Go Back   Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum > Main Category > General Discussion

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #181  
Old 02-27-2014, 07:15 PM
ali#1 ali#1 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 3,378
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sundancefisher View Post
You totally miss the point. Who makes the arbitrary decision as to what is exempt from religious bigotry and who makes the decision as to what is important to a religion to let them cry exemption?

Anyone can make a religion these days. Jehovah's claim exemption from blood transfusions. Is that abuse of a child that needs it or it a fair exemption? Do we only let Christians decide the law or are Muslims, Jewish, Hindu, scientologists get to decide?
I agree.
  #182  
Old 02-27-2014, 07:17 PM
ali#1 ali#1 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 3,378
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rwm1273 View Post
Your right, but what tends to get these groups in trouble is they are too honest and explain why they won't hire certain people.
I have friends who are landlords who told me they will never rent to anybody on aish. I have friends who own companies who said they would never hire a woman (it's labour intensive) but I'm sure they wouldn't be dumb enough to say that in a court.
  #183  
Old 02-27-2014, 07:18 PM
rwm1273 rwm1273 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Deadmonton
Posts: 6,368
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ali#1 View Post
Women gained the right to vote one province at a time around the same time. I still don't see what this had to do with anything though ?
I am just correcting your misinformed opinion on what the Famous Five case was about. It was about appointment to the senate.

What it lead to is a different issue.

And the other things that I have pointed out is the issue with the vote, was not that men had the vote and women didn't, but that some women did have the vote when some men still didn't. And some groups still didn't have the vote until 1947, regardless of their sex.
  #184  
Old 02-27-2014, 07:21 PM
ali#1 ali#1 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 3,378
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rwm1273 View Post
I am just correcting your misinformed opinion on what the Famous Five case was about. It was about appointment to the senate.

What it lead to is a different issue.

And the other things that I have pointed out is the issue with the vote, was not that men had the vote and women didn't, but that some women did have the vote when some men still didn't. And some groups still didn't have the vote until 1947, regardless of their sex.
I was just pointing out earlier than things like women getting to vote and slaves being freed had much to do with majorities or voting and were usually Implemented by courts and forced through by government. Look at brown v the board of education for example.
  #185  
Old 02-27-2014, 07:31 PM
rwm1273 rwm1273 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Deadmonton
Posts: 6,368
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ali#1 View Post
I have friends who are landlords who told me they will never rent to anybody on aish. I have friends who own companies who said they would never hire a woman (it's labour intensive) but I'm sure they wouldn't be dumb enough to say that in a court.
Probably not, but should they be forced to hire or let these people move into their property? You seem to think they should be forced to.

I want to believe that everyone should be free to hire or rent to whom ever they want, but that leads to some groups not getting a fair chance. However some of these groups cause the problems for others of that same group.

When you have a small business, you want to hire someone who is not going to cause your business problems. As such, they chose not to hire people of a younger age, or sex, because they have had issues with such people not showing up to work. But to come out and say such a thing is not politically correct. Is it wrong? Perhaps, but often it may end up being a good practice, based on experience.
  #186  
Old 02-27-2014, 07:43 PM
rwm1273 rwm1273 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Deadmonton
Posts: 6,368
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ali#1 View Post
I was just pointing out earlier than things like women getting to vote and slaves being freed had much to do with majorities or voting and were usually Implemented by courts and forced through by government. Look at brown v the board of education for example.
Problem is you wanted to say the famous five was about the vote, when it had nothing to do with the vote. You also claimed Canada didn't have slavery, but it did.

Now you want to talk about segregation, an claim it was based upon votes by government and enforced by courts. You seem to be jumping all over the place. If you understood the Brown case, you would understand that it had more to do with the public accepting it then it did with the courts or government forcing it.

If you spoke about later issues such as Wallace's Alabama, or Arkansas, then I would agree that it was the government and courts that forced the issue to end segregation.

It was the NAACP that brought out the Brown case, and they did this in that particular state because they did not expect to have much opposition, and they were pretty much guaranteed to win, which would give them precedence in other jurisdictions where the people was not interested in desegregation.
  #187  
Old 02-27-2014, 08:03 PM
Kurt505 Kurt505 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Communist state
Posts: 13,245
Default

I am lol-ing reading some of the logic some are using in this thread. If it doesn't fit with your views, leave out the parts that don't work for you.
  #188  
Old 02-27-2014, 08:33 PM
rwm1273 rwm1273 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Deadmonton
Posts: 6,368
Default

Here is an article where a Muslim barber refused to cut the hair of a Lesbian because he claims that due to his religion, he can't cut the hair of a woman that he is not related to. She takes him to the Human Rights Commission.

http://tundratabloids.com/2012/11/le...-the-boot.html

And this article claims they came to an agreement.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/02...etly-resolved/

Interesting part of the article is he felt he feared losing his business, and she agreed.

