It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Political correctness scares me .

page: 15
55
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 08:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

Indeed, defending the minority against the tyranny of the majority is precisely the definition of a Representative Democracy.

Democracy in it's purest form can be defined as "Tyranny of the majority over the few". If in 1950 49% of people prefer green apples, and 51% of people prefer red, does that mean that inherently red apples are better and green apples should be banned, erased, made extinct? All the while the year prior the percentage of Green vs. Red was the exact opposite. All it takes is the right person or people to convince 2% of red to sway green in one year's time.

Honestly, where is the logic in that?
edit on 9-7-2015 by OrdoAdChao because: a ? or a . . Knowone noes!




posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 08:27 PM
link   
a reply to: OrdoAdChao


Democracy in it's purest form can be defined as "Tyranny of the majority over the few". If in 1950 49% of people prefer green apples, and 51% of people prefer red, does that mean that inherently red apples are better and green apples should be ban


That's the point. Neither should be treated better everyone's rights should be respected . But that does not mean you have to impede the majorities rights in favor of the minority .



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Also, their right's end when it infringes on the rights of other's individual rights.



All right, so the gay has the civil privilege of marriage. But what happens when the gay's civil privilege runs afoul of the religious freedom of another? It seems right now that you are saying that the individual's right trumps the will of the majority meaning the gay would win even though it infringes on the rights of the other to not participate.


There is no right to have your religious beliefs not infringed upon. By your logic, because there are religious people who are offended by the notion of eating pork, then there should be no pork eating allowed. What about the bacon?! Does no one care about bacon?!

All facetiousness aside, I hope you get my point.
edit on 9-7-2015 by OrdoAdChao because: slashquotes and such

edit on 9-7-2015 by OrdoAdChao because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 08:36 PM
link   
a reply to: OrdoAdChao

“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.” ~ Benjamin Franklin



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 08:41 PM
link   
a reply to: OrdoAdChao

I don't know if I agree with you there. How do you have religious freedom if someone infringes on your religious beliefs?

Also -

When in he course of human events - bacon.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 08:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Greathouse

How do minority rights impede on the majority in the terms of PC? The majority are free to voice their views all they want, but they are not free from ridicule or critical scrutiny - I understand that we can say what we want, when we want, how we want, but that does not free us from repercussion outside of government repercussion.

If the media portrays the majority as a clown-shod laughing stock - maybe the majority is just that. Or, more likely, that media is swayed by monetary influences. Either way, it should make both the majority and minority examine their speech and regard it as a sacred right instead of a free for all to be protected by some enigmatic interpretation of the notion of freedom of speech or freedom of religion.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 08:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Vroomfondel
On which part do you disagree? My fault for putting too many points in a post. My definition of democracy / representative democracy are tentative at best, no doubt. Please elaborate =).
edit on 9-7-2015 by OrdoAdChao because: to? too? two?! Damn you English!

edit on 9-7-2015 by OrdoAdChao because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 08:50 PM
link   
a reply to: OrdoAdChao



There is no right to have your religious beliefs not infringed upon.


If your religious beliefs are infringed upon, where is your freedom of religion?

The problem with legislating rights is that you have to guarantee rights to one group without taking them away from anyone else. That can be much harder than it sounds.
edit on 9-7-2015 by Vroomfondel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 08:56 PM
link   
a reply to: OrdoAdChao

Sorry, I am a wee buzzed, I get it now.

You have freedom of religion, just like you have freedom of speech. You cannot say that your freedom of speech or religion trumps another's freedom of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I am sorry, but "teh gay" is not a choice, and my bacon example falls short there.

If you disagree with that, you are free to - and I would never advocate that a pastor/priest/rabbi/(insert religious leader here) who believes that homosexuality is a sin should ever marry a gay couple if they disagree with it on their own "moral" grounds. There are plenty of pastors/priests/whatevers that would marry them regardless ($$$)



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 08:58 PM
link   
a reply to: OrdoAdChao


How do minority rights impede on the majority in the terms of PC? The majority are free to voice their views all they want, but they are not free from ridicule or critical scrutiny - I understand that we can say what we want, when we want, how we want, but that does not free us from repercussion outside of government repercussion.



Your first paragraph points out the fallacy in your statement . Have you watch the news at all this week? A bakery refused to bake a cake because of their religious freedoms. The government fined that bakery $100,000 and ruled in favor of the Minority .

It seems that despite your question of how it could happen . It has in fact happened .



The same goes for your statement about eating pork . Subway has already removed pork from menus in many locations because of the" sensitivity issues" .


While that might have happened in a predominantly Muslim area . A minority of people in that area that wanted bacon had their rights trampled upon .

So there you go two instances involving both minority and majority where people's rights were trample upon in the name of political correctness.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 09:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Greathouse

A state court found that to be the case. I will say that if this happened in a conservative state, the opposite would be true and the opposite thread would be happening at this moment. I live in a state where as long as you manufacture a silencer in this state, you can legally own and operate it. The federal government (ATF, FWP, etc.) could arrest you for it, but really, we've had no problems thus far. At least none that have hit the media.

I firmly predict that on federal appeal, the fine will be thrown out, and Oregon will not hear those cases after this media fiasco. Whether the media makes a big deal out of it and to the reasons why, well, that's why ATS exists.

And no, I really don't participate in the bread and circus which our local, state and federal governments put forth to distract us from serious issues, instead of ridiculous social issues.

