What type of language is offensive to you?

[henryzz]

Originally Posted by chalsall

Let's take another extreme...

In some countries women are not even allowed to show their faces.

And then suicide bombers and gun-men leverage on this to kill.

Basically we seem to be saying compromise is necessary to help keep the peace.

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by henryzz

Basically we seem to be saying compromise is necessary to help keep the peace.

No.

While I rarely agree with the French, I agree the Burqa has no place in modern times.

[Brian-E]

I see no compromise either. Nor is it a question of "draw[ing] the line" somewhere.

A fair society must give equal opportunities to every person. Distinguishing on the basis of gender, or any other irrelevant attribute, to decide on who is allowed to speak at meetings which take place under the umbrella of a students' union of an acclaimed university, is so abhorrent to me that I'm amazed it's being given any defence here at all albeit not actually advocated. People who can't accept the basic rights of others should not be appeased: if they are disturbed by women speakers then they are not obliged to attend the meetings.

[jasong]

Originally Posted by Brian-E

I see no compromise either. Nor is it a question of "draw[ing] the line" somewhere.

A fair society must give equal opportunities to every person. Distinguishing on the basis of gender, or any other irrelevant attribute, to decide on who is allowed to speak at meetings which take place under the umbrella of a students' union of an acclaimed university, is so abhorrent to me that I'm amazed it's being given any defence here at all albeit not actually advocated. People who can't accept the basic rights of others should not be appeased: if they are disturbed by women speakers then they are not obliged to attend the meetings.

I don't know know if the speakers are paid to speak. If everything is done for free, that severely limits the ability of people to accomplish anything by complaining. Obviously, there are exceptions. For instance, it would be more difficult to continue a policy of no women speakers if the speeches were given in a government funded building, as opposed to a person's home.

If the speeches were given at a church, than I have no idea what their actual rights are if people complain, I guess it would depend on the local laws.

[henryzz]

Originally Posted by jasong

I don't know know if the speakers are paid to speak. If everything is done for free, that severely limits the ability of people to accomplish anything by complaining. Obviously, there are exceptions. For instance, it would be more difficult to continue a policy of no women speakers if the speeches were given in a government funded building, as opposed to a person's home.

If the speeches were given at a church, than I have no idea what their actual rights are if people complain, I guess it would depend on the local laws.

The speakers are not paid. I believe my CU has a habit of providing a gift to the speaker each week.

[c10ck3r]

Originally Posted by Brian-E

I see no compromise either. Nor is it a question of "draw[ing] the line" somewhere.

A fair society must give equal opportunities to every person. Distinguishing on the basis of gender, or any other irrelevant attribute, to decide on who is allowed to speak at meetings which take place under the umbrella of a students' union of an acclaimed university, is so abhorrent to me that I'm amazed it's being given any defence here at all albeit not actually advocated. People who can't accept the basic rights of others should not be appeased: if they are disturbed by women speakers then they are not obliged to attend the meetings.

I disagree with this principle inasmuch as it pertains to the US. I'm a bit of a country boy myself, and the values instilled in me are almost guaranteed different from those others may have. I reckon any private entity outta have the right to operate on their own set of guidelines so long as it doesn't endanger anyone else. If I'm a businessman, I should be allowed to hire whoever I want that is legally able to work, regardless of their race. There shouldn't be any of this BS "affirmative action" stuff or required hiring of minorities.
If I own a grocery store and don't want to allow blacks or Mexicans because I a) don't like them or b) feel they represent an increased risk, then I outta be able to make that decision on my own. I wouldn't do this ever personally- but I should have the right to run my business in a manner that I feel comfortable with. There should be exceptions: the same doctors and lawyers need to be accessible to everyone regardless of race. But it should be up to the consumer to boycott my store if they feel I am operating it "wrongly". At this point I can either change my ways, or risk going out of business.

TL;DR Speaking ain't a right.

[henryzz]

As an example of the world being foolish in moving away from the model c10ck3r described. EU car insurance companies are no longer allowed charge differently based on whether someone is male or female. Their statistics show that male drivers cost them more so they were charging more for men which would make sense. Will we all pay a fixed premium for everything one-day?

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by c10ck3r

I disagree with this principle inasmuch as it pertains to the US. I'm a bit of a country boy myself, and the values instilled in me are almost guaranteed different from those others may have. I reckon any private entity outta have the right to operate on their own set of guidelines so long as it doesn't endanger anyone else. If I'm a businessman, I should be allowed to hire whoever I want that is legally able to work, regardless of their race. There shouldn't be any of this BS "affirmative action" stuff or required hiring of minorities.
If I own a grocery store and don't want to allow blacks or Mexicans because I a) don't like them or b) feel they represent an increased risk, then I outta be able to make that decision on my own. I wouldn't do this ever personally- but I should have the right to run my business in a manner that I feel comfortable with. There should be exceptions: the same doctors and lawyers need to be accessible to everyone regardless of race. But it should be up to the consumer to boycott my store if they feel I am operating it "wrongly". At this point I can either change my ways, or risk going out of business.

TL;DR Speaking ain't a right.

