.
>>>
>>> How exactly in your opinion does firing this woman based on her
>>> sexuality uphold your freedom of religion?
>>
>> It wouldn't uphold mine specifically, I'm not Catholic. But I believe
>> in defending everyone's rights, not just my own.
>>
>>> Or, conversely, how would not firing this woman based on her sexuality
>>> restrict your freedom of religion?
>>
>> Again, not mine, but the religious freedom of her employers, who
>> consider her lifestyle immoral. You and I do not agree with that
>> position, but it is not for you or I to decide what someone else regards
>> as immoral or sinful. That's what freedom of religion is about.
>
> Freedom of religion means freedom to believe and worship as you wish.

Good, so far we agree. Although you left off the part about the "free
exercise thereof." Such as not forcing people to act against their
religious beliefs.

>> As someone else pointed out, this teacher knew the tenets of the school
>> where she applied for work. She hid her lifestyle from them, knowing
>> that they would not accept it. IMO the dishonesty of that alone is
>> sufficient grounds for her firing, on its own, no matter if you believe
>> that a religious school should not have the right to have religious
>> standards for the teachers that they employ.
>
> The school should not have the right to ask for an applicant's sexual
> orientation.

Of course they should, if it's a private school and they have religious
beliefs that proscribe people who act in certain ways from their classrooms.

>> Too many people have a narrow, biased view of rights: they demand that
>> the rights that they want be respected, but refuse to respect the rights
>> of others. These threads put the spotlight on that hypocrisy.

> What if my religion says that non-believers are to be killed? <cough>
> Islam </cough>

Hey, you found something that shows that rights in conflict have
difficulties. Too bad you chose such an extreme to claim to be morally
equivalent (not employing someone vs. killing them).

> Isn't sexual orientation protected by your constitution like race,
> creed, etc? I'm asking because I don't know. If so, then it can't be
> used as the basis for discrimination in applying for a job or
> accommodations.

This is a problem we are wrestling with today, when the right to free
expression of religion conflicts with other rights. It's a shame that
so many people just toss the freedom of religion aside instead of taking
an objective view of the conflicts.

> The religious freedom these people have extends as far as not to have a
> *personal* association with anyone they disagree with. They can also
> dictate the curriculum being taught by any teacher, but not to deny them
> employment based on a constitutionally protected right.

That's how you want it. It's not how I want it, or how the Constitution
guarantees it. Public schools cannot discriminate based on sexual
orientation, private religious schools have the right to do so. IMO any
school has (or should have) the right to fire a teacher who has deceived
them.

For those who don't see the whole picture: I am not saying that not
employing gay or lesbian teachers is good or proper, I think such a
policy sucks. As is the case so often in these made-to-provoke threads,
I am defending human rights and liberty against those who sensationalize
to attack rights they don't like. I believe in defending ALL human
rights, both for people I find good and people I find not good.
Because, rights are universal, or they are not rights.



--
TruthSeeker

[fffurken]

On Apr 25, 2:57 am, TruthSeeker <TruthSee...@nof-nspam.us> wrote:

> > How exactly in your opinion does firing this woman based on her
> > sexuality uphold freedom of religion?
>
> Are you just playing dumb?

How exactly in your opinion does firing this woman based on her
sexuality uphold freedom of religion?

> > How would firing this woman based on her sexuality restrict the
> > freedom of religion of those, in this case her employers according to
> > you, who think her lifestyle is immoral?
>
> Are you just playing dumb?

How would not firing this woman based on her sexuality restrict the

freedom of religion of those, in this case her employers according to
you, who think her lifestyle is immoral?

Now here's the thing: You don't know what freedom of religion means.

As is normal for you, you'll define it any way you want (similar to
"human rights") add all the fake bells and whistles you want and then
just go with that writing paragraph after paragraph of nonsense.

[TruthSeeker]

Ah, you're beginning to see the concept of rights in conflict.

Now try examining why you automatically subordinate the right of free
expression of religion to gay rights, especially when the religion one
is the one explicitly spelled out in the First Amendment to the
Constitution.



--
TruthSeeker

[TruthSeeker]

On 24/4/13 8:04 PM, fffurken wrote:
> On Apr 25, 2:57 am, TruthSeeker <TruthSee...@nof-nspam.us> wrote:
>
>>> How exactly in your opinion does firing this woman based on her
>>> sexuality uphold freedom of religion?
>>
>> Are you just playing dumb?
>
> How exactly in your opinion does firing this woman based on her
> sexuality uphold freedom of religion?
>
>>> How would firing this woman based on her sexuality restrict the
>>> freedom of religion of those, in this case her employers according to
>>> you, who think her lifestyle is immoral?
>>
>> Are you just playing dumb?
>
> How would not firing this woman based on her sexuality restrict the
> freedom of religion of those, in this case her employers according to
> you, who think her lifestyle is immoral?

You didn't answer if you are really that ignorant about freedom of
religion or are just playing dumb. I already answered that and you cut it.

> Now here's the thing: You don't know what freedom of religion means.

LOL!!!!! Do you ever have THAT backwards.

> As is normal for you, you'll define it any way you want (similar to
> "human rights") add all the fake bells and whistles you want and then
> just go with that writing paragraph after paragraph of nonsense.

Here's where, if I point out that you are accusing me of your own
shortcomings, you'll claim that I'm just doing an "IKYABWAI." Even
though you are doing exactly that.