“I feel good. I feel relieved of stress,” Mr. Mahrouk said. “It felt really stressful for the past few days, just waiting for the [mediation session].”

His worried that the future of his business would hang in the balance, he said, but in the end, he’s happy with the agreement the two came up with.

“I probably wasn’t as stressed out as he was because I think there was more at stake for him,” Ms. McGregor said.
  #189  
Old 02-27-2014, 08:36 PM
Dunezilla Dunezilla is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West Of Leduc,AB
Posts: 1,386
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by whammy View Post
First Timothy is thought to have been written well after Jesus' life, not in fact by Paul (even though it says it is written by Paul - that's a lie!!!!!).
1st & 2nd Timothy was written in 62-66 AD
__________________
"Shot through the heart, and Dune's to blame. His 308 kill's big game."---Dead Doevi

Last edited by Dunezilla; 02-27-2014 at 08:44 PM.
  #190  
Old 02-27-2014, 08:39 PM
covey ridge's Avatar
covey ridge covey ridge is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: N. E. of High River
Posts: 4,985
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sundancefisher View Post
You totally miss the point. Who makes the arbitrary decision as to what is exempt from religious bigotry and who makes the decision as to what is important to a religion to let them cry exemption?

Anyone can make a religion these days. Jehovah's claim exemption from blood transfusions. Is that abuse of a child that needs it or it a fair exemption? Do we only let Christians decide the law or are Muslims, Jewish, Hindu, scientologists get to decide?

""""So should a fanatical devote Muslim be allowed to not provide essential services to a Christian because in his religion he can't help infidels?""""

No I did not miss your point. I was just responding to the above. I do not think who should decide is as important as what should be decided. You used the word essential and asked about a devout Muslim refusing essential service to a non Muslim.

No one should be allowed to refuse essential services. ex. Doctor refusing medical treatment to person because of religion or race.

What should be exempt?

Who are you or anyone else that you should be allowed to tell another religion what should be exempt or not?

It would be far easier to decide what is essential to the real world we live in that is occupied by the secular as well as religious.

l
  #191  
Old 02-27-2014, 09:30 PM
ali#1 ali#1 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 3,378
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rwm1273 View Post
Problem is you wanted to say the famous five was about the vote, when it had nothing to do with the vote. You also claimed Canada didn't have slavery, but it did.

Now you want to talk about segregation, an claim it was based upon votes by government and enforced by courts. You seem to be jumping all over the place. If you understood the Brown case, you would understand that it had more to do with the public accepting it then it did with the courts or government forcing it.

If you spoke about later issues such as Wallace's Alabama, or Arkansas, then I would agree that it was the government and courts that forced the issue to end segregation.

It was the NAACP that brought out the Brown case, and they did this in that particular state because they did not expect to have much opposition, and they were pretty much guaranteed to win, which would give them precedence in other jurisdictions where the people was not interested in desegregation.
There has never been slavery in Canada while Canada has been a country.
  #192  
Old 02-27-2014, 09:58 PM
whammy whammy is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 404
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rwm1273 View Post
No, you are fixated on just one particular issue.

I don't disagree that this is a major issue, but not the only issue.
No. It is the reason the bill was introduced and the reason the bill was passed. Sorry if you are too stuck on your high horse to admit it.
  #193  
Old 02-27-2014, 10:01 PM
hal53's Avatar
hal53 hal53 is offline
Gone Hunting
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Lougheed,Ab.
Posts: 12,736
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by whammy View Post
No. It is the reason the bill was introduced and the reason the bill was passed. Sorry if you are too stuck on your high horse to admit it.
can you show me where the bill specifically singles out gays ???
__________________
The future ain't what it used to be - Yogi Berra
  #194  
Old 02-27-2014, 10:02 PM
ali#1 ali#1 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 3,378
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hal53 View Post
can you show me where the bill specifically singles out gays ???
One of the lawsuits was against a baker who refused to make a cake for a gay couple.
  #195  
Old 02-27-2014, 10:16 PM
Big Daddy Badger Big Daddy Badger is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 12,558
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rwm1273 View Post
If the situation was reversed, I doubt I would have this opinion.

