 |
| |
|
|
molly bloom
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Molly, I presuppose to fit your examples, of Christians persecuting each other. Both will believe in the resurrection, yet neither will believe that the other will be going to heaven, neither the dying man, nor the killer.
I'm not sure where you get the idea that the killer would think that he would be saving the other by killing him, that's not something anyone has said up until now.
|
Either you're being deliberately disingenuous, or you nodded off during history classes. Read a little about the activities of the Spanish Inquisition, the Marian martyrdoms, the Elizabethan martyrdoms, the wars of religion in Europe as a whole, the witch hysteria in Europe and the North American colonies, and so on, and so on.
The notion of killing someone as part of rescuing their 'immortal soul' is something I find utterly bizarre, and yet was not unfamiliar to some of the people wielding the instruments of torture.
The notion that Christians might restrict their bloodthirsty activities to people of their own monotheistic faith is a pleasant one, but Christians have of course proved quite active in redeeming the souls of followers of the other two monotheistic faiths, Judaism and Islam, as well as animists and people who have no interest in religion.
All of which is quite removed from the actions of a bigot who as well as being insubordinate, chooses to create a hostile environment for people who don't adhere to his world view.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
So being gay is just like the colour of your skin? That's an extermely provocative statement with little justification, Boris. I would definitely protest those pictures.
|
Oh, what a crock of ****. So do you think they're saying being blonde or old is the same as being black? Please.
They're promoting diversity by saying they have all types of employees. They're not equating anything, and your drawing that conclusion is simply ludicrous.
I've no doubt you'd protest them, but that's because you're intolerant.
Last edited by Boris Godunov on 12-01-2004 at 08:52
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Why would they have been in an undue hardship to remove the diversity posters? HP claims that this would prevent them from retaining a diverse workplace, but I fail to see why having such posters would do anything to attract such employees. Tell me Boris, do you work for the companies that have a poster on their wall? |
Having such posters, and a statement of commitment to diversity, is part of how HP chooses to show said commitment. They have every right to do so. I certainly do take a company's stance on diversity issues as important, and so do many other employees. I know what I'm talking about here, since I work for an executive recruiting agency.
You tell me, Ben--why is it offensive to you that a company would promote diversity? You have a problem with it, it seems. How does it in any way hamper your religious freedom if a company makes it a point to ask you to treat employees who are gay with respect? I know you may not want to, but in a work environment, that's life.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Ned, m'dear...as usual, you're full of crap:
Now, unless you happen to be familiar with that particular business place and know exactly where the man posted the verses, I'd say your statements about there being a "witch hunt" are, like Ben's, malarky.[/close}
Boris, here are the exact words from the opinion so that there be no debate:
"The scriptures were printed in a typeface large enough to be visible to co-workers, customers, and others who passed through an adjacent corridor."
IF HP were TRULY concerned about CUSTOMERS, they simply could have moved his cube so that it was not adjacent the corridor. Instead, they fired him.
[q]And another thing--HP's posters simply told employees to tolerate gay coworkers. Now, if the sincere Christian belief is "love the sinner, hate the sin," then what's the problem? The poster is asking them to leave the "sinner" alone. It's not asking them to tolerate the "sin." |
Boris, now you are telling this guy what is religion ought to be or else be fired which is BLATANTLY against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
That is why I said and still do say that we cannot paper over this problem by continuing to call homosexuality sin. It cannot be sin if God made homosexuals that way. Sin involves the exercise of free will in controvention of law.
quote:
And, as has been noted several times, he was fired for being insubordinate. Not for harassing people. |
If the employee had a legal right to protest the gay policy, the insubordination justification fails.
All he did was post the bible verses on his cube overhead. He never orally communicated his position to anyone other than his management. He told them that he was doing this to protest the company policy.
What this decision says is that he had no right to protest a company policy that conflicted with his religion in a manner that would communicate his protest to his fellow employees. However, the Ninth Circuit has implicity recognized just such a right in other cases, albeit, involving state employees and specifically concerning gay rights. Even here, the Ninth Circuit said that they might have been more sympathic to the employee if he had conducted his protest is some other manner, without saying what that manner was, but implicity in a manner that would not communicate the protest to his fellow employees. But such a restriction effectively negates the right to protest in the first place.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
What company does not have posters on thier walls? You post things up you want people to remember, things like COMPANY POLICIES. The company is wholly within its rights to post anything it wants pertaining to workplace rules and behaviors it wants to enforce that are within the laws of the state. The comapny does not have to aquiesce to the demands of a worker, becuase the worker signed contracts stating he would follow company rues, as long as they are legal. HP was within its rights the entire time: this guy was violating the terms of his employment. So he got the can. Wow, big surprise. Again, if this bigot hates homosexuals, he shoudl not work for heaten companies, no? Le him find some equally bigotted neterprise to work for. Maybe the Moral Majority is hiring computer guys. |
GePap, you are assuming the result.
The whole question here is did the employee have the right to protest the company policy on religious grounds. Since the quotes were directly from the bible, there is no question that the protest was motivated by religion and was based in religion.
