AGC said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

So discrimination against Christians in your mind means you aren't allowed to discriminate against others?

---

When did you stop beating your wife, troll?

---

How does this discrimination work? I've yet to actually see an explanation of what systemic discrimination against Christians looks like in America beyond vague handwaving towards "DEI." But all that suggests is that the problem is not being allowed to discriminate.

Quote:

---

Flying a Christian flag is forbidden. Flying a pride flag is distasteful. These are worldviews in direct opposition and usually very hostile to each other. Allowing a platform to one and denying it to the other counts as persecution in the mildest sense
….
From K to medical school, I've only ever attended public schools. I've had teachers on public school payrolls teaching communism and socialism, and I've had plenty of "ethics" teachers that directly teach utilitarian morality.

---

You do understand that LGBTQ people are a population group and not a religion? The government is quite restricted in what it can do around religion. It can't be seen to be promoting one faith at the expense of others.

I also attended public schools until graduate school. I had a biology teacher refuse to teach evolution because it conflicted with her religion, and she was quite explicit about her religious beliefs. I had a pro-Confederate history teacher who had… problematic… statements about Black students. Plenty of other teachers who were conservatives and/or Christians and were happy to talk about it, or promoted capitalism without discussing critiques of it. Teachers are human. I don't think it means schools mindlessly promote left or right wing ideology.

Windy City Ag said:

---

Quote:

---

Is it communication or living out religious beliefs? Parse that difference for me if you're "genuinely curious". It's pretty clear to me how I have to live at work and what flags I have to fly for career opportunities and promotion in greater industry.

I asked for other nominations earlier and you didn't provide any.

---

Well, narrowing it down to just the workplace makes it a more interesting claim. Structural oppression, in my view, this is a much broader topic regarding educational opportunity, workplace opportunity, etc, but we can go there.

I can think of many groups that would not be able to express their views in a similar manner.

Muslims probably cannot uncork their true views on Israel and Zionism. They have been fired over their prayer breaks. They have been forbidden in certain cases to wear headscarves that are important to them. This is in addition to all the documented cases of Islamophobia in the workplace.

Ageism is a bigger deal in my mind. Someone in their late 50s (no matter their relgion) is going to face a whole lot more roadblocks than younger Christian.

This avoids the more noxious groups that don't get to speak up naturally.

I will say in each case their is some sort of viewpoint that is protected in the public sphere but cannot extend into the workplace, which makes Christian feelings really not all that unique.

---

I didn't narrow it down to that; you did. Workplaces are government regulated too which combines with business ethics and morals.

You talk about expressing 'views' and conflate it with actually living out a practice. You've internalized religion and are treating it like gender - it's simply outward expression of inward belief, rather than engaging others with that same belief in mind. Must I acknowledge pronouns if they conflict with my religious beliefs? Put them in my bio? Do I have to play along with furries (yes, they exist in government schools in my area, no there's not a news article that's 'evidence')? What about pride gear distributed? I stand out if I don't display it or wear the tags and it makes one a target for people like sapper.

I'll also admit I didn't think 'kill the Jews' or 'free Palestine' was an Islamic moral teaching but I've learned something from this post.

Quote:

---

You talk about expressing 'views' and conflate it with actually living out a practice. You've internalized religion and are treating it like gender - it's simply outward expression of inward belief, rather than engaging others with that same belief in mind. Must I acknowledge pronouns if they conflict with my religious beliefs? Put them in my bio? Do I have to play along with furries (yes, they exist in government schools in my area, no there's not a news article that's 'evidence')? What about pride gear distributed? I stand out if I don't display it or wear the tags and it makes one a target for people like sapper.

---

I don't think you should have to do any of that. . . . my opinion obviously. We had a gay pride thing at work and many people did not show up to it and there was no consequence. you should not be forced to participate in things that

Can't comment on the furries thing as I don't even understand that concept.

And you miss the point on the Islamic part and ignored the other points. There are many cases of job offers being rescinded due to social media posts protesting the Israeli invasion.

Bob Lee said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

AGC said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

So discrimination against Christians in your mind means you aren't allowed to discriminate against others?

---

When did you stop beating your wife, troll?

---

How does this discrimination work? I've yet to actually see an explanation of what systemic discrimination against Christians looks like in America beyond vague handwaving towards "DEI." But all that suggests is that the problem is not being allowed to discriminate.

---

That's what it looks like. Because DEI and LGBTQ ideologically are antithetical to Christianity, and vice versa.

Laws aren't strictly downstream of culture. Laws also inform our children's attitudes about what's good and healthy. You expect me to believe you can grow up in a world where it's legal to kill your children in utero, and consent is the highest moral virtue, and it doesn't reveal anything to children in their formative years about how they ought to behave. I reject the premise.