And for the record, I don't care if a person is gay or not. But I do understand some people's religious opinion, and that is what I think needs to be respected.

Big issue is how to protect both groups without harming the other.
I know.

The thing is what is the greater harm...expecting that bussiness men will conduct themselves in a civil manner even if that means hoilding their nose once in awhile or ostersizing people because they have a prefereance that others do not share?

Fact is government doesn't belong in bedrooms and if if folks don't like what is going on in their neighbours bedroom between 2 consenting adults... they should probably get their nose off the glass and go home to moind their own affairs.
  #196  
Old 02-27-2014, 10:18 PM
Wild&Free Wild&Free is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 6,928
Default

Having read this whole thread. my long stick in the corner just won't cut it.

You gents can have this one.
__________________
Respond, not react. - Saskatchewan proverb

We learn from history that we do not learn from history. - Hegel

Your obligation to fight has not been relieved because the battle is fierce and difficult. Ben Shapiro
  #197  
Old 02-27-2014, 10:21 PM
rwm1273 rwm1273 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Deadmonton
Posts: 6,368
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ali#1 View Post
There has never been slavery in Canada while Canada has been a country.
Depends what you classify as a country.

Canada has been a constitutional monarchy since 1534, under both French and then British rule. It was not an independent kingdom until 1867 and at that time we became a Dominion, but we still had some British controls and political input until 1982 when we got the constitution, and therefore was when we officially became a "country on our own right", but we have been known as "Canada" long before then, known as Upper and Lower Canada. Furthermore, Canada in 1867 didn't include Alberta or Saskatchewan, who didn't join until 1905, NFLD until 1949, and PEI in 1871.

And by 1867, slavery had been eliminated in the US, and it had already been abolished in all British colonies, and therefore Canada by 1833. So if you consider Upper and Lower Canada a country, which it was then, then yes we had slavery.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/About/Senate/M...archy_00-e.htm

Canada is a constitutional monarchy. Since 1534, when the King of France claimed possession of what is now Canada, the history of our country has been marked by the reigns of an uninterrupted succession of monarchs, both French and British, who have had a significant influence on our country's development.
  #198  
Old 02-27-2014, 10:27 PM
rwm1273 rwm1273 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Deadmonton
Posts: 6,368
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by whammy View Post
No. It is the reason the bill was introduced and the reason the bill was passed. Sorry if you are too stuck on your high horse to admit it.
It didn't pass, and I am not on any "High Horse". If you are to ignorant to comprehend that there could be many different reasons that different people would use such a Bill to protect their rights, then you are the one who has the problem.

We have already seen published cases of a baker being forced to provide services to a gay couple, a barber taken to task for not cutting a woman's hair (had nothing to do with her sexuality), and a couple cases where a religious school was sued for firing or not hiring a gay person. And then there has been speculation about butchers and JP's possibly being forced to provide services that would violate their moral convictions.

So there are more than one reason why such a bill was put forth than your rather limited opinion.
  #199  
Old 02-27-2014, 10:27 PM
hal53's Avatar
hal53 hal53 is offline
Gone Hunting
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Lougheed,Ab.
Posts: 12,736
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ali#1 View Post
One of the lawsuits was against a baker who refused to make a cake for a gay couple.
the gay couple pushed it, not the baker, 99% of the people don't care if you are Gay, they get ****ed off when they have a need to push their agenda continually...ie the baker, you know what?, walk across the street to the next bake shop.....or phone CNN ??, that is why people get cranky
...
__________________
The future ain't what it used to be - Yogi Berra
  #200  
Old 02-27-2014, 10:33 PM
rwm1273 rwm1273 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Deadmonton
Posts: 6,368
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Daddy Badger View Post
I know.

The thing is what is the greater harm...expecting that bussiness men will conduct themselves in a civil manner even if that means hoilding their nose once in awhile or ostersizing people because they have a prefereance that others do not share?

Fact is government doesn't belong in bedrooms and if if folks don't like what is going on in their neighbours bedroom between 2 consenting adults... they should probably get their nose off the glass and go home to moind their own affairs.
I totally agree the government has no place sticking their nose in our bedrooms. But then again we also don't need people who want their bedroom activities brought out into the open.

What I see as the bigger problem is those who want to use their rights to remove other's rights.

