Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
lol. You're really too funny GF. Being able to comprehend discussions and thinking logically have never been your strong points.

Well given that my opinion of you is that you are frequently an ass and often fail to
comprehend arguments yourself, your opinion of me is not something I'm going to
give a carp about.

While on certain subjects our opinions overlap, I generally don't believe that you could
argue your way out of a paper bag.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Vivify clearly continues to support AiG being allowed to hire ONLY CHRISTIANS.

Yes. He said so in his OP.

He has been clear and consistent on that issue.

That it's taken you this long to pick this up is more a reflection on you than it is on Vivify/

Originally posted by googlefudge
Well given that my opinion of you is that you are frequently an ass and often fail to
comprehend arguments yourself, your opinion of me is not something I'm going to
give a carp about.

While on certain subjects our opinions overlap, I generally don't believe that you could
argue your way out of a paper bag.

Evidently you continue to allow your emotions to cloud your ability to reason. More's the pity. Hopefully you'll eventually be able to grow out of it.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Evidently you continue to allow your emotions to cloud your ability to reason. More's the pity. Hopefully you'll eventually be able to grow out of it.

Hah! If that is true it was said from the pot to the kettle.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Yes. He said so in his OP.

He has been clear and consistent on that issue.

That it's taken you this long to pick this up is more a reflection on you than it is on Vivify/

lol. I know "he said so in his OP" and "has been clear and consistent on that issue". Clearly that was a major part of my point. You really don't comprehend discussions very well. Just as you didn't understand this, you don't understand a lot of things.

Try this. Take a deep breath, let your emotions go and read through my post that you just responded to in its entirety instead of just flying off the handle like you usually do. In fact, try doing that with my entire discussion with vivify.

You really need to get a grip GF.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
lol. I know "he said so in his OP" and "has been clear and consistent on that issue". Clearly that was a major part of my point. You really don't comprehend discussions very well. Just as you didn't understand this, you don't understand a lot of things.

Try this. Take a deep breath, let your emotions go and read through my post that you just responded ...[text shortened]... fact, try doing that with my entire discussion with vivify.

You really need to get a grip GF.

Not only have I read your post in it's entirety, and understood all of it, I've also done the same with
the entire thread.

I don't agree with Vivify that the discrimination in the OP should be legal [whether it is or not is a
technical legal dispute none of us know enough about] however his position is neither trivial nor
inconsistent nor has he shown "a lack of integrity, underhandedness, illogical thinking," or any
of the other carp you have accused him of.

YOU are the one who went off the rails accusing Vivify of ignoring your 'salient points' when in
fact he was simply engaging in a perfectly reasonable debate.
While you can respond to a post by doing a point by point response, you can equally pivot to
what you think is the crux of the issue and respond without specifically dealing with all the
points. You can also decide that trying to respond to all the points in one go would be a mess
and instead focus on one aspect and try to deal with that before dealing with other points later
if necessary. In this cases Vivify looks to be using a Socratic method of question and answer
which is a perfectly valid form of debate. You failed to comprehend that, took umbridge, and
no progress was made since.

Originally posted by RBHILL
Good. But to hire non-Christians it might help convert them.

I don't think we need converting. I do like theme parks though.

Originally posted by vivify
You don't need to be a woman to promote women's rights; you simply need to believe women should have the same rights as men. However, it makes no sense to promote Christianity if you don't believe in it.

Lots of people promote things they don't believe in, and quite effectively, too. It's a job. The hiring criteria would not be belief, it would be ability.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Not only have I read your post in it's entirety, and understood all of it, I've also done the same with
the entire thread.

I don't agree with Vivify that the discrimination in the OP should be legal [whether it is or not is a
technical legal dispute none of us know enough about] however his position is neither trivial nor
inconsistent nor has he ...[text shortened]... form of debate. You failed to comprehend that, took um-bridge, and
no progress was made since.

You're really too funny GF.

Let's walk through our last couple of posts.

You excerpted the following from my post:

Vivify clearly continues to support AiG being allowed to hire ONLY CHRISTIANS.

You responded with the following:

Yes. He said so in his OP.