If Christianity in the public square violates the rights of LGBTQ people, how is it not the same in reverse? if Christianity is completely excluded from the public square, then that's also discrimination. That's why Justice Alito's comments are so prescient. Someone will win. There's no way for the two things to exist at the same time and place. Liberalism always leads to leftism, and leftism holds that Christian teachings are hateful and bigoted.

---

So Christianity mandates discrimination against others in the public square and to disallow that is discrimination against Christianity? Do you see the issue with this take? No one is stating you cannot be a believing Christian. They are saying you cannot use that belief to discriminate against others in public places. That doesn't make you systemically discriminated against. It means you can't be an ******* in public without consequences.

Sapper Redux said:

---

AGC said:

---

Windy City Ag said:

---

Quote:

---

If Christianity has a view of sex and gender associated with morality, to actually live according to it is to discriminate in your mind and you can easily hand waive people fired over pronouns or taking stances on morality of sexual behavior (several university cases, the business world, women's soccer, etc.).

---

So you are saying you feel structurally oppressed because you cannot communicate your views on homosexuality or transgender people in the workplace? You fear reprisal because of your religious views?

Genuinely curious. . . .

---

Is it communication or living out religious beliefs? Parse that difference for me if you're "genuinely curious". It's pretty clear to me how I have to live at work and what flags I have to fly for career opportunities and promotion in greater industry.

I asked for other nominations earlier and you didn't provide any.

---

So is the issue that you can't discriminate against certain people? Because I've known practicing Christians everywhere I've worked and they've never faced discrimination for being practicing Christians. The only time an issue would arise is if they attempted to use their religion as an excuse to discriminate against someone in an official capacity.

---

My company has a technical group that a Muslim wanted to join, but couldn't because the group met on a Friday during some prayer that happened at his mosque. The group wasn't willing to move the meeting so he wasn't able to join. Was he discriminated against?

Windy City Ag said:

---

Quote:

---

You talk about expressing 'views' and conflate it with actually living out a practice. You've internalized religion and are treating it like gender - it's simply outward expression of inward belief, rather than engaging others with that same belief in mind. Must I acknowledge pronouns if they conflict with my religious beliefs? Put them in my bio? Do I have to play along with furries (yes, they exist in government schools in my area, no there's not a news article that's 'evidence')? What about pride gear distributed? I stand out if I don't display it or wear the tags and it makes one a target for people like sapper.

---

I don't think you should have to do any of that. . . . my opinion obviously. We had a gay pride thing at work and many people did not show up to it and there was no consequence. you should not be forced to participate in things that

Can't comment on the furries thing as I don't even understand that concept.

And you miss the point on the Islamic part and ignored the other points. There are many cases of job offers being rescinded due to social media posts protesting the Israeli invasion.

---

I didn't miss the point. It wasn't analogous.

I don't post on social media; posting on social media isn't a religious or secular thing. Many of the thoughts broadcast there are simply opinions and have nothing to do with living out your religion publicly: if a Christian doesn't post a Bible verse every day it's not a violation of any moral teaching, likewise Muslims aren't required to voice their opinions anywhere about those things, not by government, company policy, or personal religious practice. Pronouns in bios in corporations and government (and requiring religious people to observe them) are compelled speech which is a different ballgame. That is to say, it requires a Christian to deny their teachings on gender and sex when expressing their beliefs externally (which sapper wrongly calls discrimination, as he equates it with not giving people whatever they want whenever they want it, tyranny of the individual as it were, allowing others to colonize your mind).

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Quote:

---

You do understand that LGBTQ people are a population group and not a religion? The government is quite restricted in what it can do around religion. It can't be seen to be promoting one faith at the expense of others.

---

I disagree on the first point. The LGBTQ phenomenon is most definitely an ideology and worldview, and not just a group of people. There is a whole mythos of persecution and oppression coupled with valiant heroes, stereotypical villains, and a strong moral mandate for change of behavior.

---

It is not a religion, no matter how much people try to spin it that way. LGBT in general is a sexual orientation. Ok fine, the LGBT "movement" can be described as a political movement (you know, like conservatism, libertarianism, progressivism), but it is by definition not a religion. The two things are not the same.

