Death of womens sports

[USC2USC]

I dont see that at all, which is why I clarified with unrepentant.

A church might hire a recovering alcoholic, but not a man who flaunts his addiction with no plans of stopping.

In reality, churches hire on moral grounds all the time, based on who people are. I can see where regular businesses cant make moral choices like that, but I think a church should be able to.

The fact that you draw a parallel between someone who drinks too much and someone who is gay says everything needed about your views.

Hey, i get it. Bigoted churches get really mad when government structures tell them they can't be bigots. Maybe they should offer to give up their tax exmept status.

 

[Lurker123]

The fact that you draw a parallel between someone who drinks too much and someone who is gay says everything needed about your views.

Hey, i get it. Bigoted churches get really mad when government structures tell them they can't be bigots. Maybe they should offer to give up their tax exmept status.

Didn't draw a parallel, I brought up another example that wouldn't trigger people over the gay component. Hoping for honest debate.

But your second paragraph shows where your true thoughts are on churches, and how you have no interest in honest debate.

 

[leftneck]

Yep, yank their tax-exempt status pronto!

If they are gonna be bitching about not being able to discriminate...even more reason to do so.

 

[USC2USC]

Didn't draw a parallel, I brought up another example that wouldn't trigger people over the gay component. Hoping for honest debate.

But your second paragraph shows where your true thoughts are on churches, and how you have no interest in honest debate.

Come on. Your statment absolutely draws a parallel reference even if that was not your intent.

My "opinion" on churches (and you have no clue what that is) has nothing to do with the expectation that any institutiuon that receives federal and state tax exempt status has to follow federal laws and Supreme Court decisions on non-descrimination. It is that pesky founding American principal of seperation of church and state.

By the way, I attend a church that would never discriminate against anyone as worded in this Supreme Court decision in personnel decisions. So for my church, its a non-issue.

 

[Lurker123]

Come on. Your statment absolutely draws a parallel reference even if that was not your intent.

My "opinion" on churches (and you have no clue what that is) has nothing to do with the expectation that any institutiuon that receives federal and state tax exempt status has to follow federal laws and Supreme Court decisions on non-descrimination. It is that pesky founding American principal of seperation of church and state.

It absolutely does not, unless someone wants to pretend it does so they can be offended.

And your statement on "bigots" absolutely betrays your feelings.

Now, the "pesky founding principle" would be the first amendment, and it's more to protect churches from the state than the other way around.

If a religion finds an act sinful, the state should not be able to force what they preach, or how they hire, etc.

I also noted that took about 10 posts to go from asking just how this ruling could be affecting churches to calling for attacking their tax exempt status and calling for the govt to dictate what they can preach.

 

[USC2USC]

It absolutely does not, unless someone wants to pretend it does so they can be offended.

And your statement on "bigots" absolutely betrays your feelings.

Now, the "pesky founding principle" would be the first amendment, and it's more to protect churches from the state than the other way around.

If a religion finds an act sinful, the state should not be able to force what they preach, or how they hire, etc.

I also noted that took about 10 posts to go from asking just how this ruling could be affecting churches to calling for attacking their tax exempt status and calling for the govt to dictate what they can preach.

Where did I call for the government to tell churches what to preach?

And yes, I am absolutely against offering tax exempt status to organizations that do not follow federal laws and Supreme Court decisions on non-discriminazation. Just like my church. Its not hard to find a faith organization that believes in non-discrimination.

 

[Lurker123]

Where did I call for the government to tell churches what to preach?

And yes, I am absolutely against offering tax exempt status to organizations that do not follow federal laws and Supreme Court decisions on non-discriminazation.

You tell them how to preach when you say the govt should force them to be, in your words, "non discriminating". If you can't fire them, and you can't refuse to hire them. We've already established you can't speak out against them in the workplace, right? Suddenly, a sermon is discriminatory, creating a hostile work environment etc. This isn't really a leap at all.

And using the tax exempt status to coerce churches is basically the state dictating what churches can and can't do. The separation of church and state is a two way street.