Do you really think you can persuade any rational reader with such tactics?

[Clave]

"TruthSeeker" <Truth...@nof-nspam.us> wrote in message
news:DrudnZ-SddwUEOXM...@giganews.com...

<...>

> Are you just playing dumb? It was a religious school, they have a right
> to have standards for their employees in accordance with their religious
> beliefs. Fundamental.

Um, not necessarily. An increasing number of parochial schools get federal
and state subsidies through vouchers and tax credits.

Jim

[fffurken]

On Apr 25, 4:16 am, TruthSeeker <TruthSee...@nof-nspam.us> wrote:

> Now try examining why you automatically subordinate the right of free
> expression of religion to gay rights

When did that happen?

[Clave]

"TruthSeeker" <Truth...@nof-nspam.us> wrote in message

news:DrudnZ6SddwEEOXM...@giganews.com...

<...>

> Good, so far we agree. Although you left off the part about the "free
> exercise thereof." Such as not forcing people to act against their
> religious beliefs.

If they want complete freedom to do such, let them COMPLETELY forgo any
state or federal funding.

Jim

[fffurken]

> "On the Internet, no one knows you're a dog."- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Your post is garbage. Rewrite it and make some sense this time.

[fffurken]

On Apr 25, 4:29 am, "Clave" <ChrisClav...@TheMonastery.com> wrote:
> "TruthSeeker" <TruthSee...@nof-nspam.us> wrote in message

Forcing people to act against their religious beliefs is allowing a
homosexual in their midst?

[Clave]

"fffurken" <fffu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:75ff45b3-d1c6-4447...@b10g2000vbu.googlegroups.com...

That's their story.

Jim

[fffurken]

On Apr 25, 4:40 am, "Clave" <ChrisClav...@TheMonastery.com> wrote:
> "fffurken" <fffur...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

What's yours?

I appreciate that you want to address this on a constitutional level
and the seperation of church and state (funding).

To me it's different, to me that's not seeing the wood for the trees.

[Pepe Papon]

On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 10:37:24 -0700, "risky biz"
<a31...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:

>On Apr 24 2013 8:14 AM, popinjay999 wrote:
>
>> On Apr 24, 6:58 am, "Dave the Clueless" <a987...@webnntp.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > A shitty thing to do, no doubt. Good ole Christian charity.
>> >
>>
>>
>> It's a Catholic school, and she knew the deal when she took the job.
>> The fact that it is 2013, as Opie mentioned, does not change the fact
>> that lesbianism is a sin. Especially when she looks like that.
>
>Sounds like the student body doesn't think so.

The student body doesn't get to decide the teachings of the Church.
--

Pepe Papon

[Pepe Papon]

On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 12:30:25 -0600, Truthseeker
<truth...@nospam.us> wrote:

>On 4/24/13 10:14 AM, fffurken wrote:
>> On Apr 24, 3:44 pm, "Mossingen" <jhanki...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I personally think the firing was repugnant, but it looks like she was a
>>> teacher at a Roman Catholic School which has a highly public view on the
>>> matter, which I'm sure she was aware of when she got the job. "Rights"
>>> don't just extend to one person.
>>
>> Wouldn't even be legal where I come from, or at least, she could sue
>> for wrongful dismissal.

>>
>> Don't you have employment discrimination laws in America?
>
>We have freedom of religion. Or at least we used to, it's been under
>attack lately.
>

>Where you come from, would you require a Muslim school to server pork in
>the cafeteria?

Bad analogy. A better one would be firing a teacher for being a pork
eater.
--

Pepe Papon

[Clave]

"fffurken" <fffu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:6fb23c7c-17e1-463e...@w1g2000vbw.googlegroups.com...

WTF? The law is the only recourse here, and if they're not taking federal
or state subsidies, they can hire and fire who they want for whatever reason
they want.

You're seriously mistaken if you're under the impression I don't think it's
despicable, but absent their acceptance of public money I don't see anything
actionable.

AAMOF, I hope she has lawyers looking into whether they *DID* accept any
public money.

Jim

[Pepe Papon]

On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 21:24:20 -0600, TruthSeeker
<Truth...@nof-nspam.us> wrote:

>On 24/4/13 8:04 PM, fffurken wrote:
>> On Apr 25, 2:57 am, TruthSeeker <TruthSee...@nof-nspam.us> wrote:
>>
>>>> How exactly in your opinion does firing this woman based on her
>>>> sexuality uphold freedom of religion?
>>>
>>> Are you just playing dumb?
>>
>> How exactly in your opinion does firing this woman based on her
>> sexuality uphold freedom of religion?
>>
>>>> How would firing this woman based on her sexuality restrict the
>>>> freedom of religion of those, in this case her employers according to
>>>> you, who think her lifestyle is immoral?
>>>
>>> Are you just playing dumb?
>>
>> How would not firing this woman based on her sexuality restrict the
>> freedom of religion of those, in this case her employers according to
>> you, who think her lifestyle is immoral?
>
>You didn't answer if you are really that ignorant about freedom of
>religion or are just playing dumb. I already answered that and you cut it.

He's saying that nobody's freedom of religion is restricted if that
woman continues to teach at the school. Everyone is perfectly free
to practice their Catholicism regardless of that particular teacher's
sexuality.
--

Pepe Papon

[fffurken]

Who was talking about legal recourse?