Quote:

---

Regarding the second point, not promoting the most popular religion in a country seems to be a normal and sensible things to Americans. But it's actually very, very strange. There is not a single other place in the world where the dominant worldview is explicity prevented from operating through the state. Representative government is designed to represent the people, and it can do that only to a certain extent in the US. Imagine Qatar, 65% Muslim as opposed to the US being 65% Christian, banning all governmental displays and promotion of Islam. Or Europeans banning government promotion of secular humanism. Just because we're used to it here doesn't make it normal or wise. It's probably not good for a country when the single most unifying worldview in the country is hamstrung in relation to other worldviews.

---

Well you're certainly entitled to your opinion, but if you have an issue with not promoting Christianity, take it up with the drafters of the constitution. That was specifically and explicitly forbidden, as you even acknowledge here. And there was a reason they put it in there. They believed the country should not have an established state religion, AND there should be freedom to exercise any religion (or no religion). Those are incredibly precious freedoms, and no matter how much you want to spin your post, you are essentially saying Christians should get special treatment simply by being the majority religion.

Christianity is already widely promoted in government anyway (prayers before legislative session, prayers at inauguration, "In God We Trust" printed on currency). Aside from that, it is still by far the most dominant religion in the USA. Churches are all over the place, even in secular parts of the country. I don't know what your complaint is when you're already getting this much. Apparently it's not enough.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I also attended public schools until graduate school. I had a biology teacher refuse to teach evolution because it conflicted with her religion, and she was quite explicit about her religious beliefs. I had a pro-Confederate history teacher who had… problematic… statements about Black students. Plenty of other teachers who were conservatives and/or Christians and were happy to talk about it, or promoted capitalism without discussing critiques of it. Teachers are human. I don't think it means schools mindlessly promote left or right wing ideology.

---

I 100% believe you. I also think that your experience is not typical, especially as one progresses in education.

---

I think we can all find examples of teachers saying inappropriate things in the classroom, from any point of view. The consistent position to take is that they should not do that and they should TEACH. Not taking the position that "because they do it, we should too." Especially given the fact that in this insanely partisan time, a teacher diving deep into darker topics about US history that aren't always covered in such classes, can be perceived as an attack on our values or teaching kids that America is evil, or something.

Quote:

---

Pronouns in bios in corporations and government (and requiring religious people to observe them) are compelled speech which is a different ballgame.

---

Not quite sure where you are going here. Pronouns in Bios is one thing. Forcing employees to use those pronouns is another.

Compelled speech to is a legal term in reference to constitutional protections. Jehovah's Witnesses, for example, did not want their kids to say the pledge of allegiance or salute the flag. Supreme Court agreed that they did not have to. I am guessing you have read up on this topic, because many first amendment advocates agree with your stance that you cannot and should not be compelled to use the pronouns.

Looping back to the original point of this thread, we are now down to certain Christians having to read pronouns in corporate bios and that is pretty shaky evidence for Christians being the most structurally oppressed sub-group in America.

Quote:

---

Any Fortune 100 company is going to fire someone for not using a coworker's preferred pronouns.

---

Fortune 100 companies can fire you for a lot of reasons. From a legal perspective, however, they are on very shaky legal ground to do so over your resistance to the compelled use of preferred pronouns.

https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/pronouns-free-speech-and-first-amendment#:~:text=Private%20employers%20are%20not%20bound,to%20use%20coworkers'%20preferred%20pronouns.

Quote:

---

How do these principles apply to private employers?

Private employers are not bound by the First Amendment, so they are generally free to make their own rules concerning employee speech, including pronoun use. Like public employers, they must comply with anti-discrimination laws, but those laws cannot force private employees to use coworkers' preferred pronouns.

---

Windy City Ag said:

---

Quote:

---

Pronouns in bios in corporations and government (and requiring religious people to observe them) are compelled speech which is a different ballgame.

---

Not quite sure where you are going here. Pronouns in Bios is one thing. Forcing employees to use those pronouns is another.

Compelled speech to is a legal term in reference to constitutional protections. Jehovah's Witnesses, for example, did not want their kids to say the pledge of allegiance or salute the flag. Supreme Court agreed that they did not have to. I am guessing you have read up on this topic, because many first amendment advocates agree with your stance that you cannot and should not be compelled to use the pronouns.

Looping back to the original point of this thread, we are now down to certain Christians having to read pronouns in corporate bios and that is pretty shaky evidence for Christians being the most structurally oppressed sub-group in America.

---

To be fair, the best you could come up with for more structurally oppressed people was Muslims posting about Israel on X and 50 year olds (who actually enjoy government protection in the workplace for age discrimination, the opposite of what we're actually discussing).

Oh yeah, and you've simply disregarded our own personal experiences and interactions with government schools, agencies, universities, and companies.

Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?

Windy City Ag said:

---

Quote:

---

Any Fortune 100 company is going to fire someone for not using a coworker's preferred pronouns.