He has been clear and consistent on that issue.

That it's taken you this long to pick this up is more a reflection on you than it is on Vivify

You clearly think that I hadn't picked up that "he said so in his OP" and "has been clear and consistent on that issue". This despite the fact that it was a major part of my point.

As such I responded with the following:

lol. I know "he said so in his OP" and "has been clear and consistent on that issue". Clearly that was a major part of my point. You really don't comprehend discussions very well. Just as you didn't understand this, you don't understand a lot of things.

You responded with the following:

Not only have I read your post in it's entirety, and understood all of it, I've also done the same with the entire thread.

If you had in fact understood all of my post, then you never would have claimed that I hadn't picked up that "he said so in his OP" and "has been clear and consistent on that issue". But that fact is that you did claim it. As such you clearly did NOT understand all of my post - despite your claim to the contrary.

You seem to have comprehended the rest of my discussion with vivify equally as poorly.

Like I said earlier:
"Being able to comprehend discussions and thinking logically have never been your strong points...Evidently you continue to allow your emotions to cloud your ability to reason. More's the pity. Hopefully you'll eventually be able to grow out of it."

You've proven my point here.

Given your track record over the years, I don't have much hope of you understanding this post either.

You really need to get a grip GF.

Originally posted by vivify
This makes sense. That organization has the goal of promoting Christianity, and should be allowed to have members that are like-minded. If it was merely a business owned by Christians, that would be different; but since this the organization is evangelistic in nature, wanting only Christians makes sense.

It sounds like nothing more than a tax dodge.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I disagree.

Let's have the example of a battered women shelter. [and let's say for this example in a predominantly
black area of New York]

Now let's say that a perfectly qualified white supremacist misogynist applies for janitor/toilet cleaner.

Your position would say that the shelter has to hire that guy.

I say that's nuts.

This isn't a straightforward point. There's no reason that an applicant who is indifferent to women's rights shouldn't be offered a job. The only reason I can think of that your misogynistic white supremacist should not be employed by them in that position (since they wouldn't be involved with communication) is because they might be a danger to the other staff - there's a reasonable fear that they might act to undermine the work of the refuge.

Similarly, with this theme park, I really don't see that someone in a technical role, for example a safety officer, should be required to be a practising Christian. If they were applying to be a priest then I could see it - after all one expects priests to believe in what they are saying during the sermon. So, unless they have some reason to believe that someone is applying for a job with the intention of undermining the objectives of the theme park, which might be a problem with some members of other religions or political atheists, except for preachy type roles within the theme park I do not think that there should be an exemption from non-discriminatory hiring practise.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
You're really too funny GF.

Let's walk through our last couple of posts.

You excerpted the following from my post:

Vivify clearly continues to support AiG being allowed to hire ONLY CHRISTIANS.

You responded with the following:
[quote]Yes. He said so in his OP.

He has been clear and consistent on that issue.

[b]That it' ...[text shortened]... don't have much hope of you understanding this post either.

You really need to get a grip GF.

OK, Oh obtuse one. Let me show you where you went off the rails.

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.

No surprise that you once again avoided addressing the salient points of my post.

Yes, common sense does need to be applied.

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 fact remains that many non-Christians have more of a "Christ-like" attitude, than many Christians. If you can be honest with yourself, you know this to be true.

The fact remains that, from what I gather, the theme park is a for-profit venture making the theme park profit-making "in nature".

The fact remains that the theme park is guilty of religious discrimination plain and simple.

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

"No surprise that you once again avoided addressing the salient points of my post."

Salient according to you maybe, others may differ... In fact Vivify evidently did.

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

No, you don't. Vivify wasn't claiming otherwise, that isn't the point.
Nobody is claiming that non-Christians would be unable to run a theme-park, Christian themed or otherwise.
Which makes this 'salient point' completely and utterly irrelevant.

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

THIS IS THE POINT IN DISPUTE, you can't just call it a fact. It might be your opinion, but that is what you
should be providing arguments to support and not just asserting as a fact.

The fact remains that many non-Christians have more of a "Christ-like" attitude, than many Christians. If you can be honest with yourself, you know this to be true.