That's the trees, the wood is religious intolerance, bigotry and
discrimination.

[Pepe Papon]

On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 21:16:37 -0600, TruthSeeker
<Truth...@nof-nspam.us> wrote:

>On 24/4/13 7:28 PM, Dutch wrote:
>> risky biz wrote:
>>> Where does the Islamic religion say that non-believers are to be killed
>>> for non-belief?
>>
>> Remember Salman Rushdie? The Danish cartoonist? Islam may not condemn
>> to death for simple non-belief, but don't dare show public disrespect
>> for their prophet. So I am not free in America to act on my religious
>> beliefs when it involves violating a basic right of another citizen.
>
>Ah, you're beginning to see the concept of rights in conflict.
>
>Now try examining why you automatically subordinate the right of free
>expression of religion to gay rights,

He did no such thing. Firing an employee is not "free expression".
Having a lesbian teacher on staff does not, in any way , infringe on
anyone's freedom of expression.
--

Pepe Papon

[Pepe Papon]

On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 19:57:45 -0600, TruthSeeker
<Truth...@nof-nspam.us> wrote:

>> Freedom of religion means freedom to believe and worship as you wish.
>
>Good, so far we agree. Although you left off the part about the "free
>exercise thereof." Such as not forcing people to act against their
>religious beliefs.

Having a gay employee does not force anyone to act against their

religious beliefs.

>>> As someone else pointed out, this teacher knew the tenets of the school
>>> where she applied for work. She hid her lifestyle from them, knowing
>>> that they would not accept it. IMO the dishonesty of that alone is
>>> sufficient grounds for her firing, on its own, no matter if you believe
>>> that a religious school should not have the right to have religious
>>> standards for the teachers that they employ.
>>
>> The school should not have the right to ask for an applicant's sexual
>> orientation.
>
>Of course they should, if it's a private school and they have religious
>beliefs that proscribe people who act in certain ways from their classrooms.

The individual does not act "in certain ways" at the job site or
during hours of employment.
--

Pepe Papon

[Clave]

"fffurken" <fffu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:3985938b-da1a-49a1...@j14g2000vbk.googlegroups.com...

What in the wide world of fuck is your point?

Do you have some standard of outrage you don't think I'm sufficiently living
up to?

Jim

[fffurken]

Sorry, do you need me to repeat myself or did you have difficulty
understanding any part of it?

> Do you have some standard of outrage you don't think I'm sufficiently living
> up to?

You could have done better.

[Clave]

"fffurken" <fffu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:d63ee792-0fe9-4342...@12g2000vba.googlegroups.com...

<...>

>> Do you have some standard of outrage you don't think I'm sufficiently
>> living
>> up to?
>
> You could have done better.

Is "go fuck yourself" clear enough?

Jim

[fffurken]

On Apr 25, 6:19 am, "Clave" <ChrisClav...@TheMonastery.com> wrote:
> "fffurken" <fffur...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

What are you getting so touchy about?

[risky biz]

They can decide to become Unitarians and the Church knows that.

[risky biz]

On Apr 24 2013 5:26 PM, fffurken wrote:

> On Apr 25, 1:19 am, "risky biz" <a31d...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> > On Apr 24 2013 4:57 PM, fffurken wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Apr 25, 12:56 am, fffurken <fffur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Apr 25, 12:51 am, "risky biz" <a31d...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > > > > On Apr 24 2013 4:06 PM, Dutch wrote:
> >
> > > > > > What if my religion says that non-believers are to be killed?
<cough>
> > > > > > Islam </cough>

> >
> > > > > Where does the Islamic religion say that non-believers are to be
killed
> > > > > for non-belief?
> >

> > > > Please give up the childish defender of Muslims thing. You don't
> > > > really give a shit. Can't you annoy another newsgroup with it?
> >
> > > PS. It's very old fashioned and there has been no need for it since
> > > Irish Mike left RGP years ago.
> >
> > I am actually a complete and total moron.
>
> I know.

There you have it. Again. Mr. IKYABWAI rewriting or snipping what someone
else said because he's completely devoid of anything of his own to
contribute to any conversation.

[Clave]

"fffurken" <fffu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:140b24ce-b083-4148...@a14g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...

BEG pardon, but touchy? You're the one scolding at my level of outrage.

"Go fuck yourself" seems a pretty calm response, and it's all you're going
to get.

Jim

[fffurken]

On Apr 25, 6:35 am, "Clave" <ChrisClav...@TheMonastery.com> wrote:
> "fffurken" <fffur...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:140b24ce-b083-4148...@a14g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 25, 6:19 am, "Clave" <ChrisClav...@TheMonastery.com> wrote:
> >> "fffurken" <fffur...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:d63ee792-0fe9-4342...@12g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> <...>
>
> >> >> Do you have some standard of outrage you don't think I'm sufficiently
> >> >> living
> >> >> up to?
>
> >> > You could have done better.
>
> >> Is "go fuck yourself" clear enough?
>
> > What are you getting so touchy about?
>
> BEG pardon, but touchy?  You're the one scolding at my level of outrage.
>
> "Go fuck yourself" seems a pretty calm response, and it's all you're going
> to get.

You never have a pretty calm response to criticism, or more
specifically, what you perceive as criticism. I find you to be
hypersensitive and willing to go off at the drop of a hat. I'm usually
a little bit on edge around you to be honest.