---

Fortune 100 companies can fire you for a lot of reasons. From a legal perspective, however, they are on very shaky legal ground to do so over your resistance to the compelled use of preferred pronouns.

https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/pronouns-free-speech-and-first-amendment#:~:text=Private%20employers%20are%20not%20bound,to%20use%20coworkers'%20preferred%20pronouns.

Quote:

---

How do these principles apply to private employers?

Private employers are not bound by the First Amendment, so they are generally free to make their own rules concerning employee speech, including pronoun use. Like public employers, they must comply with anti-discrimination laws, but those laws cannot force private employees to use coworkers' preferred pronouns.

---

---

It's almost like we had lawsuits or something to protect it…

Quote:

---

It's almost like we had lawsuits or something to protect it…

---

Right, and most of them have gone the way the should have.

Title VII was extended to cover pronouns only for Federal courts in multiple instances to reject that status.

Most court cases have gone the way to the plaintiffs claiming religious discrimination for compelled use of pronouns.

Hard to see structural oppression in any of that.

Quote:

---

Oh yeah, and you've simply disregarded our own personal experiences and interactions with government schools, agencies, universities, and companies.

---

I don't doubt you have encountered things that have upset you personally. Just getting upset is not evidence of structural oppression.

All you have offered is that things happened, you don't like them, therefore I am the greatest victim of structural oppression.

Most people rightly roll their eyes at that view.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

AGC said:

---

Windy City Ag said:

---

Quote:

---

If Christianity has a view of sex and gender associated with morality, to actually live according to it is to discriminate in your mind and you can easily hand waive people fired over pronouns or taking stances on morality of sexual behavior (several university cases, the business world, women's soccer, etc.).

---

So you are saying you feel structurally oppressed because you cannot communicate your views on homosexuality or transgender people in the workplace? You fear reprisal because of your religious views?

Genuinely curious. . . .

---

Is it communication or living out religious beliefs? Parse that difference for me if you're "genuinely curious". It's pretty clear to me how I have to live at work and what flags I have to fly for career opportunities and promotion in greater industry.

I asked for other nominations earlier and you didn't provide any.

---

So is the issue that you can't discriminate against certain people? Because I've known practicing Christians everywhere I've worked and they've never faced discrimination for being practicing Christians. The only time an issue would arise is if they attempted to use their religion as an excuse to discriminate against someone in an official capacity.

---

My company has a technical group that a Muslim wanted to join, but couldn't because the group met on a Friday during some prayer that happened at his mosque. The group wasn't willing to move the meeting so he wasn't able to join. Was he discriminated against?

---

Very possibly. More information would be needed. Did you take my position to be that it is impossible to discriminate against people on religious grounds? Because that's not the debate here.

Sapper Redux said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

AGC said:

---

Windy City Ag said:

---

Quote:

---

If Christianity has a view of sex and gender associated with morality, to actually live according to it is to discriminate in your mind and you can easily hand waive people fired over pronouns or taking stances on morality of sexual behavior (several university cases, the business world, women's soccer, etc.).

---

So you are saying you feel structurally oppressed because you cannot communicate your views on homosexuality or transgender people in the workplace? You fear reprisal because of your religious views?

Genuinely curious. . . .

---

Is it communication or living out religious beliefs? Parse that difference for me if you're "genuinely curious". It's pretty clear to me how I have to live at work and what flags I have to fly for career opportunities and promotion in greater industry.

I asked for other nominations earlier and you didn't provide any.

---

So is the issue that you can't discriminate against certain people? Because I've known practicing Christians everywhere I've worked and they've never faced discrimination for being practicing Christians. The only time an issue would arise is if they attempted to use their religion as an excuse to discriminate against someone in an official capacity.

---

My company has a technical group that a Muslim wanted to join, but couldn't because the group met on a Friday during some prayer that happened at his mosque. The group wasn't willing to move the meeting so he wasn't able to join. Was he discriminated against?

---

Very possibly. More information would be needed. Did you take my position to be that it is impossible to discriminate against people on religious grounds? Because that's not the debate here.

---

I'm giving you a real life example.

Bob Lee said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

AGC said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

So discrimination against Christians in your mind means you aren't allowed to discriminate against others?

---

When did you stop beating your wife, troll?

---

How does this discrimination work? I've yet to actually see an explanation of what systemic discrimination against Christians looks like in America beyond vague handwaving towards "DEI." But all that suggests is that the problem is not being allowed to discriminate.

---

That's what it looks like. Because DEI and LGBTQ ideologically are antithetical to Christianity, and vice versa.

