09-01-2004 11:25									#31
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Doesn't mean that it's right to fire him. I agree that he should not have put this where customers would be able to see this, since this will impact the image of the company. For the same reason, I have to keep my delivery hat off if I take a break from work to go picket at a clinic. What I have a problem are the boundaries of what constitutes a 'hostile work environment'. Suppose I worked with someone who was flamboyently gay, who belittled my beliefs as a Christian, and got quite a bit of pleasure in doing so. Would this also be considered a 'hostile work environment?'

If someone is harrassing you for your religious beliefs, yes, you could sue for being compelled to work in a hostile work environment.

	09-01-2004 11:27									#32
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: "Hewlett-Packard's efforts to eradicate discrimination against homosexuals in its workplace were entirely consistent with the goals and objectives of our civil rights statutes generally," Reinhardt wrote.

In other words, private discrimination should be allowed only when the government says it's okay. Light a candle for Lady Liberty as she passes into the night...

	09-01-2004 11:29									#33
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker In other words, private discrimination should be allowed only when the government says it's okay. Light a candle for Lady Liberty as she passes into the night...

I'm confused -- is it not your duty as a libertarian to support PRIVATE things from doing whichever they please?

It seems to me that other way you'd end up in the corner crying. They say HP fired him when they shouldn't have, and suddenly the government is meddling with the affairs of a private entity. Back up HP's decision, and this is also evil.

	09-01-2004 11:30									#34
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Libertarians are confusing, period.

	09-01-2004 11:32									#35
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: who belittled my beliefs as a Christian, and got quite a bit of pleasure in doing so.

That would be just plain wrong. That is OUR job!!

	09-01-2004 11:33									#36
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

I thought you were capable of intelligent conversation, Mr Fun

	09-01-2004 11:34									#37
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Oh no!!!!!!!

Someone is taking me seriously again!!!!!!!!

	09-01-2004 11:41									#38
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Did you really have to ask that question?

Yes. In Canada we have that bill that seeks to make anyone quoting this passage in Leviticus guilty of hate speech regardless of where the speech is made. Equating this passage with discrimination implies a great deal about homosexuality that has not been proven. For instance, would we consider smokers being required to stand outside when they smoke discrimination against smokers?

	09-01-2004 11:45									#39
	Remove this text

Smoking causes cancer in the lungs and other places.... But evil queers (alas, I repeat myself) cause cancer in SOCIETY!!

	09-01-2004 11:46									#40
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Yes. In Canada we have that bill that seeks to make anyone quoting this passage in Leviticus guilty of hate speech regardless of where the speech is made. Equating this passage with discrimination implies a great deal about homosexuality that has not been proven. For instance, would we consider smokers being required to stand outside when they smoke discrimination against smokers?

When someone asks a question, I usually assume that they want an answer to it.

	09-01-2004 11:47									#41
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Asher I'm confused -- is it not your duty as a libertarian to support PRIVATE things from doing whichever they please?

Freedom doesn't mean doing whatever you want, but within the context of this case, yes.

quote: It seems to me that other way you'd end up in the corner crying.

Now I'm confused, what does that mean?

quote: They say HP fired him when they shouldn't have, and suddenly the government is meddling with the affairs of a private entity. Back up HP's decision, and this is also evil.

I not only support HP's decision, I support HP's right to discriminate, sheesh. My point was that the 9th circuit said HP could discriminate against this guy only because HP's discrimination was consistent with the government's wishes. If HP discriminated against someone in opposition to the government's wishes, then HP would have lost the lawsuit.
HP can hire or fire based on it's goals and desires, **** what the government wants...

	09-01-2004 11:54									#42
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Oh no!!!!!!! Someone is taking me seriously again!!!!!!!!

Ah, so you really meant libertarians aren't confusing?

	09-01-2004 12:07									#43
	Suffering from ads?

Anyone have a copy of this HP policy? That employee worked there for 21 years, as a Christian, and apparently got along well with his coworkers. What in the policy was so offensive that he would feel compelled to protest the diversity policy? This to me seems calculated not to create a 'hostile working environment', but a protest of changes in the company.

	09-01-2004 12:32									#44
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Yes. In Canada we have that bill that seeks to make anyone quoting this passage in Leviticus guilty of hate speech regardless of where the speech is made. Equating this passage with discrimination implies a great deal about homosexuality that has not been proven. For instance, would we consider smokers being required to stand outside when they smoke discrimination against smokers?

A call to have people killed as a result of non-agressive behavior that seems unnatural to some people does look awfully close to hate speech to me. If the passage was being quoted as a historical document, say a comment on the times when the Bible was written, that's one story. But since many conservative Christians hold the Bible to be a source of immediate spiritual guidance, quoting something like that is just like saying: "This is what I think should be done to you. I'd do it myself if I wasn't afraid to be dragged off to jail for it."

	09-01-2004 12:38									#45
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker Ah, so you really meant libertarians aren't confusing?

Geez man -- and people say I don't have a sense of humor about myself?