[Clave]

"fffurken" <fffu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:621f6f85-cc16-48ff...@12g2000vba.googlegroups.com...

<...>

> You never have a pretty calm response to criticism, or more
> specifically, what you perceive as criticism. I find you to be
> hypersensitive and willing to go off at the drop of a hat. I'm usually
> a little bit on edge around you to be honest.

You'll never get a positive reaction from me telling me what I should and
shouldn't be outraged by, that's for god-damned sure.

I'm baffled that you're surprised by this.

Jim

[fffurken]

On Apr 25, 6:57 am, "Clave" <ChrisClav...@TheMonastery.com> wrote:
> "fffurken" <fffur...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

Outraged was your word. As I said, I appreciate you wanting to
approach this on a constitutional level it just doesn't seem to me to
be the bigger picture and I wouldn't let TruthProof masquerade
religious intolerance as freedom of religion but if you want to turn a
blind eye to that and concentrate on the legality of it then that's
certainly your choice.

[Clave]

"fffurken" <fffu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:7d869e26-a32c-4ea2...@w1g2000vbw.googlegroups.com...

> On Apr 25, 6:57 am, "Clave" <ChrisClav...@TheMonastery.com> wrote:

<...>

>> You'll never get a positive reaction from me telling me what I should and
>> shouldn't be outraged by, that's for god-damned sure.
>>
>> I'm baffled that you're surprised by this.
>

> Outraged was your word.

A word you seemed to agree with when you sniffily said I could have done
better at being.

> As I said, I appreciate you wanting to
> approach this on a constitutional level it just doesn't seem to me to
> be the bigger picture and I wouldn't let TruthProof masquerade
> religious intolerance as freedom of religion but if you want to turn a
> blind eye to that and concentrate on the legality of it then that's
> certainly your choice.

If you think you can successfully argue against entrenched religious
intolerance with what you believe to be a *morally* superior argument, knock
yourself out. I find that a stupid hill to die on, and that's what you'll
do -- not because your moral position is inferior, but that you don't
recognize the power of the *certainty* your opponents are armed with.

You'll convince the people who already agree with you and no more, and until
laws are changed, as I'm arguing, it's all pointless kabuki theater.

Yes, I'm making a sidetrack argument, but it's more potentially productive
than arguing your morality against someone else's -- it's just expedient.
If an organization accepts public money, they're not entitled to tax or
legal exemptions.

Want to run a an independent church or religious school? Great. Keep it
that way and we have no problem.

It was a back-door way to get Capone, and the parallels don't stop there.

Anyway, keep pursuing this avenue if you want. I'll be in back sharing
popcorn with my Senators.

Jim

[fffurken]

On Apr 25, 7:53 am, "Clave" <ChrisClav...@TheMonastery.com> wrote:

> > Outraged was your word.
>
> A word you seemed to agree with when you sniffily said I could have done
> better at being.

Seemed as good a response as any.

> > As I said, I appreciate you wanting to
> > approach this on a constitutional level it just doesn't seem to me to
> > be the bigger picture and I wouldn't let TruthProof masquerade
> > religious intolerance as freedom of religion but if you want to turn a
> > blind eye to that and concentrate on the legality of it then that's
> > certainly your choice.
>
> If you think you can successfully argue against entrenched religious
> intolerance with what you believe to be a *morally* superior argument, knock
> yourself out.  I find that a stupid hill to die on, and that's what you'll
> do -- not because your moral position is inferior, but that you don't
> recognize the power of the *certainty* your opponents are armed with.

I can argue that religious intolerance <> freedom of religion

> You'll convince the people who already agree with you and no more, and until
> laws are changed, as I'm arguing, it's all pointless kabuki theater.

That's RGP though isn't it, it's an exercise in futility in many
respects. Take TruthProof for example, I said before that I couldn't
get through to him if I drilled a hole in his fucking head, yet here I
am arguing with him again.

> Yes, I'm making a sidetrack argument, but it's more potentially productive
> than arguing your morality against someone else's -- it's just expedient.

Fair enough.

[Clave]

"fffurken" <fffu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:d3a5bc23-6d01-420d...@a14g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...

<...>

> I can argue that religious intolerance <> freedom of religion

Of course they aren't the same, but freedom of religion *implies* the
freedom to be religiously intolerant, to the extent local society allows.

There's that whole "legal" thing again...sorry.

Jim

[fffurken]

On Apr 25, 8:30 am, "Clave" <ChrisClav...@TheMonastery.com> wrote:

> > I can argue that religious intolerance <> freedom of religion
>
> Of course they aren't the same, but freedom of religion *implies* the
> freedom to be religiously intolerant, to the extent local society allows.

I don't agree with that. Freedom of religion is the freedom for an
indivdual or group to choose to believe in and practice *any*
religion, or no religion for that matter.

Where freedom of religion does not exist, for example in some Muslim
countries, you don't have a choice to practice anything but Islam and
you don't really have a choice to not practice it either.

[Clave]

"fffurken" <fffu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:ac831b3a-19eb-46f3...@a34g2000vbt.googlegroups.com...

> On Apr 25, 8:30 am, "Clave" <ChrisClav...@TheMonastery.com> wrote:
>
>> > I can argue that religious intolerance <> freedom of religion
>>
>> Of course they aren't the same, but freedom of religion *implies* the
>> freedom to be religiously intolerant, to the extent local society allows.
>
> I don't agree with that.