Typical right wing religious bigot. If I were to express my true opinion
of you, I'd get kicked out again.

It clearly never occured to you that we live in a society made possible
by the joint work of ALL of us. Your "grocery store" is in business because
it receives goods shipped over highways and railroads built and paid
for by all of us. You personally use those same roads. You can buy gasoline
at gas stations because it is produced by companies that employs
people you want to discriminate against. Noone lives in isolation. We all
jointly use the fruits and labors of others.

The "right to discriminate" belongs in the dark ages of human history.
So does the intolerance of organizations like the Catholic Church, the Muslims,
the Hassidim, The Baptists, The Boy Scouts, etc. etc.

It is NAUSEATNG. So is your (and jasong's et. al. ) attitude.
"I don't hate gays; I hate homosexuality". This is sophistry of the worst
kind. These are people. They are homosexuals. Grow up and learn tolerance.
Stop restricting the rights of others because you don't like who they are or
what they do. Stop believing that you SHOULD have the right to discriminate
against others because of who they are. Stop treating women as if they
are second class citizens. Stop using a ridiculous tome like the Bible as
justification for discrimination.

I truly believe that the US would be better off if the South HAD been allowed
to secede 150 years ago. Then they could live as the barbarian and ignorant
hoardes that they truly are and leave the rest of the civilized country alone.

[Mini-Geek]

Originally Posted by c10ck3r

There shouldn't be any of this BS "affirmative action" stuff or required hiring of minorities.

I agree with this. Discrimination for a minority is no less discriminatory than against a minority. A lack of racism means that it just doesn't matter what race you are.

Originally Posted by c10ck3r

If I own a grocery store and don't want to allow blacks or Mexicans because I a) don't like them or b) feel they represent an increased risk, then I outta be able to make that decision on my own.

I disagree with this. Race is not a valid determining factor in deciding whether to hire an applicant. However, I do agree with the general idea that businesses should be run the way their owner(s) would like, e.g. the recent news in the US of Chick-Fil-A and Hobby Lobby being run as Christian businesses.

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by Mini-Geek

I agree with this. Discrimination for a minority is no less discriminatory than against a minority. A lack of racism means that it just doesn't matter what race you are.

Agreed. OTOH, I would ask "what we should do instead to make up for
wrongs committed against the minority?". Are they to remain a permanent
underclass?

I disagree with this. Race is not a valid determining factor in deciding whether to hire an applicant. However, I do agree with the general idea that businesses should be run the way their owner(s) would like, e.g. the recent news in the US of Chick-Fil-A and Hobby Lobby being run as Christian businesses.

I do not agree with this general idea.

Once again, these businesses stay in business only because they use
infrastructure that is the creation of all of us. Nor do I believe that
so-call "Christian Universities" should be able to impose its so-called
morals on its employees. Nor should Christian hospitals be able to
decide to not perform legal medical procedures or prescribe medications
that they do not like. They do not perform their business or function
in ISOLATION. They use resources provided by society as a whole.
They benefit from the services provided for by the government.

As long as they use goods and services provided by others, they should
not be allowed to discriminate.

Want to start a university that imposes its moral ideas on others? Fine.
Build it in the back woods. Wall it off. Do not use public roads to get
there. You can walk. Do not purchase food grown by others. Grow
your own. Do not have telephones that can access the outside world.
Do not use electric power that comes from outside.

And yes, Chic-Fil A's owner can say that he is opposed to gays. But he
can not act on his belief. He can not restrict hiring, nor can he restrict
whom he serves in his restaurants. But he is free to be a hateful SOB
and say what he likes.

If you want to allow business to be run the way the owners would like, how
would it be if electric companies refused to provided power to (say)
Oral Roberts University because of its disciminatory practices???

Once you start down the road of allowing discimination for any reason,
the result can be a disaster.

[Brian-E]

Originally Posted by henryzz

As an example of the world being foolish in moving away from the model c10ck3r described. EU car insurance companies are no longer allowed charge differently based on whether someone is male or female. Their statistics show that male drivers cost them more so they were charging more for men which would make sense. Will we all pay a fixed premium for everything one-day?

It's interesting that you regard the levelling of car insurance as foolish.

To take an example which is more vital to everyone than car insurance is, what about health insurance? (I'm aware of the British National Health Service: think of the insurance in this case as the social security contributions you pay which go towards the NHS.) Do you seriously think that these should be dependent on an individual's health risks? Should people who were born with serious illnesses and therefore need regular, expensive health care pay higher premiums because they are more likely to require health care?

Here's another example. When my partner and I still lived in Britain in the 1980s, we were unable to get a mortgage to buy a house, despite the fact that we were both earning and solvent. The reason? Gay males were considered to be at high risk of contracting HIV and AIDS and could therefore, unless they hid their sexual orientation, not obtain life assurance. Male couples therefore had no chance of getting the life assurance needed for a mortgage. Do you consider this fair? Or do you think society has an obligation, at least in part, to shoulder extra risk from individual members of the society and level the burden of insurance premiums so that everyone has a reasonable chance to get somewhere? What would the Christian attitude be on this?