Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 d-usa wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

Then no one can wear crosses at government workplace. Wait! Even further. Since Christian faith is against same sex marriage then we are ignoring "Separation of Church and State" in the Government

- Your boss can't hand you out a "come to my church" flyer at work.

I'm a non- Christian and my Supervisor is attends Church every weekend. I am in mortal fear of him

- Your supervisor can't tell you to come to his church.
I hate Insurgents. I view all Muslims as Insurgents.

- You can't hand out fliers at work saying "all Muslims are insurgents"

I handed out .50 cal round bottle openers that were Three Dollar a piece. I guess I advocate Open Carry

- You got lucky you don't have a crazy boss or that anybody complained and took it as a threat.

I'm Asian but since majority of"detainee's" I coordinate for transfer are Hispanic I might be consider a Hater and a Racist against Hispanic

- They are not your employees, so this argument is stupid. But if they were: you can't hand out fliers saying "I don't like hispanics".

Since I do not openly support a fellow co-worker in a same sex marriage debate I must be against same sex marriage.

- You cannot hand out "this is why he shouldn't be able to get married" fliers to everybody.
I dislike all the policies being approved by the Obama Admin to allow Illegal Immigrants ways to avoid deportation yet I follow the guide lines that are current and in circulation. I just cannot hand out Republican stickers.

-You already explained what you can and cannot do there.

Yet no one making a ant hill into Mount Rainer where I am at nor any other places I head to.

I watch Duck Dynasty myself and I do like a lot of their values and morals. Since I am a fan i guess I must support Phil eh

-You can watch the show and like their morals, you can even support phil.

Maybe someday you will understand the fine distance between "having a particular viewpoint" and "promoting that particular viewpoint at work where it could run against the rules laid out by your boss and which were found constitutional by the SCOTUS".

Outstanding now your getting there

Alan Cooper, the executive vice president of the local chapter of the American Federation of Government Employees, said one of the officials also displayed the “I Support Phil” decals in his office last month and offered them to subordinates.

but

The individual told me he was especially upset after union workers took photographs of his truck and his license plate and emailed the images to other union members. That email was reportedly sent to hundreds and hundreds of personnel.

being that he

He said he has absolutely no plans to remove the decal from his truck.

That action can get whoever took the pics and passed it around fired for endangerment.

Concludes

And that’s exactly what the Air Force believes it is. They investigated the claims made by the union and determined that the two civilian workers were well within their rights to support Duck Dynasty.

“Brigadier General Dave Harris is not taking any action against the individual as the display of such a bumper sticker is considered legally protected speech under the First Amendment,” said Andy Bourland, director of public affairs at the military base

So its a no issue.

Taking photographs of the truck is just union thuggery, no excuse there.

 d-usa wrote:
Taking photographs of the truck is just union thuggery, no excuse there.

Agreed. The problem that started it wasn't that though, and seems more rooted in the "one of the officials also displayed the “I Support Phil” decals in his office last month and offered them to subordinates".

Yes. It's not illegal, but it's certainly clearly meant to be intimidating.

Passing out stickers is intimidating? But passing out photos of a guys vehicle and bad mouthing about someone isn't?

You can offer but you cannot pass out material

Offering = one has a choice of "yes" and "no"
Passing out = one has that awkward moment of ignoring or saying no *edit to add* or both

Simple but stupid but falls under "KISS"

I see no difference between them.

You can say yes, no, or ignore to either of them.

Why I play it safe and only offer coffee "Box of Joe's"

 Grey Templar wrote:
But passing out photos of a guys vehicle and bad mouthing about someone isn't?

I believe that was what was being referred to as intimidating.

Yes, I should have quoted that.

 whembly wrote:
He is not saying he is in favor of any kind of disrespect or discrimination against gay people. He is just saying that he thinks it is a sin. He doesn’t like it. That’s all he has said.

I have absolutely no idea how anyone on Earth could honestly hold a position that more or less boils down to "I think your love of another person is a sin that by my religion will get you cast in to Hell, but I don't mean to disrespect you or anything."

