From: ingrcfb@bnr.ca (Charles Board)
Subject: Re: Family values defined
Organization: Bell-Northern Research
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 1992 14:53:23 GMT

In article <69754@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
|> In article <1992Oct02.165856.1123@brtph560.bnr.ca> ingrcfb@bnr.ca (Charles Board) writes:
|> |In article <69731@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
|> ||> In article <1992Oct01.211109.17112@brtph560.bnr.ca> ingrcfb@bnr.ca (Charles Board) writes:
|> ||> |cases, however, I distinguish between their AIMS and their MMETHODS. Again,
|> ||> |do you support discrimination against gays (specifically such things as being 
|> ||> |fired or denied employmeny BECAUSE of being gay) or not?
|> ||> 
|> ||> Depends on the situation - I can see why one would not want a homosexual
|> ||> representing one's company.
|> |
|> |I can see why one would not want a black representing one's company (a 
|> |salesman for KKK press:), or a woman, or a cripple, or even a <gasp> christian.
|> |Is it OK in your view to fire/deny employment to someone BECAUSE THEY ARE A 
|> |CHRISTIAN? If not, what is the's the pertinent difference?
|> 
|> Can you see why a Christian group would not want a atheist representing them???

Depends. I think it would be wrong to force a Christian church to hire a minister
that was an atheist..I think it would be equally wrong for the church to deny a
church custodian position to someone beacause they were an atheist. 
|> 
|> Is there no moral action that one can say that they don't approve of and
|> so reject a person for employment?  If one can, in this "free society",
|> pursue one's happiness, then why can't one support only the morals one
|> believes are correct?  Oh, is it just that homosexuality is 'right' and
|> we are wrong for disapproving of it.  Some would advocate the same for other
|> sexual preferences, too, you know.

I didn't say there was no moral action for which one couldn't reject an employee. But YOUR
position seems to be that ANY moral criterion is OK - in fact you haven't made any attempt
to even limit the argument to moral criterion. Your "representing my company" argument
has nothing to do with morals - it can be applied to physical characteristics (ie-color)
with equal (lack of) justification. The difference in the pastor-custodian situation is
that atheism is job-related in one case and not in the other. There are very few jobs that
involve sexual orientation as a job-related criteria (certainly nothing at say, Cracker
Barrel). 
 Btw, I never said homosexuality is "right" (I'm a happily married hetero who's never
had a homo experience). And while I DO believe you are "wrong for disapproving" it's none
of my business UNTIL you start trying to force your arbitrary judgements on others.

|> 
|> ||> >But you're willing to trash his/her life simply because he/she doesn't agree 
|> ||> >with your (unsupported and irrational) religious views? With "love" like 
|> ||> >that who needs hate?
|> ||> 
|> ||> Pardon me for stating my supported views.  Love is has many faces.  It doesn't
|> ||> always say do what you want, but it can and should say "I love you too much
|> ||> to keep letting you do that."
|> |
|> |Richard we all love you so much we can't go on letting your mind rot under 
|> |the strain of your evil worldview. sorry, but we're going to have to shoot 
|> |you. but you must understand it's beacause we love you.
|> 
|> Hmm.  I see the analogy.  NOT.  Your approach stops me because it is
|> hurting your mind, not because of it hurting me.   If you are more 
|> enlightened than I, then surely you can overlook my ignorant ranting? :-)
 
If you had any idea how often we (I) HAVE overlooked your ignorant ranting:))
Seriously, the attitude you express in the "Pardon.." paragraph above is to
treat everyone as a child, incapable of making their own decisions because they
disagree with yours. This is an EVIL worldview under any circumstance, but rankles
even more when you can present nothing to back up your authority but the primitive
mythology of nomads dead 5000 years.
|> 
|> |"Live & Let Live" is THE FUNDAMENTAL NECESSARY rule for a free society. 
|> |anything else is tyranny.
|> 
|> How about children - do they get to do what they want?  Are any 
|> guidelines establish that go against their unhealthy exploration,
|> which is due to their lack of maturity?  Could they fall off the cliff because 
|> they were investigating in a dangerous area - wouldn't we stop them?

Bingo! You just confirmed the accusation I made above. You would treat everyone
who disagrees with you as a child. 
  
|> 
|> Oh, I guess it is live and let live. :-)
|>  
|> For Christ and His Kingdom,
|> Richard Pitts
|> 
|> -- 
|> rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
|> Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
|>                         -|-  |  -|-
|>                          |   |   |