I never meant to say that libertarians are confusing -- I was bullsh*tting with you.

	09-01-2004 12:39									#46
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Anyone have a copy of this HP policy? That employee worked there for 21 years, as a Christian, and apparently got along well with his coworkers. What in the policy was so offensive that he would feel compelled to protest the diversity policy? This to me seems calculated not to create a 'hostile working environment', but a protest of changes in the company.

Where do you get the assumption that he probably got along well with others?


So should a Ku Klux Klan member who works at HP be able to "protest" the diversity policy that allows racial minority members to work there?

	09-01-2004 13:12									#47
	Got spare money?

Seems more likely than not he would get along with his coworkers if he stayed there 21 years.

quote: Ku Klux Klan member who works at HP be able to "protest" the diversity policy that allows racial minority members to work there?

Again, you analogy fails for reasons mentioned in my previous post. Are you saying people are born gay, just like their skin colour?

Re-reading the article, it also fails to mention the other biblical passages he cited. They obviously reported that one because it's the most inflammatory. I wonder if he also cited Paul's letter to the Romans.

Now, if all he's saying is that gays should be stoned, I can see him restricting himself to Leviticus. But if he cites other passages, then to be fair, you should deal with them as well.

Looking more and more like a witch-hunt.

	09-01-2004 13:33									#48
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Re-reading the article, it also fails to mention the other biblical passages he cited. They obviously reported that one because it's the most inflammatory. I wonder if he also cited Paul's letter to the Romans. Now, if all he's saying is that gays should be stoned, I can see him restricting himself to Leviticus. But if he cites other passages, then to be fair, you should deal with them as well. Looking more and more like a witch-hunt.

While you can debate the court's precise decision, HP's decision has a much firmer basis. You're talking about an inflamatory passage in public view. It may have been posted in direct reaction to learning another employee was gay, and certainly could have created an uncomfortable work enviroment for the other employee.

More significantly, some of HP's customers are almost certainly gay, and some may be offended so much by the biblical passage that they will choose to take their business elsewhere. It doesn't matter how you could judge all the passages on balance, what matters is the customer's reactions and the customer is always right. You could also lose non-homosexual customers who are offended by perceived gay bashing. HP warned him about his behavoir, he apparently ignored them, and he was continuing to potentially harm HP's business with his behavoir he had already been told to stop, so he was fired. Case closed.

	09-01-2004 13:36									#49
	Inflate your Upload Space

Let's imagine a hypothetical situation here: Say, I dislike dancing. So I go to my workplace and hang a big sheet of paper that says: "Honest people don't dance. Keep your children away from dancers!"

What do you think my supervisor will do?

	09-01-2004 13:41									#50
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: But since many conservative Christians hold the Bible to be a source of immediate spiritual guidance, quoting something like that is just like saying: "This is what I think should be done to you. I'd do it myself if I wasn't afraid to be dragged off to jail for it."

Napoleon I:

If you plan on interpreting scripture, it's good practice to actually cite the passage you are talking about.

Lev 20:13

"If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

What's the context of this quote? It comes in the section of Leviticus, where God is talking to Moses declaring what are to be the punishments for sin. Your question is a good one, as to who this punishment applies, however your conclusion does not accurately represent conservative christians. Moses and the Israelites had a theocracy, where God's law was to be the law of the community. The severity of the punishments derives from the fact that the Israelites were God's chosen people, entrusted with the Law and the prophets. Anything they did poorly would reflect poorly on God.

In this context, it makes no sense to apply these punishments for sin to today's world. What has not changed is the attitude of God towards homosexuality as sin.

	09-01-2004 13:51									#51
	Got spare money?

quote: It may have been posted in direct reaction to learning another employee was gay, and certainly could have created an uncomfortable work enviroment for the other employee.

Seems clear to me that the new policy triggered this response. In 21 years I would think that he would have had to deal with having a gay co-worker.

Did he intend for this to be visible to the customers? I don't know. It doesn't seem so cut and dried that he did. Now, what if HP asked him to move the signs to another location, where they would not be able to be viewed by the customers? Then if he refused, his intent would become clear.

I still want to see the other passages and the policy by HP, as they would help me understand the thoughts of the worker, why he would do what he did.

	09-01-2004 13:57									#52
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Napoleon I: If you plan on interpreting scripture, it's good practice to actually cite the passage you are talking about. Lev 20:13 "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." What's the context of this quote? It comes in the section of Leviticus, where God is talking to Moses declaring what are to be the punishments for sin. Your question is a good one, as to who this punishment applies, however your conclusion does not accurately represent conservative christians. Moses and the Israelites had a theocracy, where God's law was to be the law of the community. The severity of the punishments derives from the fact that the Israelites werre God's chosen people, entrusted with the Law and the prophets. Anything they did would reflect poorly on God. In this context, it makes no sense to apply these punishements for sin to today's world. Whas has not changed is the attitude of God towards homosexuality as sin.