You think it's a sin, be honest and accept what you're saying to other people about their lives... or maybe do some real thinking about what sin is. But this half-assed thing where people think it's okay to morally condemn other people for their love lives, but then step back and say 'but I'd never disrespect you'... well that's just fething lame.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
How did he marginalize other people?

He said that other people lovelifes and relationships are sinful. I mean holy fething gak this isn't complicated.

He just stated his opinion and beliefs. Everyone is entitled to those. Saying he can't say them is infringing on the right to free speech.

No. Government punishing him for expressing his opinion would be an infringement on the right to free speech. Everything else is fair game.

This means if a company doesn't want to be associated with a guy who's said something controversial then they can stop employing him. There is no free speech protection from that. And it means that if some activist group wants to pressure a company to fire a guy who said something controversial, then there is again no free speech protection.

Whether the company or the activist group is right in applying that pressure is a whole other question, and one on which I side with letting the bigots and other controversial figures say their piece without fear of punishment, but as simple point of law you are miles off base.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
But should we be accepting of, racists, sexists, homophones, nazis, ect.?

To the extent that we are fearful of letting that tendency in society to punish anyone who goes against the grain to become all powerful, then we must temper our desire to punish bigots and donkey-caves. This means that yeah, it means that jerks like the Duck Dynasty guy should just be left alone, muttering their stupid crap and starring in some 'laugh at/with the pretend hillbillies' show. Such is life.

I have absolutely no idea how anyone on Earth could honestly hold a position that more or less boils down to "I think your love of another person is a sin that by my religion will get you cast in to Hell, but I don't mean to disrespect you or anything."

You think it's a sin, be honest and accept what you're saying to other people about their lives... or maybe do some real thinking about what sin is. But this half-assed thing where people think it's okay to morally condemn other people for their love lives, but then step back and say 'but I'd never disrespect you'... well that's just fething lame.

Except they aren't supposed to, it's supposed to be hate the sin, love the sinner. You should not disrespect that person at all, to look down on them is to judge them and that itself is considered a sin, which Jesus himself spoke that is a bad thing.

Pity most people seem to forget that part..

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Except they aren't supposed to, it's supposed to be hate the sin, love the sinner. You should not disrespect that person at all, to look down on them is to judge them and that itself is considered a sin, which Jesus himself spoke that is a bad thing.

Pity most people seem to forget that part..

Except that 'hate the sin, not the sinner' is a position that works for, say, gambling, where you can say you hate that a person gambles, but still love them. Because a person can come or go from gambling without being a fundamentally different person.

But when it comes to sexual identity and who a person loves... the position makes no sense. "I believe that the most intimate relationship in your life, the one that you have built your life around and created a household and family around, is a sin. But I don't disrespect you in any way... just your life, home and family."

It's completely ridiculous.

 sebster wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Except they aren't supposed to, it's supposed to be hate the sin, love the sinner. You should not disrespect that person at all, to look down on them is to judge them and that itself is considered a sin, which Jesus himself spoke that is a bad thing.

Pity most people seem to forget that part..

Except that 'hate the sin, not the sinner' is a position that works for, say, gambling, where you can say you hate that a person gambles, but still love them. Because a person can come or go from gambling without being a fundamentally different person.

But when it comes to sexual identity and who a person loves... the position makes no sense. "I believe that the most intimate relationship in your life, the one that you have built your life around and created a household and family around, is a sin. But I don't disrespect you in any way... just your life, home and family."

It's completely ridiculous.

No, its exactly the same as that. Sin is sin. Both a gambling addiction and having a wrong sexual identity are both sin, you can hate the sin and still love the sinner.

Its really no different to someone building their life around a gambling addiction. Its just society has decided to view one as ok and the other is still not ok.

 Grey Templar wrote:
No, its exactly the same as that. Sin is sin. Both a gambling addiction and having a wrong sexual identity are both sin, you can hate the sin and still love the sinner.

