The Stupid Thread 2 (Part 1)

In what sense? It’s in John. Which makes it cannon for Catholics, orthodox, protestants, LDS, Jehovah’s Witness… pretty much every flavor of Christian.

Did you get hit by auto correct or something? It’s not in the apocrypha. I suppose it’s apocryphal from an atheist perspective. But then all scripture of any kind is.

a·poc·ry·phal
/əˈpäkrəfəl/
adjective

  1. (of a story or statement) of doubtful authenticity, although widely circulated as being true.

A·poc·ry·pha
/əˈpäkrəfə/
noun

  1. biblical or related writings not forming part of the accepted canon of Scripture.

It was added to John much later.

1 Like

Surprise! There’s more to the story than the clickbait headline.

And why is it people expect employers to give two shits about their freedom of speech? This is interesting because the right is supposed to be about capitalism and employer rights.

What do people normally think should lose when the fight occurs between free speech and employer rights? Genuinely curious. I usually lean towards employer rights.

@Basement_Gainz @cwill1973 @etc

Speech is no good if it hurts feelings. This is from a judge.

“Even paying due regard to the qualified right to freedom of expression, people cannot expect to be protected if their core belief involves violating others’ dignity and creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating, or offensive environment for them.”

The first amendment is specifically about freedom from government persecution from the federal government. Then later on through the commerce clause states got lumped in.

If your employer fires you for saying “it’s tuesday” on a Tuesday… tough titty. The first amendment doesn’t prevent you from the consequences of your speech like ostracism, firing etc… from private individuals.

Now society could privately agree that employer sucks and stop buying their products. But they’re under no obligation to keep someone employed who they believe doesn’t reflect the organization’s viewpoint.

1 Like

Do you understand the context of that quote? This was about freedom of speech in the workplace and how much protection one has from employers.

Correct. But the judge should have said that. He shouldn’t have made any comments about speech in general. What type of speech should be protected and/or is a right is entirely irrelevant to the case.

And it also has nothing to do with hurt feelings. The headline implies this is all about one little tweet when really her entire history of discriminatory beliefs were brought into it.

Okay.

You didn’t read the article and you don’t know the plaintiff’s history. It goes beyond words.

And your selective editing of the judge’s quote proves that you don’t even believe what you’re saying.

I posted the quote unedited or redacted. I read the entire article same as you chief. I was pointing out ot wasn’t wise for the judge to make that statement. At all. Because it implies that protection for speech ends where hurt feelings begin even though
A. That’s not true.

And

B. That wasn’t even relevant to the case.

Your previous post only mentioned offensive environment, not hostile, degrading, humiliating and intimidating.

This is a woman who has referred to transgender people, to their faces, as their birth sex, not current identity. That goes beyond hurting someone’s feelings.

If every morning when your wife arrived at work a male co-worker said to her, “good morning whore,” would that simply be someone hurting her feelings and she and you shouldn’t complain about it?

That’s where you’re wrong bud.
Only I can let what someone says to me affect me. Full stop. It is entirely within my control to be offended or not about anything anyone says to me.

Playing sports in school, people have called me a girl, gay, w/e they could to insult me and why against my “identity” … guess what. Didn’t hurt my feeling. So I gotta say your prescription is utter fucking horseshit the way you stated it.

2 Likes

I personally think employers should have the right to hire and fire whoever they please. My reason for posting the article was to illustrate the absolute insanity of the gender fluid movement.

3 Likes

Yep! I think confusion arises because businesses have been told that they can’t choose with whom they do business. That does muddy the waters a bit…

Ahh…this is probably a factor behind your lack of support for the revenge of the weird nerds that is progressivism.

If someone threatens to kill you, and you get scared, it’s all your fault. I mean, it’s just feelings. You are making the mistake of thinking the decision was based on feeling offended, it wasn’t.

Also, why would you be offended if someone called you gay?

A bunch of you are full of shit. You know damn well that if you ran a business and one of your white employees called a black employee a racial slur, you would fire him. You wouldn’t try and defend him by saying it’s just words so suck it up.