Creation vs. Evolution

[MikeFerrara]

I thought you said parents should be able to raise their their kids how they want? You can't have it both ways. I think Christianity can destroy the life of a child too, but I am not going to enforce my views on you.

Are you saying that raising a child as you see fit, includes killing them if you choose?

 

[MikeFerrara]

So why is it just the "community" for business, and the individual for abortion? If An individual is discriminated against by a business it harms them. Why shouldn't there be protections against that?

I think you lost me. We don't generally allow businesses to kill anyone do we?

Are you going on the assumption that a business somehow owes you a job? I don't think they do. If you do work, they pay you for it. If you don't do work, they don't. Until there is work done there is no debt.

Conversely, in many cases being forced to have a baby can harm the mother, even cause her death - why is her protection worth less than the unborn child's?

A new twist to our conversation? You don't think we can use the relative risks of child birth and abortion to justify it on the basis of risk management do you? 1/x child births harm the mother and all abortions kill the baby...while 1/x abortions harm the mother?

Beyond that, if two people are in danger and only one can be saved, was the unsaved person murdered? I don't think so. How do you decide which one to save? I guess it depends.

In the case of lose one or the other or both...I don't know. Everyone involved just has to do the best they can with what they have and what they know. I wouldn't say that one is worth more than the other.

 

[MikeFerrara]

'Business owner'? The places that employ the majority of people are large companies that are publicly listed and owned my shareholders of males and females, and all sorts of races. I doubt they want the company engaging in discriminatory hiring practices so I think it should be banned as it is not in the interests of shareholders to hire in that way. Obviously, as a shareholder, I would never buy shares from a company that engages in discriminatory hiring but hiring is rarely transparent so I would want legal assurances I am not owning a company that is discriminating.

I don't think that large corporations really account for a majority of all employment but I agree that the share holders are the owners. You can get quite a bit of information on most publically held companies.

If you own a small business, of course you can hire who you want. I would prefer that people don't discriminate but that is not realistic for sure. You can't prove beyond a doubt that someone has been discriminatory if they only have white female employees and so on.

I'm pretty shure that Hooters engages in discriminatory hiring practices...they're a chain burger joints with young good looking servers. I haven't seen any 60 year old men waiting tables there.

So really, if you are a small business owner you can get away with it if you want so stop worrying about the government controlling you Mike.

Even large companies can usually get away with it. After almost 17 years of corporate life, I am of the opinion that the only people really being discriminated against in US big business are white males.

When it comes to *firing* somebody though, then if an employer had said 'I am firing you because you are female' then that crosses the line as it is punishing someone for something beyond their control.

Companies cut back or eliminate positions whenever it suits them and they don't have to give any explanation at all. Of course, I think that we should all be guided by some sort of ethics in business but those ethics should necessarily be coded in law.

The employees create a lot of the profit in a company and therefore should have a level of control over their job.

The employer does the work, they get paid, control over and every body is even.

 

[Sas]

Are you saying that raising a child as you see fit, includes killing them if you choose?

It was a flippant comment basically, just more in frustration at your double-think and constant self-contradiction. But I don't think a fetus is a child, nor do I think its destruction is killing. And the majority of people take my point of view (at least where I live).

 

[Sas]

Even large companies can usually get away with it. After almost 17 years of corporate life, I am of the opinion that the only people really being discriminated against in US big business are white males.

Some evidence please? You cannot just throw out statements like that without something to back you up.

I've worked for six years in corporate life in two male-dominated industries, and have found that women are more discriminated against in my own experience. But I wouldn't consider my own experience as evidence of systemic discrimination. Although there have been some studies into IT in Australia recently, which have found that women are often paid less for the same type of work. But I think there needs to be more research before I would go around claiming that.

 

[Kim]

A new twist to our conversation? You don't think we can use the relative risks of child birth and abortion to justify it on the basis of risk management do you? 1/x child births harm the mother and all abortions kill the baby...while 1/x abortions harm the mother?

I think it's totally the mother's decision if she wants to accept the risks or not. It doesn't matter what they are relative to other risks.

If a woman wants an abortion, and is refusd it, and then dies through complications of the pregnancy/birth process, how fair is that? Where is the individuals right to decide for themselves what an acceptable level of risk is?

You seem to want to decide it for her - no matter what your protestations to the contrary. I say it has NOTHING to do with you whatsoever - and as it seems to be something that you are doing because of religious principles, it would appear to be a case of religion trying to dictate how EVERYONE lives.

We had enough of that with the heresy laws and the Inquisition.

 

[shoredivr]

more in frustration at your double-think and constant self-contradiction.

Sadly, I think you've hit the nail on the head.

 

[AXL72]

I'm pretty shure that Hooters engages in discriminatory hiring practices...they're a chain burger joints with young good looking servers. I haven't seen any 60 year old men waiting tables there.

Wait, you mean to say you were actually looking for them?

 

[DiverBeth]

It seems clear enough that the correct question here isn't one of discrimination against homosexuals but rather of the welfare of the child.

Marriage status (single people can have a rough time) as well as race, age and residency as well as sexual orientation and a bunch of other stuff are often taken into consideration...again, in "the best interest of the child"

It is discrimination. The Florida law allows single parents to adopt. The prohibition against sexual orientation has no other basis. The 'best interest of the child" should always be taken into consideration but the sexual orientation of the parent should not automatically be a disqualifier. In Florida they will not even allow a gay person to adopt a hard to place child, they feel the child is better off in foster care than in a permanent loving home with a gay parent(s).

And if the worry is that the child would grow up to be gay well it doesn't work that way. If it did both my sons (my biological children) would be gay and neither of them is.

 

[MikeFerrara]

It is discrimination. The Florida law allows single parents to adopt. The prohibition against sexual orientation has no other basis. The 'best interest of the child" should always be taken into consideration but the sexual orientation of the parent should not automatically be a disqualifier. In Florida they will not even allow a gay person to adopt a hard to place child, they feel the child is better off in foster care than in a permanent loving home with a gay parent(s).

The question is, why do they feel that way? Apparently, they think it's in the best interest of the child. Maybe they're right and maybe they're wrong but you make it sound like the law is on the books just to discriminate against gays.

And if the worry is that the child would grow up to be gay well it doesn't work that way. If it did both my sons (my biological children) would be gay and neither of them is.

I don't know what specific concerns are behind the law. You could probably do some research and find out though.