 

[Cocky4SC]

And that would seem to be a good thing. Employees cannot terminate employment for someone solely based on them being gay. Seems reasonable. I guess also sad that a religous organization would take issue with that.

How is it sad that a religious organization would take exception to it? If it goes against the fundamental beliefs of that religion, then yes that is a direct issue regarding employment. I can assure you that nobody would dare try to represent anything of the LBGTQ in an Islamic setting.They know exactly what would happen to them if they did. I would could see someone trying to do this in a Jewish/Christian faith based organization.

 

[USC2USC]

How is it sad that a religious organization would take exception to it? If it goes against the fundamental beliefs of that religion, then yes that is a direct issue regarding employment. I can assure you that nobody would dare try to represent anything of the LBGTQ in an Islamic setting.They know exactly what would happen to them if they did. I would could see someone trying to do this in a Jewish/Christian faith based organization.

Because if a religious organization takes issue with the fact they aren't legally allowed to disriminate then it must mean they really want to. Yes, that is sad. Remember, this ruling is about employment law. Would you want your employer to be able to fire you simply because you are Christian? What if the owner of your company was gay and chose to fire you just becase you are not?

And I know LGBT folks of the Islamic faith here in the US that are welcomed openly into threir faith groups.

 

[Lurker123]

If it goes against the fundamental beliefs of that religion, then yes that is a direct issue regarding employment.

Thank you.

Too many people want to attack churches by pretending they should fall under the same rules as a normal business. They use words like "discrimination" because it sets the church immediately as the bad guy.

But you can also say it's simply about a church being allowed to hire/fire people that are in line with its teachings. If we can't allow a church to do that, the govt is taking too big a role in running churches.

 

[Cocky4SC]

Because if a religious organization takes issue with the fact they aren't legally allowed to disriminate then it must mean they really want to. Yes, that is sad. Remember, this ruling is about employment law. Would you want your employer to be able to fire you simply because you are Christian? What if the owner of your company was gay and chose to fire you just becase you are not?

And I know LGBT folks of the Islamic faith here in the US that are welcomed openly into threir faith groups.

I remember it's about employment law... and there is also a reason why there is a separation of church and state. The state would then be overstepping their boundaries on this one. You can not compare a normal business to a church. You can't say its discriminating against someone who doesn't follow the very doctrine and beliefs that that particular faith is built on or around. I can't expect to be employed on staff at a mosque if I don't practice the washing/prayer times and then going around eating pork all day can I? NO... why is that? It's doesn't follow their beliefs nor does it follow their religious teachings.

 

[USC2USC]

I remember it's about employment law... and there is also a reason why there is a separation of church and state. The state would then be overstepping their boundaries on this one. You can not compare a normal business to a church. You can't say its discriminating against someone who doesn't follow the very doctrine and beliefs that that particular faith is built on or around. I can't expect to be employed on staff at a mosque if I don't practice the washing/prayer times and then going around eating pork all day can I? NO... why is that? It's doesn't follow their beliefs nor does it follow their religious teachings.

You don't even see the false equivelancy you are drawing but I guess I will waste my time and point it out anyway. A person's faith is something they choose. They make a choice to be Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, whatever. Being LGBT is what someone is. No choice involved.

I know, its clear you think a religious organization should be able to exclude someone for being gay while enjoying federal and state tax exemption. But I am sure you aren't a homophobe, right?

 

[Lurker123]

Well, we could bring up something that a person doesn't choose, but then you'll pretend to be offended that we're drawing a comparison between being gay and whatever example that might be, and then start throwing out insults.

Simply put, the state should not force a church to employ people that are not in line with its teachings.

 

[Lurker123]

I had a thought, if anyone wanted to think instead of just throw insults.

Some churches will fire a man who has an affair. Some guys aren't even allowed to marry. Were they fired for being straight? Or for their actions? They had no choice in being straight.

And bringing this around to the gay person. Would they fire a person just for being gay, or for acting on that?

