Only Christians can Work at Theme Park

Originally posted by vivify
Your "salient points" are irrelevant. For example, the fact that they're for profit: it has no bearing on the question of whether or not they should have only Christians. Same with some non-Christians being more Christ-like: irrelevant. A group with a mission shouldn't be forced to hire those who don't share their beliefs.

Believe me, there's no "dodg ...[text shortened]... to hire those who don't believe in women's rights. Likewise with Christians and their beliefs.

Believe me, there's no "dodging" here. It's just that going over your points one by one ultimately fruitless, since they're irrelevant.

If there were truly "no dodging here", you'd have made a cogent argument for each and every point. The fact that you didn't, is in and of itself another form of "dodging". Is it a coincidence that the points that you didn't even cite are the ones that are most problematic for you? Can you at least try to show a little integrity here?

Even the points that you did cite were addressed in an underhanded manner.

For example, the fact that they're for profit: it has no bearing on the question of whether or not they should have only Christians. Same with some non-Christians being more Christ-like: irrelevant. A group with a mission shouldn't be forced to hire those who don't share their beliefs.

You know full well that those points were in response to the following:

Since the theme park is evangelistic in nature, the job of everyone there would be to contribute to evangelizing, even if it's indirectly, like with having what Christians consider a "Christ-like" attitude.

So you knew full well that my point that the "theme park is profit-making 'in nature'".
was in direct response to your claim that "the theme park is evangelistic in nature".

And you also knew full well that my point about a "Christ-like attitude" was in direct response to YOUR attempt to claim that "having what Christians consider a 'Christ-like' attitude" was a relevant reason to exclude non-Christians. Then after I pointed out that YOUR claim was not relevant, you had the effrontery to pretend that I'm the one who made an irrelevant point? Once again, can you at least try to show a little integrity here?

Originally posted by googlefudge
Nope.

My post was addressing the argument as a whole more than it was your specific post,
but your post was my jumping off point.

So you responded to my post even though the bulk of your post has little to do with what I've been posting? Can't say as I understand it, but okay.

Basically it's an argument over whether or not this exercise is a regular business, or essentially some form of church.

Not really. A church shouldn't be allowed to practice religious discrimination either.

Religious discrimination involves treating a person (an applicant or employee) unfavorably because of his or her religious beliefs. The law protects not only people who belong to traditional, organized religions, such as Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism, but also others who have sincerely held religious, ethical or moral beliefs.

https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/religion.cfm

It's really simple.

The fact remains that you don't need to be a Christian to run a ticket booth, serve / prepare food, run a ride, etc.

The fact remains that the question should be whether or not the individual can do the job in question.

The same should apply for positions at a church: You don't need to be a Christian be a bookkeeper, custodian, organist, etc.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]Believe me, there's no "dodging" here. It's just that going over your points one by one ultimately fruitless, since they're irrelevant.

If there were truly "no dodging here", you'd have made a cogent argument for each and every point. The fact that you didn't, is in and of itself another form of "dodging". Is it a coincidence that the points th ...[text shortened]... who made an irrelevant point? Once again, can you at least try to show a little integrity here?[/b]

So you knew full well that my point that the "theme park is profit-making 'in nature'".
was in direct response to your claim that "the theme park is evangelistic in nature".

Exactly. The two are unrelated, making this an irrelevant point.

Your entire argument can be smashed with that one question I asked earlier: should a women's rights movement be forced to hire someone who doesn't believe in women's rights?

That's all that's needed to address your post.

Originally posted by vivify
[b]So you knew full well that my point that the "theme park is profit-making 'in nature'".
was in direct response to your claim that "the theme park is evangelistic in nature".

Exactly. The two are unrelated, making this an irrelevant point.

Your entire argument can be smashed with that one question I asked earlier: should a women's rights mov ...[text shortened]... meone who doesn't believe in women's rights?

That's all that's needed to address your post.[/b]

Let's see. You respond to a post that calls you out for your avoidance of salient points, (especially the ones that are most problematic for you), a lack of integrity, underhandedness, illogical thinking, etc. with more of the same. You're really something.

Since you're unable to show even a little integrity, I see no point in continuing this discussion with you.

As they say, there's little point in trying to reason with a bigot. They are unable to see beyond their prejudices.

The reason that there are laws that protect people from discrimination (religious or otherwise) is to protect them from people with attitudes like yours.

Your entire argument can be smashed with that one question I asked earlier: should a women's rights movement be forced to hire someone who doesn't believe in women's rights?

That's all that's needed to address your post.