I don't care.

> Freedom of religion is the freedom for an
> indivdual or group to choose to believe in and practice *any*
> religion, or no religion for that matter.

That's as stupid a troll as anything pissky's done in the last month.

If you don't think "to the extent local society allows" is applicable, then
your argument is against America, not me, and we're back to GFY.

Jim

[fffurken]

On Apr 25, 9:01 am, "Clave" <ChrisClav...@TheMonastery.com> wrote:
> "fffurken" <fffur...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

You've lost me and you seem to have gone into hypersensitive mode
again.

If freedom of religion implies religious intolerance within societal
laws then that's the case where both freedom of religion exists and
doesn't exist.

You're not making any sense. Perhaps you need a dictionary to nail
this down for you.

[Clave]

"fffurken" <fffu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:331bdbe1-77d7-4edb...@k8g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...

<...>

> If freedom of religion implies religious intolerance within societal
> laws then that's the case where both freedom of religion exists and
> doesn't exist.

Say good night gracie -- time to go sacrifice your first-born.

Jim

[fffurken]

On Apr 25, 9:13 am, "Clave" <ChrisClav...@TheMonastery.com> wrote:
> "fffurken" <fffur...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

Concession accepted.

[Clave]

"fffurken" <fffu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:48e49f3f-3edc-4261...@gb2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...

LOL -- you don't even get the reference.

Jim

[fffurken]

On Apr 25, 9:19 am, "Clave" <ChrisClav...@TheMonastery.com> wrote:
> "fffurken" <fffur...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:48e49f3f-3edc-4261...@gb2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 25, 9:13 am, "Clave" <ChrisClav...@TheMonastery.com> wrote:
> >> "fffurken" <fffur...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:331bdbe1-77d7-4edb...@k8g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> <...>
>
> >> > If freedom of religion implies religious intolerance within societal
> >> > laws then that's the case where both freedom of religion exists and
> >> > doesn't exist.
>
> >> Say good night gracie -- time to go sacrifice your first-born.
>
> >> Jim
>
> > Concession accepted.
>
> LOL -- you don't even get the reference.

What did the reference mean?

[Clave]

"fffurken" <fffu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:51a13c0f-7506-4a4e...@z4g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...

I think you really don't know.

[fffurken]

On Apr 25, 9:47 am, "Clave" <ChrisClav...@TheMonastery.com> wrote:
> "fffurken" <fffur...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:51a13c0f-7506-4a4e...@z4g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 25, 9:19 am, "Clave" <ChrisClav...@TheMonastery.com> wrote:
> >> "fffurken" <fffur...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:48e49f3f-3edc-4261...@gb2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On Apr 25, 9:13 am, "Clave" <ChrisClav...@TheMonastery.com> wrote:
> >> >> "fffurken" <fffur...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> >>news:331bdbe1-77d7-4edb...@k8g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> >> <...>
>
> >> >> > If freedom of religion implies religious intolerance within societal
> >> >> > laws then that's the case where both freedom of religion exists and
> >> >> > doesn't exist.
>
> >> >> Say good night gracie -- time to go sacrifice your first-born.
>
> >> >> Jim
>
> >> > Concession accepted.
>
> >> LOL -- you don't even get the reference.
>
> > What did the reference mean?
>

> I think you really don't know.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You're right, I don't. Why don't you tell me?

Why do you make it so difficult to have a conservation with you when
it gets to a stage like this? It's like pulling teeth. Also reminds me
of trying to talk to Beldin when he's cornered.

[Clave]

"fffurken" <fffu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:d7f58c17-a6a9-4926...@f18g2000vbs.googlegroups.com...

> On Apr 25, 9:47 am, "Clave" <ChrisClav...@TheMonastery.com> wrote:
>> "fffurken" <fffur...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:51a13c0f-7506-4a4e...@z4g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Apr 25, 9:19 am, "Clave" <ChrisClav...@TheMonastery.com> wrote:
>> >> "fffurken" <fffur...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:48e49f3f-3edc-4261...@gb2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> > On Apr 25, 9:13 am, "Clave" <ChrisClav...@TheMonastery.com> wrote:
>> >> >> "fffurken" <fffur...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >> >>news:331bdbe1-77d7-4edb...@k8g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> >> <...>
>>
>> >> >> > If freedom of religion implies religious intolerance within
>> >> >> > societal
>> >> >> > laws then that's the case where both freedom of religion exists
>> >> >> > and
>> >> >> > doesn't exist.
>>
>> >> >> Say good night gracie -- time to go sacrifice your first-born.
>>
>> >> >> Jim
>>
>> >> > Concession accepted.
>>
>> >> LOL -- you don't even get the reference.
>>
>> > What did the reference mean?
>>
>> I think you really don't know.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> You're right, I don't. Why don't you tell me?

I think I like it when you're on edge around me. You don't strike me as a
very honest person.

Jim

[fffurken]

> Jim- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Just admit you were talking out of your ass and we'll be done with it.
Did you even have a *clue* what religious freedom means?

[Clave]

"fffurken" <fffu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:000d0899-34c2-4d3a...@a3g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...

<...>

> Just admit you were talking out of your ass and we'll be done with it.
> Did you even have a *clue* what religious freedom means?