 

[mauze1]

I think it’s great my daughter gets to compete against girls with dongs. She will be forced to elevate her game.

No kidding!

 

[midline]

As we have all seen recently, the world is upside down with militants, and the professional victim class, setting the rules as many in charge seem to be unwilling to put a stop to it. As far as the transgender issue, the tail is wagging the dog. We have all seen that it seems that any miniscule precentage number of the weirdo nation seems to be able to overrule the vast majority of normal folks. So be it in this case. Will this overtake natural females in sports? No. But it will make a difference. Someday soon there will be that 7 footer that can't quite cut it in the men's game, but have little enough self respect to claim to be transgender, and be the most dominant force in women's basketball that the game has ever seen. This is nuts. Hopefully coaches will control this crap by cutting these nut cases in high school.

 

[LakeMurrayUSCFan]

So a ruling that says you can't harass or fire people at work for being different from you is a bad thing now? Who knew?

Yes, it's a bad thing when you consider the ramifications. If the ruling had specifically and narrowly said "it's not an employer's business the private sexual behavior of an employee and therefore an employee can't be fired strictly for that reason" that would be fine and most people would support that opinion. The problem here is that one case involved a business (a furniture store) that required a dress code that men wear dress pants and a button up shirt. The employee one day decided he was a woman and showed up to work in a dress with make-up on. If you've ever seen a man pretending to be a woman it is rather disturbing and would absolutely cause many customers to simply go to another store so as not to have to deal with it. That's just reality. You can't change the fact that it would drive away business. And that doesn't even get into the issue of "playing God" and redefining what God defined very definitively. As for the effect on women's spots, this is already happening with some of the olympic sports like track and field. The NCAA supports this madness so USC's women's track team could face a track team with a guy on it that can run faster than anyone on our team due to gender differences. That is morally and ethically wrong. Then you get into the issue of a man pretending to be a woman going into a women's locker room and even showers. If you have a daughter, can you imagine your teen age daughter being forced to shower with a guy? How could that not go wrong. And why should she be subjected to that humiliation. So yes, it is a bad thing. This would never pass as a law nationally or in states like SC so SCOTUS assumed the role of the legislative branch in this case which is exactly what both Gorsuch and Roberts promised not to do. Shame on them.

 

[paladin181]

Yes, it's a bad thing when you consider the ramifications. If the ruling had specifically and narrowly said "it's not an employer's business the private sexual behavior of an employee and therefore an employee can't be fired strictly for that reason" that would be fine and most people would support that opinion. The problem here is that one case involved a business (a furniture store) that required a dress code that men wear dress pants and a button up shirt. The employee one day decided he was a woman and showed up to work in a dress with make-up on. If you've ever seen a man pretending to be a woman it is rather disturbing and would absolutely cause many customers to simply go to another store so as not to have to deal with it. That's just reality. You can't change the fact that it would drive away business. And that doesn't even get into the issue of "playing God" and redefining what God defined very definitively. As for the effect on women's spots, this is already happening with some of the olympic sports like track and field. The NCAA supports this madness so USC's women's track team could face a track team with a guy on it that can run faster than anyone on our team due to gender differences. That is morally and ethically wrong. Then you get into the issue of a man pretending to be a woman going into a women's locker room and even showers. If you have a daughter, can you imagine your teen age daughter being forced to shower with a guy? How could that not go wrong. And why should she be subjected to that humiliation. So yes, it is a bad thing. This would never pass as a law nationally or in states like SC so SCOTUS assumed the role of the legislative branch in this case which is exactly what both Gorsuch and Roberts promised not to do. Shame on them.

Wow. So much to digest here. And obviously, the reality of these "men pretending to be women" will be lost on you, so I won't bother. Go fearmonger about how the trans women will rape our daughters elsewhere. I have several daughters. My son's boyfriend was born a girl. I'm not exactly afraid of the LGBTQ community, even if I am not a member. You are part of the problem if you really believe the vileness you spew.

Treating all people like they're people can never be a bad thing.