Like your questions that I addressed earlier?:
"Should a civil rights group be allowed to not hire KKK members? Yes or no?"

Thinking logically isn't exactly your forte, is it?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Let's see. You respond to a post that calls you out for your avoidance of salient points, (especially the ones that are most problematic for you), a lack of integrity, underhandedness, illogical thinking, etc. with more of the same. You're really something.

Since you're unable to show even a little integrity, I see no point in continuing this discussio ...[text shortened]... iscrimination (religious or otherwise) is to protect them from people with attitudes like yours.

I'm not religious dude. Try again.

Edit: that one question made you quit. Like I said, it was all I needed.

Originally posted by vivify
I'm not religious dude. Try again.

EDIT: That one question made you quit. Like I said, it was all I needed.

Not exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer, are you?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Not exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer, are you?

You can't answer the question, because you know the point it's making. Game over.

Originally posted by vivify
You can't answer the question, because you know the point it's making. Game over.

Like your questions that I addressed earlier?:
"Should a civil rights group be allowed to not hire KKK members? Yes or no?"

Thinking logically isn't exactly your forte, is it?

Why don't you just admit that you're out of your depth?

Let me guess: School boy?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Like your questions that I addressed earlier?:
"Should a civil rights group be allowed to not hire KKK members? Yes or no?"

Thinking logically isn't exactly your forte, is it?

Why don't you just admit that you're out of your depth?

Let me guess: School boy?

That wasn't my question. I don't know why you keep bringing that up. My question was the women's rights one. You're the second person to dodge it. Why the second? Because that question is all I need.

Originally posted by vivify
That wasn't my question. I don't know why you keep bringing that up. My question was the women's rights one. You're the second person to dodge it. Why the second? Because that question is all I need.

lol. I guess we can add outright lying to your avoidance of salient points, (especially the ones that are most problematic for you), a lack of integrity, underhandedness, illogical thinking, etc.

First you posted the following:
"At some point, common sense needs to be applied. This is like suing a civil rights group because they wouldn't hire a KKK member."

And in your next post you asked the following:
"Should a civil rights group be allowed to not hire KKK members? Yes or no?"

You and I both know that you asked the question and I addressed it. It's in the "Originally posted by vivify" box in my response to you on page 2. That you later edited it out is irrelevant. It's right there for any and all to see.

Thinking logically isn't exactly your forte, is it?

Why don't you just admit that you're out of your depth?

Well, enough of this nonsense. You really need to grow up kid.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
lol. I guess we can add outright lying to your avoidance of salient points, (especially the ones that are most problematic for you), a lack of integrity, underhandedness, illogical thinking, etc.

First you posted the following:
"At some point, common sense needs to be applied. This is like suing a civil rights group because they wouldn't hire a KKK m ...[text shortened]... that you're out of your depth?

Well, enough of this nonsense. You really need to grow up kid.

Like I said, that's not my question. There's a reason I edited my question (before you responded to it); clearly, you understand why, since you're afraid to answer it.

Here's a challenge: answer my question, and I'll answer any point you claim that I'm "dodging".

You won't answer my question, though, because you know what point it's making.

Like I said: that question was all I needed.

Originally posted by vivify
At some point, common sense needs to be applied. This is like suing a civil rights group because they wouldn't hire a KKK member.

Nonsense. This is a for profit theme park which also happens to promote Christianity. The website is calling for donations with a target of 33,000,000. Ken Ham has completely lost his way in my opinion. This is a business trying to evade tax by claiming to be a religious organisation, they are not "rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" and God will not bless it.

Originally posted by Suzianne
"No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon." -- Matthew 6:24, KJV

If a Christian organization hires those whose only care is money, they get what they deserve. I think they should be able to hire those who seek to serve God instead of those who only seek to serve themselves.

Have you looked at the Ark website? This is a business enterprise. Look at the ticket prices!! It's a disgrace and one again you fail to see the problem, taking a partisan approach just because the organisation has a metaphorical "Jesus saves" sign above the door.

Originally posted by Rajk999
Those who profess Christ as their saviour are the biggest crooks and hypocrites on the earth.

Some are. Try to keep perspective.

Originally posted by vivify
I think exemptions should be made if the goal of the business is directly tied to a need for that exemption. For example, Chippendales, which features exotic male dancers, should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of sex for its dancers, since their business caters to women interested in men.

But this still doesn't neatly clear up the OP, because a ...[text shortened]... ch is illegal. This is a case where the letter of the law doesn't uphold the spirit of the law.

There is no such thing as a "Christian business". This is the point.