Tell me how it differs from any other kind.

Jim

[fffurken]

On Apr 25, 10:06 am, "Clave" <ChrisClav...@TheMonastery.com> wrote:
> "fffurken" <fffur...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

That's hardly the point Jim. You said religious freedom implies
religious intolerance within societal laws. You were stepping outside
the boundaries of the what religious freedom means. You may as well
have gone over and sat with Truthseeker in the dunce corner.

[Clave]

"fffurken" <fffu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:69befb89-88a0-44f5...@b3g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...

<...>

> You said religious freedom implies
> religious intolerance within societal laws. You were stepping outside
> the boundaries of the what religious freedom means.

That's what it means in the country I live in. Put the goalposts wherever
else suits your arguments.

You also (once again) fail to distinguish religious freedom from any other
kind, meaning you're out of arguments. Google "sacrifice first born" for a
clue or two.

Heh -- you've probably already done that, hence the risky-type "I can't be
wrong" trolling.

*yawn*

You really don't have anything better than this?

Jim

[fffurken]

On Apr 25, 10:22 am, "Clave" <ChrisClav...@TheMonastery.com> wrote:
> "fffurken" <fffur...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

>
> news:69befb89-88a0-44f5...@b3g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...
>
> <...>
>
> > You said religious freedom implies
> > religious intolerance within societal laws. You were stepping outside
> > the boundaries of the what religious freedom means.
>
> That's what it means in the country I live in.

Is there an American specific definition of freedom of religion I'm
not aware of? Or is that all in your head?

[Clave]

"fffurken" <fffu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:2ee3addb-6d98-4049...@j14g2000vbk.googlegroups.com...

Your awareness is the subject of increasing question.

Jim

[fffurken]

On Apr 25, 10:32 am, "Clave" <ChrisClav...@TheMonastery.com> wrote:
> "fffurken" <fffur...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:2ee3addb-6d98-4049...@j14g2000vbk.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Apr 25, 10:22 am, "Clave" <ChrisClav...@TheMonastery.com> wrote:
> >> "fffurken" <fffur...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:69befb89-88a0-44f5...@b3g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> <...>
>
> >> > You said religious freedom implies
> >> > religious intolerance within societal laws. You were stepping outside
> >> > the boundaries of the what religious freedom means.
>
> >> That's what it means in the country I live in.
>
> > Is there an American specific definition of freedom of religion I'm
> > not aware of?
>
> Your awareness is the subject of increasing question.
>
> Jim

I'm going to bed.

You can educate yourself further with this -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion

I don't see anything about bigotry in there.

[Clave]

"fffurken" <fffu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:339596dc-2979-4f6e...@y2g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...

> On Apr 25, 10:32 am, "Clave" <ChrisClav...@TheMonastery.com> wrote:
>> "fffurken" <fffur...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:2ee3addb-6d98-4049...@j14g2000vbk.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Apr 25, 10:22 am, "Clave" <ChrisClav...@TheMonastery.com> wrote:
>> >> "fffurken" <fffur...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:69befb89-88a0-44f5...@b3g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> <...>
>>
>> >> > You said religious freedom implies
>> >> > religious intolerance within societal laws. You were stepping
>> >> > outside
>> >> > the boundaries of the what religious freedom means.
>>
>> >> That's what it means in the country I live in.
>>
>> > Is there an American specific definition of freedom of religion I'm
>> > not aware of?
>>
>> Your awareness is the subject of increasing question.
>>
>> Jim
>
> I'm going to bed.

Concession accepted.

[fffurken]

On Apr 25, 10:44 am, "Clave" <ChrisClav...@TheMonastery.com> wrote:
> "fffurken" <fffur...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:339596dc-2979-4f6e...@y2g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 25, 10:32 am, "Clave" <ChrisClav...@TheMonastery.com> wrote:
> >> "fffurken" <fffur...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:2ee3addb-6d98-4049...@j14g2000vbk.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On Apr 25, 10:22 am, "Clave" <ChrisClav...@TheMonastery.com> wrote:
> >> >> "fffurken" <fffur...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> >>news:69befb89-88a0-44f5...@b3g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> >> <...>
>
> >> >> > You said religious freedom implies
> >> >> > religious intolerance within societal laws. You were stepping
> >> >> > outside
> >> >> > the boundaries of the what religious freedom means.
>
> >> >> That's what it means in the country I live in.
>
> >> > Is there an American specific definition of freedom of religion I'm
> >> > not aware of?
>
> >> Your awareness is the subject of increasing question.
>
> >> Jim
>
> > I'm going to bed.
>

> Concession accepted.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

No concession was made.

I didn't realise how closely you follow Truthseeker's
(mis)understanding of religious freedom but it's become pretty fucking
clear now why you said nothing about Truthseeker's mixing up of
religious intolerance with religious freedom as you are equally
confused.

[VegasJerry]

On Thursday, April 25, 2013 2:12:23 AM UTC-7, fffurken wrote:
> On Apr 25, 10:06 am, "Clave" <ChrisClav...@TheMonastery.com> wrote:
> > "fffurken" <fffur...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > news:000d0899-34c2-4d3a...@a3g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > <...>
> >
> > > Just admit you were talking out of your ass and we'll be done with it.
> > > Did you even have a *clue* what religious freedom means?
> >
> > Tell me how it differs from any other kind.
> >
> > Jim

I've monitored you and Clave's discussion and backed up to this statement of yours to help (Clave) show you the error of your ways:

.
.> That's hardly the point Jim. You said religious freedom

> implies religious intolerance within societal laws.

