Oh good grief, Charlie Brown. We traded shots and I noted that in my post. Get over it.
You already agreed with me in the case of releigion.
(sp)
I should have known that I was dealing with the anal retentive spelling police too. It's a freaking typo. You get no points for finding it.
Indeed. The freedom to practice religion in any way we see fit is protected by the constitution.
Wrong. Our freedoms are neither granted nor protected by the Constitution. There are simply reminders in the document of some of our rights and a notation that we retain all others even if not mentioned. When was the last time you or any one else held up that document in the face of a government bureaucrat or judge and they said, "Ooops. You caught me. I'm sorry."
No dear, the Constitution doesn't protect us. We have the responsibility of enforcing the rules laid down by the Constitution on those who would ignore them and try to usurp our rights. Your perception is quite backward.
In other words, you cannot reasonably compare the hiring practices of a religious group to the hiring practices of elected officials.
Considering that the first part of your premise is wrong, why not?
Nope, I don't, because Senators, et al, are public employees. Therefore, their hiring practices are not covered by the constitutional freedom of religion clause.
Gee, whatever happened to freedom of association?
Sorry, but to try to compare private organizations to elected officials is silly. The ACLU is a private organization - of course they can ask you.
Oh really? I thought that asking those types of questions were illegal in all cases? Discrimination and all, doncha (that's slang, not a typo or misspelling) know? Aren't they subject to the same laws as every else?
If the Senator asked the guy in writing if he was gay, and he answered in writing that he was not, then yes, he can be fired - for lying on his application. However, that is not the case. The subject wasn't brought up, and the individual was attempting to be discrete. He did not 'out' himself - he was forcibly 'outted'.
Did you miss my point or are you just ignoring it? I know that you can fire someone for lying on an application. I also know that the law prohibits employers from asking about a lot of things. My premise is that the law is wrong, expecially when applied to advocacy. Whether it is a church, a private group, or a senator there is an advocacy of beliefs and all of these groups should not be bound by laws governing employment. Are you old enough to have ever been free or to appreciate that freedom?
Please copy and paste where I ever said that. :::::crickets:::::
You have to be able to read between the lines. Believe me, it's in there.
Sweetheart, I didn't ask for any points. It's a shame you get your panties all in a twist over such incidental things.
When was the last time you or any one else held up that document in the face of a government bureaucrat or judge and they said, "Ooops. You caught me. I'm sorry."
You are right, they don't. Doesn't change the fact that we have the right to practice our religion as we see fit.
We have the responsibility of enforcing the rules laid down by the Constitution on those who would ignore them and try to usurp our rights.
And this has to do with your demand that the Senator fire the guy that was 'outed' HOW exactly? Seems you've gotten off on some sort of tangent.
"Considering that the first part of your premise is wrong, why not?"
Good grief. So let me get this straight. You compare the right to freely practice our religion to somehow requiring the Senator to fire someone who was 'outed' against their will. Weird.
Gee, whatever happened to freedom of association?
An elected official gives up some of that right by choosing to be elected as a representative of all the people, not just the ones he chooses to be associated with. He still has the 'freedom of association' on his own time. But when acting in the capacity of elected representative, he doesn't get to not represent people just because he doesn't like them.
"Oh really? I thought that asking those types of questions were illegal in all cases?"
Then what is your beef? Is your beef with the law, or with the Senator for not finding out the guy was gay before he hired him? You seem to be going in circles.
My premise is that the law is wrong, expecially when applied to advocacy.
If this has been your point all along, it's strange that this is the first time you've stated it to me. Your point SEEMED to have been that the Senator should fire this guy because he was 'outed' as a gay.
You have to be able to read between the lines.
So you think you can 'read between the lines' something I did not intend to say. Weird.