The case of the Muslim barber being taken to the Human Rights Commission for refusing to cut a woman's hair is clearly a case where he had more to fear to lose than she did. She was free to get her hair cut anywhere else, but chose his shop, and when he said he can't cut a woman's hair who he was not related to, she took him to task for it. This bill would have saved him the trouble.
  #201  
Old 02-27-2014, 10:35 PM
Redfrog's Avatar
Redfrog Redfrog is offline
Gone Hunting
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Between Bodo and a hard place
Posts: 20,168
Default

Threads like this make me see just how screwed up people really are.

Pages and pages of people posting what others should do or think because no one is qualified to figure out how to live their own lives and mind their own business.
__________________
I'm not lying!!! You are just experiencing it differently.


It isn't a question of who will allow me, but who will stop me.. Ayn Rand
  #202  
Old 02-27-2014, 10:39 PM
rwm1273 rwm1273 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Deadmonton
Posts: 6,368
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redfrog View Post
Threads like this make me see just how screwed up people really are.

Pages and pages of people posting what others should do or think because no one is qualified to figure out how to live their own lives and mind their own business.
Problem is such a bill as this has the potential to change our society. It removes one's rights in favor of another's.
  #203  
Old 02-27-2014, 10:43 PM
ali#1 ali#1 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 3,378
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rwm1273 View Post
Problem is such a bill as this has the potential to change our society. It removes one's rights in favor of another's.
It does that either way, your just lining up with one side.
  #204  
Old 02-27-2014, 10:47 PM
rwm1273 rwm1273 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Deadmonton
Posts: 6,368
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ali#1 View Post
It does that either way, your just lining up with one side.
Not really, I would rather they find a happy middle ground.

I really don't think there would be a return to segregation as you tend to think.

Bottom line is there are some people hellbent on pushing their agenda. Even you mentioned the case of the baker and the gay couple. Do you think the gay couple should have taken the baker to court or not? Who is the problem in that case? Which rights do you think are more important? The baker's religious rights, or the gay couple's right to gay marriage?
  #205  
Old 02-27-2014, 11:58 PM
GreenCanada's Avatar
GreenCanada GreenCanada is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 165
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rwm1273 View Post
Not sure I agree with you OK. I do agree that discrimination is bad, but people should have a choice not to be forced to provide a service that violates their moral convictions, such as the baker forced to bake a cake for the gay couple, or for a JP forced to marry a gay couple.

In my opinion, forcing people to do such a thing removes their rights. Big problem is how to balance everyone's rights.
Fortunately for us, your rights end where another persons rights begin.

Period.
__________________
GreenCanada

finally, the earth swung around
  #206  
Old 02-28-2014, 12:41 AM
pickrel pat pickrel pat is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,268
Default

LOL.... This thread would be 1 page if 2 people here were to pm each other.
  #207  
Old 02-28-2014, 07:15 AM
whammy whammy is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 404
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dunezilla View Post
1st & 2nd Timothy was written in 62-66 AD
According to the church they were. According to people who study history, they were written in the second century.
  #208  
Old 02-28-2014, 07:51 AM
GreenCanada's Avatar
GreenCanada GreenCanada is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 165
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pickrel pat View Post
LOL.... This thread would be 1 page if 2 people here were to pm each other.
Haha, yea no doubt.

Maybe we should petition for rwm1273 to have a sticky for news releases, huff post, fox "news", etc. I'd keep other threads on the front page for more than a couple hours.

__________________
GreenCanada

finally, the earth swung around
  #209  
Old 02-28-2014, 07:55 AM
rwm1273 rwm1273 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Deadmonton
Posts: 6,368
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenCanada View Post
Haha, yea no doubt.

Maybe we should petition for rwm1273 to have a sticky for news releases, huff post, fox "news", etc. I'd keep other threads on the front page for more than a couple hours.

Would you rather read power engineering threads, or threads on what is the average salary in Ft. Mac?
  #210  
Old 02-28-2014, 07:57 AM
58thecat's Avatar
58thecat 58thecat is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: At the end of the Thirsty Beaver Trail, Pinsky lake, Alberta.
Posts: 24,502
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurt505 View Post
I am lol-ing reading some of the logic some are using in this thread. If it doesn't fit with your views, leave out the parts that don't work for you.
That's how a politician operates!
__________________

Be careful when you follow the masses, sometimes the "M" is silent...
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:20 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.