Its really no different to someone building their life around a gambling addiction. Its just society has decided to view one as ok and the other is still not ok.

Except that even the gambler will see that the life they've built around their gambling addiction is dysfunctional - not a happy place to be.

On the other hand, people trying to claim that they 'hate the sin but hate the sinner' will point to a same sex couple in a loving, intimate relationship in which they might even be raising a family of their own, and say 'oh I love you and wish the best for you but I hate that sinful life you're leading'.

And that's some fething ridiculous nonsense. They are leading a good, happy life. The only loving response is to be happy for them. When people can't actually be happy for them, it's pretty clear they don't actually care about them as people, all they really care about is their cultural identity and all the things that cultural identity tells them to hate.

 sebster wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
No, its exactly the same as that. Sin is sin. Both a gambling addiction and having a wrong sexual identity are both sin, you can hate the sin and still love the sinner.

Its really no different to someone building their life around a gambling addiction. Its just society has decided to view one as ok and the other is still not ok.

Except that even the gambler will see that the life they've built around their gambling addiction is dysfunctional - not a happy place to be.

On the other hand, people trying to claim that they 'hate the sin but hate the sinner' will point to a same sex couple in a loving, intimate relationship in which they might even be raising a family of their own, and say 'oh I love you and wish the best for you but I hate that sinful life you're leading'.

And that's some fething ridiculous nonsense. They are leading a good, happy life. The only loving response is to be happy for them. When people can't actually be happy for them, it's pretty clear they don't actually care about them as people, all they really care about is their cultural identity and all the things that cultural identity tells them to hate.

By our definition, they arn't leading a good life. It might be happy for them, but its not "good".

Its not contradictory. I view it as sin, but as people I am commanded to love them. They can be extended forgiveness like anyone else if they ask for it. And I'll show them God's love. If it comes up I'll point out the folly of their ways and how neither I nor God approve of it.

You can easily do both.

 Grey Templar wrote:
By our definition, they arn't leading a good life. It might be happy for them, but its not "good".

And there's the issue. You're using the definition granted to you by one particular interpretation of your religion to define how you think of them and their lives. That ain't love.

And so be it, if your politics and personal identity is more important. Just own that. Be honest, stop with this half-assed, patronising crap that you do love them as people, because it obviously isn't true - they are at best abstract theories in your head, not actual people that you think about, let alone love.

 Grey Templar wrote:


No, its exactly the same as that. Sin is sin. Both a gambling addiction and having a wrong sexual identity are both sin, you can hate the sin and still love the sinner.

Its really no different to someone building their life around a gambling addiction. Its just society has decided to view one as ok and the other is still not ok.

Serious? I think the bigger sin is not treating others how you would want to be treated yourself. Or optionally acting like a Pharisee and being high and mighty about the 'law' (church law, and following it as RAW) and not following the christian rules as RAI.
Jesus was way cool, some following him aren't.

 sebster wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
By our definition, they arn't leading a good life. It might be happy for them, but its not "good".

And there's the issue. You're using the definition granted to you by one particular interpretation of your religion to define how you think of them and their lives. That ain't love.

And so be it, if your politics and personal identity is more important. Just own that. Be honest, stop with this half-assed, patronising crap that you do love them as people, because it obviously isn't true - they are at best abstract theories in your head, not actual people that you think about, let alone love.

So because you don't agree with one facet of someones life means you cannot possibly love them?

By that definition, if your wife has an annoying habit you absolutely loath you can't possibly love her.

and by the way, its the only interpretation if you actually read what the Bible says.

 Grey Templar wrote:
So because you don't agree with one facet of someones life means you cannot possibly love them?

Once again, one's sexual identity and the most intimate relationship they've formed and built a family and life around is simply one facet of their lives.

You are ignoring this because, to repeat myself, you don't actually a give a gak about the people you purport to love.