My apologies for being ignorant to this case and the Subway case - which is simply a business decision. That is Subway's right to decide that in certain areas they will not serve pork products.
edit on 9-7-2015 by OrdoAdChao because: Apologetics etc.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 09:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Greathouse

The court found they ran afoul of state discrimination laws. You don't have the religious freedom to discriminate when there is legislation against it. You couldn't have a for-profit business run by a Muslim that refuses to do business with Jews/Christians/any religion not Islam on religious freedom . Plenty of businesses still discriminate and get away with it. This particular business made it a point to communicate their discrimination openly, and hoped they'd get covered by religious freedom - their gamble didn't pay off, and they got spanked.

They will learn from this and do any further discrimination much more discreetly, like other successful businesses. They didn't get fined because of their opinions/belief, they got fined because the court found they ran afoul of commerce regulations.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 09:30 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko



Sorry no. It IS what you said.


You will have to clarify, as his/her line of argument was not very clear and I do not know what exactly you are referring to.



So the right of an individual trumps the will of the majority. We can look at the recent ruling on gay marriage here. Gays have the civil privilege of marriage now despite the once stated will of the majority.


Exactly. What the problem here? The constitution states that all men are created equal, the laws and rights must be applied equally and that is what the supreme court decided.



All right, so the gay has the civil privilege of marriage. But what happens when the gay's civil privilege runs afoul of the religious freedom of another? It seems right now that you are saying that the individual's right trumps the will of the majority meaning the gay would win even though it infringes on the rights of the other to not participate.


It would depend on the circumstance. Just because someone is gay does not mean they automatically have more right than anyone else.

If the homosexuals want to force a church to marry a gay couple, that is an infringement on religious freedom. If a homosexual wishes to acquire the services of someone that runs a business and the business owner declines because they are gay, that is an infringement on the homosexual's rights because the business is not a religious entity, such as a church, and must provide their services equally to all of the public.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 09:30 PM
link   
a reply to: OrdoAdChao

I read the post above my last reply by you. By your statements there I see we are both on the same page. For some reason we are not now but I will still recognize your previous statements .



I firmly predict that on federal appeal, the fine will be thrown out, and Oregon will not hear those cases after this media fiasco. Whether the media makes a big deal out of it and to the reasons why, well, that's why ATS exists.


I brought the cake incident up for a particular reason . In view of the narrow ruling on the gay marriage issue . If this case is the next case heard on the Gay rights issue by the Supreme Court .

This incident will end up the land Mark ruling that the gay marriage issue was supposed to be. In the recent decision the Supreme Court did not impose them self into religious beliefs . If this case is heard by them they will be forced to .


This single case where the Supreme Court might need to determine the constitutionality of religious beliefs could very well backfire for the entire movement on the plaintiff's position .



By no means do I want it to happen but it could happen .







edit on 9-7-2015 by Greathouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 09:34 PM
link   
Subway has kosher stores. They have halal stores. In India, they don't serve beef, and some subways in India serve no meat at all. It's a cultural thing. Subway adapted to make more money. Are you saying we should legislate that their menus must be static no matter where they build their stores? Even in other countries? Do you despise turkey bacon that much that you would have the government step in to garuntee your right to pork bacon?



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 09:42 PM
link   
Strange you champion the religious freedom of the bakery, but deride subway for conforming their stores to religious neighborhoods. Is it not their religious freedom to do so? Why deride one business for their practice of religious freedom, while championing another? Could it be because those opinions/beliefs don't align with your own? Well, that would be a bit hypocritical.. And be the same thing you seem to be arguing against...



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 09:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Syyth007


The court found they ran afoul of state discrimination laws


I just want to set the record straight. A court did not levy the fine for the bakery . The Oregon bureau of labor and industry gave a ruling.



Aaron and Melissa Klein, the owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa, were punished by the state’s Bureau of Labor and Industry (BOLI) for unlawfully discriminating against a same-sex couple.



source

But the way it has been continually presented as a court case speaks volumes about the trickery a political correctness .



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 09:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Syyth007
Strange you champion the religious freedom of the bakery, but deride subway for conforming their stores to religious neighborhoods. Is it not their religious freedom to do so? Why deride one business for their practice of religious freedom, while championing another? Could it be because those opinions/beliefs don't align with your own? Well, that would be a bit hypocritical.. And be the same thing you seem to be arguing against...

The "bakery issue" could have been easily avoided. All it took was "Sorry , we already have previous obligations" , or "Our schedule is kind of full at that time" . No PC incorrectness there.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 09:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Greathouse

But a judge from the Colorado Civil Rights Commission ruled that they did violate state law against discrimination by way of sexual orientation. Link

You can't run a public for-profit business, openly break state law and claim religious freedom. It would open up a huge can of worms.

*edit* just to add I agree that the fine in your link is ridiculous, and should be overturned - but it has no baring on the actual law nor the commission's ruling. I also agree they should of done their discriminating a bit more discreetly, like other successful businesses.
edit on 9-7-2015 by Syyth007 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 10:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: Syyth007
Strange you champion the religious freedom of the bakery, but deride subway for conforming their stores to religious neighborhoods. Is it not their religious freedom to do so? Why deride one business for their practice of religious freedom, while championing another? Could it be because those opinions/beliefs don't align with your own? Well, that would be a bit hypocritical.. And be the same thing you seem to be arguing against...

The "bakery issue" could have been easily avoided. All it took was "Sorry , we already have previous obligations" , or "Our schedule is kind of full at that time" . No PC incorrectness there.



I can agree with your stance that politeness or indiscretion might have been the better tactic.

But the point I highlighted is the very essence of a issue of political correctness . It puts you in a position where you need to hide your actual beliefs to placate others .


Maybe it's just me but I would rather look a person in their face and give them the respect of hearing their actual opinion . Instead of putting them in a position where they feel obligated to lie .



new topics

top topics



 
55
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join