IS this a fact? Do you KNOW that he knows this? I certainly don't know that to be true.
In fact if you got members of this forum together and asked them to agree on what a 'Christ like attitude' even meant you
had better be prepared for a never ending dispute on the topic.

The fact remains that, from what I gather, the theme park is a for-profit venture making the theme park profit-making "in nature".

And I don't see Vivify disputing this. However being 'for profit' doesn't mean it's not ALSO 'for evangelising'.
The two are not mutually contradictory or exclusive.

The fact remains that the theme park is guilty of religious discrimination plain and simple.

And again, churches are allowed to do that. We ALLOW religious discrimination in certain circumstances and the debate
we are having is whether this is one of those circumstances.
Simply asserting that it isn't is not a reasonable debating posture.

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

A cheap shot that is not actually true.

Well done for not being at all unbiased or 'emotional' about this. It really shows in your well reasoned and...

Yeah, not so much.

YOU are the one being unreasonable and 'emotional' and YOU are indeed the one dodging questions while
being illogical.

I have close to zero expectation that you are capable of understanding this, but I prefer to be thorough.


EDIT: I would also like to add that as you can see, it's apparently possible for Vivify and myself to have civil debates
and disagreement on the topic with each other and other people... Just not you.
Maybe you should take this on board and realise that YOU are the problem, not us.

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.

Would you extend that sentiment to an Islamic organization only hiring those who seek to serve Allah?

I think it is also tenuous to consider a theme park a Christian organization.

Originally posted by DeepThought
This isn't a straightforward point. There's no reason that an applicant who is indifferent to women's rights shouldn't be offered a job. The only reason I can think of that your misogynistic white supremacist should not be employed by them in that position (since they wouldn't be involved with communication) is because they might be a danger to the oth ...[text shortened]... e park I do not think that there should be an exemption from non-discriminatory hiring practise.

This isn't a straightforward point.

I know... That's kinda my point.

There's no reason that an applicant who is indifferent to women's rights shouldn't be offered a job. The only reason I can think of that your misogynistic white supremacist should not be employed by them in that position (since they wouldn't be involved with communication) is because they might be a danger to the other staff - there's a reasonable fear that they might act to undermine the work of the refuge.

There is actually a reason. The FEELING of safety [physical and emotional] is very important and thus
everyone in and with access to the shelter needs to be on board with it's mission. Even if they are just
the janitor.

Similarly, with this theme park, I really don't see that someone in a technical role, for example a safety officer, should be required to be a practising Christian. If they were applying to be a priest then I could see it - after all one expects priests to believe in what they are saying during the sermon. So, unless they have some reason to believe that someone is applying for a job with the intention of undermining the objectives of the theme park, which might be a problem with some members of other religions or political atheists, except for preachy type roles within the theme park I do not think that there should be an exemption from non-discriminatory hiring practise.

I would also add that back in the context of the OP, people keep coming up with specific jobs that don't require
Christian belief... However it's entirely possible that those that [for example] man the kiosks ALSO give tours
and other customer facing jobs [and possibly even jobs like cleaning the toilets] on a rota or as needed.
Such organisations often give people multiple roles to fulfil.

Also, the work environment is a consideration.
Religious discrimination laws are there in part to promote safe work spaces where those of many [or no] faith
can work together in peace without anyone forcing their religion on anyone else.

However IF you place of work exists especially to promote a religious belief that is going to be hard to impossible
to achieve. Evangelising is the point of the place.

Originally posted by googlefudge
OK, Oh obtuse one. Let me show you where you went off the rails.

[quote] 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.

No surprise that you once again avoided addressing the salient points of my post.

Yes, common sense does ne ...[text shortened]... ose to zero expectation that you are capable of understanding this, but I prefer to be thorough.

Seriously GF.

Do you really not understand that that particular post is bringing up points that were made earlier within a given context and need to be understood as such? Once again you've flown off the handle like you usually do.

Do you really not understand that you've completely ignored the salient points of the post to which you just responded? Do you really not understand the irony?

With every post, you continue to prove my points.

You're too funny GF.

You really need to get a grip.