You raise a good point, but let's consider this for a second - does today's orthodox Christian consider himself to be less virtous than an ancient Jew? Probably not. On the moral ground then at least, homosexuality is as sinfull to them as it was when this passage was written. Where you are absolutely correct is that this portion of God's law is clearly at odds with contemporary community laws (as I pointed out in my original post). But what I was saying is that a person who believes in the Bible literally - as many people claim to, would kill homosexuals if given a free hand That isn't a crime - after all they have done nothing harmful yet , but clearly would seem to be hate. Thus my belief that it does constitute hate speech.

	09-01-2004 13:59									#53
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Napoleon I: If you plan on interpreting scripture, it's good practice to actually cite the passage you are talking about. Lev 20:13 "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." What's the context of this quote? It comes in the section of Leviticus, where God is talking to Moses declaring what are to be the punishments for sin. Your question is a good one, as to who this punishment applies, however your conclusion does not accurately represent conservative christians. Moses and the Israelites had a theocracy, where God's law was to be the law of the community. The severity of the punishments derives from the fact that the Israelites werre God's chosen people, entrusted with the Law and the prophets. Anything they did would reflect poorly on God. In this context, it makes no sense to apply these punishements for sin to today's world. Whas has not changed is the attitude of God towards homosexuality as sin.

GENESIS I:I

"AND THE LORD GOD COMMANDED HIS RIGHTEOUS ARMY OF MORMONS TO KILL THE QUEERFOLK!!!!!!"

	09-01-2004 14:04									#54
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

GENESIS I:IA

"AND THE LORD GOD COMMANDED HIS RIGHTEOUS ARMY OF QUEERFOLK TO KILL THE MORMONS!!!!!!"

	09-01-2004 14:05									#55
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I can fully accept that the Bible (or quotations thereof) could be of value as a historical document, or as debatable (that is open to discussion) treatise on moral issues. What I find inappropriate is people claiming that it is Word of God, correct in every single letter, and then thinking that this would protect any old belief they might pull from it.
What would you say, if instead of quoting Leviticus, the employee used a sign of his own opinion saying something like "I believe gay people are an abomination. I think they should be put to death." Would it be hate speech then?

	09-01-2004 14:21									#56
	Remove this text

Napoleon:

quote: would kill homosexuals if given a free hand

Why?

What about Christ's command to love your enemies, to bless those who curse you?

Reconciling these two positions derives the radical thought that Christians are to love the sinner, yet hate the sin. We are not permitted nor qualified to judge sinners, we must leave that task to God.

That's the essential difference between your suggestion and scripture. Scripture does not condemn homosexual people, but rather, homosexual acts.

Why would a Christian want to doom anyone who sins to hell when they can be redeemed?

	09-01-2004 14:27									#57
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Napoleon: Why? What about Christ's command to love your enemies, to bless those who curse you? Reconciling these two positions derives the radical thought that Christians are to love the sinner, yet hate the sin. We are not permitted nor qualified to judge sinners, we must leave that task to God. That's the essential difference between your suggestion and scripture. Scripture does not condemn homosexual people, but rather, homosexual acts. Why would a Christian want to doom anyone who sins to hell when they can be redeemed?

Well, the old testament clearly is not talking about the acts of sin, but rather of a pretty harsh action against the sinners themselves. But then again, without getting into a historical discussion (that would take us ages) about the way Christians actually treated "sinners" (trust me turning the other cheek was not a dominant response), you still haven't convinced me that a homosexual person (one who considers his way of life to be perfectly acceptable) would not hateful to a devout Christian (as Peterson describes himself). The issue here is not actions, it's hate speech.

	09-01-2004 14:31									#58
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by ravagon GENESIS I:IA "AND THE LORD GOD COMMANDED HIS RIGHTEOUS ARMY OF QUEERFOLK TO KILL THE MORMONS!!!!!!"

Ha! That's obviously made up.
For one thing god wouldn't kill his chosen people.

	09-01-2004 14:45									#59
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: about the way Christians actually treated "sinners" (trust me turning the other cheek was not a dominant response),

Do you know of any Christians who go around killing homosexuals? That I believe is the issue at hand.

I agree that Christians have not always been pacifists, but I would argue that they ought to be, which is one of the reasons I like the Mennonite church.

quote: you still haven't convinced me that a homosexual person (one who considers his way of life to be perfectly acceptable) would not hateful to a devout Christian (as Peterson describes himself).

So mere opinion is enough to convict someone of hate? Just because you dislike what someone has said to you does not mean that what they say is hateful.

Why would anyone who sins be happy to hear someone condemn his sins?

" for in that same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you. "

	09-01-2004 14:53									#60
	Got spare money?

Ben -

Disagreeing with someone's actions is one thing, saying something like "I think what you do is wrong".

An "abomination" and "their blood will be upon them" is a little stronger. Here God clearly passes a moral judgement, so to speak. It seems clear that God hates homosexuals. A devout Christian would agree by default with his God, would he not? Even if he follows community law and doesn't go around killing them?

Anyways, I need to go to sleep now, so if you want we can continue this discussion tomorrow, though overall, this has been a pretty troll thread