Religion is protected under the Civil Rights Act. This protection extends to protests of company policy based on religious grounds according to the Ninth Circuit itself. They simply disapproved of the manner of this protest.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
IF HP were TRULY concerned about CUSTOMERS, they simply could have moved his cube so that it was not adjacent the corridor. Instead, they fired him. |
What about OTHER EMPLOYEES, Ned? You can move him anywhere, but other EMPLOYEES will still SEE it. Nothing in the 1964 Civil Rights Act says that an employer has to tolerate ANY form of religious expression. The man said he did it to hurt people, for pete's sake!
quote:
Boris, now you are telling this guy what is religion ought to be or else be fired which is BLATANTLY against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. |
No, Ned, I'm not telling him anything. I was just making an observation that if he professes to love the sinner and hate the sin, his protests are incongruous with said belief, becauser HP's campaign said NOTHING about accepting the "sin," but rather said to treat the "sinner" with respect. I'm just noting his hypocrisy.
quote:
If the employee had a legal right to protest the gay policy, the insubordination justification fails. |
As MtG pointed out, employees don't have a right to protest company policy in any manner they choose--if it's disruptive or hurtful, employers don't have to tolerate it. The 1964 Civil Rights act doesn't give people carte blanche to pepper their workspace with calls to kill people.
quote:
All he did was post the bible verses on his cube overhead. He never orally communicated his position to anyone other than his management. He told them that he was doing this to protest the company policy. |
Oh really...note the part where he EXPLICITLEY STATED he did it to "hurt" people?
quote:
What this decision says is that he had no right to protest a company policy that conflicted with his religion in a manner that would communicate his protest to his fellow employees. |
No, it says he can't post things that call for violent acts if his employer objects. If I worked at a company run by Christians, and I posted "Christians are evil and should be killed" over my cube, I would be guilty of creating a hostile work environment and they'd have every right to fire me for refusing to remove the words.
Again, where in the 1964 Civil Rights act does it say any form of expression of one's belief is acceptable? No where, Ned. It just says you can't discriminate against people for holding beliefs. It doesn't say you have to allow them to express them as they see fit.
HP didn't have a problem with his beliefs, or his protesting their policy OUTSIDE HP. He wrote letters about it to newspapers and had that nice bumper sticker, but they didn't care about those things. What HP didn't like was his manner of expressing his beliefs by posting a Biblical passage that calls for killing people. They asked him to stop, he refused. They went BEYOND the needed limits of patience. He continued to defy their orders. So he lost his job.
The moral? If a company enacts LEGAL policies you don't like, you can leave. But nothing, not even the 1964 Civil Rights Act, gives you the right to post hateful dogma all over your office so your employers and employees and customers have to see it.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
|
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
molly:
Nothing that I did not already know, Molly. All this says is that the inquisitors would be absolved, but it does not say what you have been saying that the people killed by the inquisitors would be somehow saved by their actions.
So I'm still waiting for the proof of your earlier statement. You've explained why they would do these things, but that explanation does not match your earlier one, which is exactly what I said.
|
I'm unable to explain the workings of the minds of religious fanatics and psychopaths. I'm unwilling to do your work for you.
From the link I posted:
'In this he would seem to be mistaken. I have never met with a case, later than those alluded to, in which conversion professed after sentence secured reconciliation. The tendency to rigor was too strong. The Instructions of 1561 make no allusion to such a possibility, as they grudgingly allow mercy for earlier confession. Peņa forbids it; he admits that it was the ancient custom, but such conversions are not to be trusted and experience shows that such penitents are only rendered worse. (38) It was the universal practice to garrote those who professed repentance after sentence, and the dreadful alternative of death by fire, when thus impending so imminently, wrought so many conversions on the way to the brasero, even among those whose resolve had held out thus far, that burning alive became comparatively infrequent. In the first, three autos held at Barcelona in 1488 and 1489, all the converts professed a desire to die in the Christian faith and all were strangled before burning. (39) At the great auto of May 21,1559, at Valladolid where Dr. Cazalla and other Protestants suffered, there were fourteen relaxed in person, of whom only one, the Bachiller Herrezuelo, is characterized as a pertinacious heretic and consequently burnt alive, the rest being garrotted as repentant converts. (40) In 1571 there were hanging, in the parish church of Logroņo, 157 sanbenitos, of which 101 were of those reconciled and 56 of those relaxed. Of the latter nine were in effigy and 47 in person, of whom only four are specified as burnt alive. (41) The weakness of human nature afforded but rare examples of those who could stand the final test of fiery martyrdom.
Notwithstanding the practice of executing all who delayed conversion until after hearing their sentences, there still were those who argued that they should be admitted to reconciliation, basing their contention on the ancient rule and on the silence of the [194] Instructions of 1561 on this point. In 1674 the Suprema felt called upon to quiet the doubts of the Granada tribunal, by insisting that this rigor had been the invariable custom of the Holy Office. Still the question was debated until a carta acordada of May 24, 1699, disposed of it authoritatively. This declared that, in consequence of existing doubts, the Suprema had examined the matter carefully, reaching the conclusion that technically the delivery to the secular arm was coincident with the reading of the sentence; the Inquisition thus remained without jurisdiction which had passed to the royal justice for the execution of the sentence. Therefore, if the convict was not converted before the reading of the sentence, he was not to have mercy or to be admitted to reconciliation, even if he begged for it, but the royal justice was to execute and fulfil the sentence. If the conversion was real and not feigned--the latter being presumable at such a time--any of the confessors who assisted the culprit could reconcile him to the church and confess him sacramentally.
(42) Thus his body was irrevocably forfeited, although his soul might be saved. '
And intolerance comes in all shades- as you've shown. Claiming that one has divine sanction for it simply makes it more obnoxious.
The bigot at Hewlett Packard wasn't sacked for his religious beliefs- he didn't have to manifest his beliefs in such a confrontational hostile way in the workplace. He was quite rightly sacked for insubordination. I don't manifest my sexuality in such obvious confrontational ways in the workplace, and fail to see why someone's superstitions should get preferential treatment.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33.
Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
12-01-2004 07:35
Attachment: 
I called you no such thing, now did I? The strawman argument is strong within you.
|
