ok

I thought he was railing against vote whores.... points are a little different.

I'm worried this is what Bambib is railing against

Point whores

lol

I gave you a point!

did I get a point?

and another point for being polite...

and I give you a point for being polite and appreciative.

And I give you a point for reading kh's book.

....and I gave you both points too.

Perfect. Thank you! :)

One problem I have with the phrase "people have a right not to be discriminated against" is it cheapens the word "right". Even a good gov't can't stop unfair discrimination. People will make make stupid decisions.

Rights are about things the gov't won't do to you: stop you from speaking, establish a religion, take away your weapons, take over your home, etc.... I believe everyone should have a "right" to food, clothing, shelter, and equal opportunity, but I'm cautious about calling those rights. Those are things I think the gov't should try to get for people b/c their presence provides a benefit to all.

I imagine people who want to discriminate see it anti-discrimination laws and discriminating against them. It would be like a Unitarian Universalist (UU) organization wanting to hire a UU web developer b/c we know more of them and they share our values, but someone tells us we must go out of our self-selected network and consider mainline Christians even if we don't want to.

Regarding pluralism, I think it can be protected by forbidding laws establishing a national religion. I don't think the gov't should get stop individuals people from establishing a religion in their own organization. People should be free to decide when to operate in their little self-selected worlds and when to go outside them.

If you make that argument, you effectively destroy the First Amendment entirely because you destroy the right to assembly and the right of associations to restrict membership, do you not? You can't allow someone to make rules on who they allow into their club or religion - regardless of how stupid you think they are - without fundamentally violating that right.

It would behoove you to pick up a basic guide to contract law. It is completely lawful to include in contract provisions what are referred to as Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications (or BFOQ's) as terms of a contract and these can directly infringe upon protected classes and statuses provided that the entity can prove the need for a BFOQ (affects enforceability). Both State and Supreme Courts have repeatedly affirmed the legality of BFOQ's both for religious and non-religious entities. In order to disqualify a BFOQ, the student would have to sue the University and prove that the clause did not further the University's purpose and charter.

BFOQ's have been acknowledged in the case of airline flight attendants' (weight), Hooters' "attractiveness" standards for waitresses (pregnancy), and even bartenders at a gay bar (sexual orientation).

And no, different rules do NOT apply in contractual negotiations between individuals and companies. There is no legal difference whatsoever. That was the reason the Supreme Court struck down campaign finance reform laws restricting the free speech of "companies" - because legally there was no basis for a distinction between individuals and companies with respect to the First Amendment.

Thank you both for that!

You could also think of it this way: why would you WANT to allow someone to attend your university (and receive an education subsidized heavily by voluntary members in good standing) who would graduate from your university and become a representative of your university but who was so disenchanted with what your university stood for that they defected? In my mind, the University's First Amendment rights to association are the root of the disagreement. By your argument, the University would be prohibited from excluding from membership the most directly antagonistic individuals - even though they had signed a contractual provision in advance notifying them of the consequences of such a decision! Are you really going to argue that position?

thank you

Good. Lol. I’ve got to go read your book now. Laterz.

LS is going to give her a point for that too

I’m giving you a point for the word “Maphewhatzit”.

Oops!!! It was directed at Maphewhatzit, and I hit the wrong reply button... Actually it was in support of your comment "They can do what they want and if people don't like it they should bolt... easy peasy"

Unlike the socialists, we believe in the right for businesses to provide the terms in which they do business (whether they be Universities, Blacksmith Shops, Greengrocers, or Auto Manufacturers) and if someone doesn't accept those terms, they are free to go elsewhere. What they CANNOT do is dicatate to the companies - or, in fact, we producers - how we do business. WE have the right to succeed - or fail. THEY do NOT have the right to tell us HOW to do it. Bottom line and easy peasy!

Was this directed at me?