And there's nothing wrong with not loving those people, nothing wrong with not giving two gaks about them. But there is something wrong in claiming you love someone when clearly you don't actually give a gak about whether they are leading a healthy, happy life, and instead are happy to just call that life a sin.

and by the way, its the only interpretation if you actually read what the Bible says.

Yeah, because the bible is famous for it's simple, clear, direct statements of right and wrong.

 Grey Templar wrote:
and by the way, its the only interpretation if you actually read what the Bible says.

The bible is full of stuff that doesn't make any sense what so ever. I don't see people rushing out to follow every aspect of the bible, nor do I see everyone who reads the bible come away with the same interpretation. In fact I would say that your interpretation of the bible is considered by most christians to be wildly incorrect in most regards (in general rather than just on homosexuality).

 Grey Templar wrote:

and by the way, its the only interpretation if you actually read what the Bible says.

I'm going to avoid hopping into this debate only to pause on this one. I know a few have already hit you on this but the Bible is by no means clear cut. It's vague, illogical at times, and has many different looks. God goes from in the old part claiming that shrimp is bad to being alright with it in the next section despite previously being noted to hate shrimp (as well as wearing clothing of mixed fabrics and sowing different types of seed into the same field). Simpy put, there is no one proper interpretation to the Bible.

Homosexual acts? They are mentioned approximately four times and never really brought to the forefront. It's never really the point being made more like a sin on the side or something to that line. I'd pull some mentioning scriptures such as Gen 19:8 Lot as an example of parts of the bible that would be difficult to find a way to explain in modern times to point to some no real one way to read it (such things change over time as well) nor could you for many of the mentions of slavery.

 Grey Templar wrote:
People promote tons of stuff at work all the time. Nobody has to accept them.

Most places I've worked have had a very strict "No solicitation" policy. Management most certainly does not send out fliers that say "Vote Quimby, he'd vote for you!" and so on. This policy also prevents you from bringing your daughter's Girl Scout Cookies into the break room to sell.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:

So because you don't agree with one facet of someones life means you cannot possibly love them?

I don't love any of my coworkers. Sadly, because there was this one quality lab manager...

 kronk wrote:
"Vote Quimby, he'd vote for you!" and so on.

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.

 kronk wrote:
This policy also prevents you from bringing your daughter's Girl Scout Cookies into the break room to sell.

More Somoas for me then!

 kronk wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
People promote tons of stuff at work all the time. Nobody has to accept them.

Most places I've worked have had a very strict "No solicitation" policy. Management most certainly does not send out fliers that say "Vote Quimby, he'd vote for you!" and so on. This policy also prevents you from bringing your daughter's Girl Scout Cookies into the break room to sell.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:

So because you don't agree with one facet of someones life means you cannot possibly love them?

I don't love any of my coworkers. Sadly, because there was this one quality lab manager...

I've never seen places restrict the selling of Girl Scout cookies. Thats just communism.

Hell, even the evil ole federal government lets you post order forms in the break room!

Do you want to be the man that ticks of a million soccer moms? Have you seen what they can do? HAVE YOU SEEN WHAT THEY DO?!?!?!?!?!

Man, now I am dying for some Girl Scout Cookies.

 streamdragon wrote:
Hell, even the evil ole federal government lets you post order forms in the break room!

I will have you know that solicitations are against the rules and that any violation will not be tolerated.

But there is really nothing anybody can do if you are careless enough to leave your personal papers laying around the break room and your hooligan coworkers deface it with a bunch of random numbers

 d-usa wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:
Hell, even the evil ole federal government lets you post order forms in the break room!

I will have you know that solicitations are against the rules and that any violation will not be tolerated.

But there is really nothing anybody can do if you are careless enough to leave your personal papers laying around the break room and your hooligan coworkers deface it with a bunch of random numbers

The "post the order for on the wall" thing has always flown for two reasons:

1. Technically, it's not a solicitation. No one is actually offering to sell you cookies, but if you want them there's the order form.
2. Thin mints are godly.