And this is precisely the point.

> You were stepping outside the boundaries of the what
> religious freedom means.

Hardly. The various religions in this country retain the ability to exhibit and enforce their intolerances. And they claim a 'freedom' to do so. Perhaps it's time you put in writing, what you consider the boundaries of what religious freedom means and what's outside those boundries.

> You may as well have gone over and sat with
> Truthseeker in the dunce corner.

Oh, please, don't be childish. Show us your boundaries while I make a list of religious intolerances exhibited by various religions in our country - and their often successful changes in societal laws.

Jerry 'n Vegas

[fffurken]

On Apr 25, 5:00 pm, VegasJerry <jerr...@cox.net> wrote:

> I've monitored you and Clave's discussion ...

Were you biding your time before you dropped in with stupid?

> > You were stepping outside the boundaries of the what
> > religious freedom means.
>
> Hardly. The various religions in this country retain the ability to exhibit and enforce their intolerances. And they claim a 'freedom' to do so. Perhaps it's time you put in writing, what you consider the boundaries of what religious freedom means and what's outside those boundries.

I've made it perfectly clear what I think freedom of religion is and
that it does not allow for or imply religious intolerance.

> > You may as well have gone over and sat with
> > Truthseeker in the dunce corner.
>
> Oh, please, don't be childish. Show us your boundaries while I make a list of religious intolerances exhibited by various religions in our country - and their often successful changes in societal laws.

This conversation has been beyond your abilities of comprehension
Jerry and you're fighting against a phantom.

[VegasJerry]

On Thursday, April 25, 2013 9:23:48 AM UTC-7, fffurken wrote:
> On Apr 25, 5:00 pm, VegasJerry <jerr...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > I've monitored you and Clave's discussion ...

.
.> Were you biding your time before you dropped in with stupid?

No, I read all your dodges and whining - THAT is what was stupid.

> > > You were stepping outside the boundaries of the what
> > > religious freedom means.
> >
> > Hardly. The various religions in this country retain the ability to exhibit and
> > enforce their intolerances. And they claim a 'freedom' to do so. Perhaps it's
> > time you put in writing, what you consider the boundaries of what religious
> > freedom means and what's outside those boundries.

> I've made it perfectly clear what I think freedom of religion is and
> that it does not allow for or imply religious intolerance.

No, you haven't. And, obviously, you can't actually put it in writing…..

> > > You may as well have gone over and sat with
> > > Truthseeker in the dunce corner.
> >
> > Oh, please, don't be childish. Show us your boundaries while I make
> > a list of religious intolerances exhibited by various religions in our
> > country - and their often successful changes in societal laws.

.
.> This conversation has been beyond your abilities of comprehension

> Jerry and you're fighting against a phantom.

Like I said, you're unable to show or list. It's religious intolerance; I can list it, and you know it.

What was the phrase? … Incompetence accepted? Have another bad day.


Jerry 'n Vegas

[fffurken]

Idiot.

[Truthseeker]

On 4/24/13 10:25 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 21:24:20 -0600, TruthSeeker
> <Truth...@nof-nspam.us> wrote:

>> You didn't answer if you are really that ignorant about freedom of
>> religion or are just playing dumb. I already answered that and you cut it.

> He's saying that nobody's freedom of religion is restricted if that
> woman continues to teach at the school. Everyone is perfectly free
> to practice their Catholicism regardless of that particular teacher's
> sexuality.

I know what he's saying, but he's wrong. He's taking a very narrow view
of religious freedom, apparently due to hostility to religion (or that
religion). Religious freedom includes not being forced to employ people
that the institution finds unacceptable due to the institution's
religious convictions. And it's not for HIM to decide what would be
unacceptable for them.



--
Truthseeker

"On the Internet, no one knows you're a dog."

[Truthseeker]

On 4/24/13 10:36 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 21:16:37 -0600, TruthSeeker
> <Truth...@nof-nspam.us> wrote:
>
>> On 24/4/13 7:28 PM, Dutch wrote:
>>> risky biz wrote:
>>>> Where does the Islamic religion say that non-believers are to be killed
>>>> for non-belief?
>>>
>>> Remember Salman Rushdie? The Danish cartoonist? Islam may not condemn
>>> to death for simple non-belief, but don't dare show public disrespect
>>> for their prophet. So I am not free in America to act on my religious
>>> beliefs when it involves violating a basic right of another citizen.
>>
>> Ah, you're beginning to see the concept of rights in conflict.
>>
>> Now try examining why you automatically subordinate the right of free
>> expression of religion to gay rights,
>
> He did no such thing. Firing an employee is not "free expression".
> Having a lesbian teacher on staff does not, in any way , infringe on
> anyone's freedom of expression.

Sorry, "free exercise," not "free expression." I misquoted the
amendment. Forcing a religious institution to hire someone who is
unacceptable under their religious beliefs is a clear violation of their
free EXERCISE of religion.