Laws aren't strictly downstream of culture. Laws also inform our children's attitudes about what's good and healthy. You expect me to believe you can grow up in a world where it's legal to kill your children in utero, and consent is the highest moral virtue, and it doesn't reveal anything to children in their formative years about how they ought to behave. I reject the premise.

If Christianity in the public square violates the rights of LGBTQ people, how is it not the same in reverse? if Christianity is completely excluded from the public square, then that's also discrimination. That's why Justice Alito's comments are so prescient. Someone will win. There's no way for the two things to exist at the same time and place. Liberalism always leads to leftism, and leftism holds that Christian teachings are hateful and bigoted.

---

So Christianity mandates discrimination against others in the public square and to disallow that is discrimination against Christianity? Do you see the issue with this take? No one is stating you cannot be a believing Christian. They are saying you cannot use that belief to discriminate against others in public places. That doesn't make you systemically discriminated against. It means you can't be an ******* in public without consequences.

---

I could say the same to you which is my point. According to DEI inclusivity is inherently good, and Christianity isn't inclusive. So if we unite around this belief in a DEI moral hierarchy, Christianity has to be rooted out. I can only raise my children in the faith to the extent I don't partake in public goods that are ostensibly for their benefit. The second we start to do things like hire LGBTQ teachers, society is tacitly supporting its practice, and if I balk at that by doing something like asking for my child to not have a teacher who's not a good model of femininity or masculinity, then my family is ostracized. You call that being an *******. I'm just trying to live the faith, and raise my children in it.

---

You're demanding people around you in the public sphere, not private groups or spaces, who don't share your views bow before your beliefs and organize their lives around it. Yeah, that's being a discriminatory *******.

88Warrior said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

AGC said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

So discrimination against Christians in your mind means you aren't allowed to discriminate against others?

---

When did you stop beating your wife, troll?

---

How does this discrimination work? I've yet to actually see an explanation of what systemic discrimination against Christians looks like in America beyond vague handwaving towards "DEI." But all that suggests is that the problem is not being allowed to discriminate.

---

That's what it looks like. Because DEI and LGBTQ ideologically are antithetical to Christianity, and vice versa.

Laws aren't strictly downstream of culture. Laws also inform our children's attitudes about what's good and healthy. You expect me to believe you can grow up in a world where it's legal to kill your children in utero, and consent is the highest moral virtue, and it doesn't reveal anything to children in their formative years about how they ought to behave. I reject the premise.

If Christianity in the public square violates the rights of LGBTQ people, how is it not the same in reverse? if Christianity is completely excluded from the public square, then that's also discrimination. That's why Justice Alito's comments are so prescient. Someone will win. There's no way for the two things to exist at the same time and place. Liberalism always leads to leftism, and leftism holds that Christian teachings are hateful and bigoted.

---

So Christianity mandates discrimination against others in the public square and to disallow that is discrimination against Christianity? Do you see the issue with this take? No one is stating you cannot be a believing Christian. They are saying you cannot use that belief to discriminate against others in public places. That doesn't make you systemically discriminated against. It means you can't be an ******* in public without consequences.

---

I could say the same to you which is my point. According to DEI inclusivity is inherently good, and Christianity isn't inclusive. So if we unite around this belief in a DEI moral hierarchy, Christianity has to be rooted out. I can only raise my children in the faith to the extent I don't partake in public goods that are ostensibly for their benefit. The second we start to do things like hire LGBTQ teachers, society is tacitly supporting its practice, and if I balk at that by doing something like asking for my child to not have a teacher who's not a good model of femininity or masculinity, then my family is ostracized. You call that being an *******. I'm just trying to live the faith, and raise my children in it.

---

You're demanding people around you in the public sphere, not private groups or spaces, who don't share your views bow before your beliefs and organize their lives around it. Yeah, that's being a discriminatory *******.

---

Wait! What?? So ironic…..Doing exactly what you're accusing him of doing….

---

It is truly bizarre. His side forcing their agenda on society is exactly what started all this stuff. Zero self awareness.

Get the vax!

https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/6c5720a4-9546-49ce-818e-774b03ac2dcd/gif

Windy City Ag said:

---

Quote:

---

If Christianity has a view of sex and gender associated with morality, to actually live according to it is to discriminate in your mind and you can easily hand waive people fired over pronouns or taking stances on morality of sexual behavior (several university cases, the business world, women's soccer, etc.).

---

So you are saying you feel structurally oppressed because you cannot communicate your views on homosexuality or transgender people in the workplace? You fear reprisal because of your religious views?

Genuinely curious. . . .

---

That's not what he's arguing and you are obviously smart enough to know that.