[Truthseeker]

On 4/24/13 10:23 PM, Clave wrote:

> WTF? The law is the only recourse here, and if they're not taking federal
> or state subsidies, they can hire and fire who they want for whatever reason
> they want.
>
> You're seriously mistaken if you're under the impression I don't think it's
> despicable, but absent their acceptance of public money I don't see anything
> actionable.
>
> AAMOF, I hope she has lawyers looking into whether they *DID* accept any
> public money.

It's ridiculous to claim that the first dollar of public money that any
private institution accepts subjects all of their actions to government
edict. That's an approach of those who want to erode rights and make
the government all-pervasive.

For example, a religious school could accept public money to subsidize
lunches for poor students, and nothing beyond that program would be
affected. Or they could accept public school buses bringing handicapped
students to their school, and again not have any government interference
in their rights of what teachers they can hire.

[Truthseeker]

On 4/24/13 10:36 PM, fffurken wrote:

> On Apr 25, 5:23 am, "Clave" <ChrisClav...@TheMonastery.com> wrote:

>> WTF? The law is the only recourse here
>

> Who was talking about legal recourse?
>
> That's the trees, the wood is religious intolerance, bigotry and
> discrimination.

And right out in the open clearing is your bigotry and intolerance of
religion.

[Clave]

"Truthseeker" <truth...@nospam.us> wrote in message
news:Ap6dnba725QR4uTM...@giganews.com...

> On 4/24/13 10:23 PM, Clave wrote:
>
>> WTF? The law is the only recourse here, and if they're not taking
>> federal
>> or state subsidies, they can hire and fire who they want for whatever
>> reason
>> they want.
>>
>> You're seriously mistaken if you're under the impression I don't think
>> it's
>> despicable, but absent their acceptance of public money I don't see
>> anything
>> actionable.
>>
>> AAMOF, I hope she has lawyers looking into whether they *DID* accept any
>> public money.
>
> It's ridiculous to claim that the first dollar of public money that any
> private institution accepts subjects all of their actions to government

> edict...

Hence my not claiming that.

Find some other ankles to bite.

Jim

[Truthseeker]

On 4/24/13 10:22 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 12:30:25 -0600, Truthseeker
> <truth...@nospam.us> wrote:

>> We have freedom of religion. Or at least we used to, it's been under
>> attack lately.
>>
>> Where you come from, would you require a Muslim school to server pork in
>> the cafeteria?
>
> Bad analogy. A better one would be firing a teacher for being a pork

If they have a policy of requiring employees to keep kosher, that would
be their right. Do you not see that?

Many jobs and employers have standards for employee conduct both on and
off the job, legally.

[Dutch]

The owner of a lodging house may not like blacks, he may believe they
are immoral low-lifes, that is his right to believe that; but that does
not give him the right to discriminate against them in conducting his
business. This is no different.

[Dutch]

Sexual orientation is not "conduct" any more than race.

[fffurken]

On Apr 25, 7:59 pm, Truthseeker <truthsee...@nospam.us> wrote:

> > He's saying that nobody's freedom of religion is restricted if that
> > woman continues to teach at the school.   Everyone is perfectly free
> > to practice their Catholicism regardless of that particular teacher's
> > sexuality.
>
> I know what he's saying, but he's wrong.  He's taking a very narrow view
> of religious freedom

I'm not, you're taking a very broad view of it such is your want. No
one should be surprised, you did the same thing calling gun ownership
a fundamental human right (which many see freedom of religion as
also).

Just call a spade a fucking spade, firing this woman based on her
sexuality was religious intolerance, not freedom of religion. If it's
legal, it's legal, if you support it because you're a religious bigot
yourself, then fine. But call it what it is.

If she had magically turned black overnight and was fired for that, no
one would have a problem calling it racism. But religious bigotry gets
a pass, or in this case, called freedom of religion by the likes of
you because it puts a better gloss on it.

[Clave]

"fffurken" <fffu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:9e87f2af-1d3a-42b6...@y2g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...

> On Apr 25, 7:59 pm, Truthseeker <truthsee...@nospam.us> wrote:
>
>> > He's saying that nobody's freedom of religion is restricted if that
>> > woman continues to teach at the school. Everyone is perfectly free
>> > to practice their Catholicism regardless of that particular teacher's
>> > sexuality.
>>
>> I know what he's saying, but he's wrong. He's taking a very narrow view
>> of religious freedom
>
> I'm not, you're taking a very broad view of it such is your want. No
> one should be surprised, you did the same thing calling gun ownership
> a fundamental human right (which many see freedom of religion as
> also).
>
> Just call a spade a fucking spade, firing this woman based on her

> sexuality was religious intolerance, not freedom of religion...

You really don't know what the fuck you're talking about. In this context,
absent state sponsorship or criminal activity, they're inseparable.

Jim

[fffurken]

On Apr 25, 8:49 pm, "Clave" <ChrisClav...@TheMonastery.com> wrote:
> "fffurken" <fffur...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> Jim- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Are you still here?

[Clave]

"fffurken" <fffu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:34fcc2f9-8696-470e...@16g2000vbx.googlegroups.com...

I never abandon a good clown show. Please keep posting.

Jim

[fffurken]

I'd rather you didn't. If you haven't learned a thing at this stage
you're a hopeless case.

[Clave]

"fffurken" <fffu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:42a07b29-3842-4694...@m1g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...

Oh, but I have -- I've learned that you can be as big a pompous horse's ass
as anyone on Usenet.

Jim

[fffurken]

Good for you.