California bill to purge Christians from police

#26
#26
Septic said:
Equating the above with a targeting of conservatives and Christians is kind of hilarious. Porterhouse headline, rancid bologna article.
Click to expand...
Well fluck a duck.
I didn't read article. If headline is clickbait and there is no discriminatory practices based on religion in the actual bill, I retract my previous responses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Septic
#27
#27
Rickyvol77 said:
Saying you will fire someone from a public position for posting a tweet 10 years ago saying "i don't agree with abortion" is 100% wrong and illegal and that's why the courts will not allow this BS to pass...not surprised that you are ok with it though
Click to expand...

Yeah, because that's what they're looking for.

giphy.gif


It's hilarious watching the you guys getting all lathered up over a bill that will prevent cops from being openly bigoted. Bonus points for hiding behind religious liberties and "conservativism" to make stupid case, don't you guys ever get tired of being manipulated?
 
#29
#29
Septic said:
Yeah, because that's what they're looking for.

giphy.gif


It's hilarious watching the you guys getting all lathered up over a bill that will prevent cops from being openly bigoted. Bonus points for hiding behind religious liberties and "conservativism" to make stupid case, don't you guys ever get tired of being manipulated?
Click to expand...
Who is being openly bigoted again? Got examples that led to this bill? Because just because someone doesn't believe in gay marriage, doesn't mean they are "bigoted" or would treat homosexuals differently. Someone who thinks BLM is a scam organization doesn't mean they are "bigoted" or would treat black people differently.

Of course you are the poster who still thinks there is a conspiracy with Georgia police to cover up the "real reasons" for that mass shooting, so common sense doesn't prevail much here
 
#30
#30
McDad said:
Why? Devout Muslims aren't a problem. Radicalized, violent Muslims are the problem.
Click to expand...

You're right but my guess is that many of the folks in question don't, won't or can't make that distinction.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OHvol40
#31
#31
McDad said:
Why? Devout Muslims aren't a problem. Radicalized, violent Muslims are the problem.
Click to expand...
Exactly, unless the muslim is Mohammed himself who was a vile and evil person, regular worshippers of Islam aren't the issue, any more than Mormons, Scientologists or any other made up religion
 
  • Like
Reactions: DT420
#34
#34
Wafflestomper said:
Why?
Click to expand...
The bill defines hate speech as “as advocating or supporting the denial of constitutional rights of, the genocide of, or violence towards, any group of persons based upon race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability.”

This can be construed a lot of ways.

"i don't believe in abortion"
"i don't believe in gay marriage"
"gender dysphoria is a mental illness"
"Free Palestine, Israel needs to be stopped"
"Black Lives Matter is a criminal organization"

Using the same kind of "fact checking for hate-speech" that leftists are currently using, one could justify firing or not hiring someone based on these type statements, which violate the EEOC and the courts will not allow this bill to pass
 
#35
#35
Septic said:
You're right but my guess is that many of the folks in question don't, won't or can't make that distinction.
Click to expand...
I appreciate the value of conflict to our message board. But to me, you poking the broad brush bear of Rs feels similar to the broad brush you and others use with glee.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#36
#36
Rickyvol77 said:
Who is being openly bigoted again? Got examples that led to this bill? Because just because someone doesn't believe in gay marriage, doesn't mean they are "bigoted" or would treat homosexuals differently. Someone who thinks BLM is a scam organization doesn't mean they are "bigoted" or would treat black people differently.

Of course you are the poster who still thinks there is a conspiracy with Georgia police to cover up the "real reasons" for that mass shooting, so common sense doesn't prevail much here
Click to expand...

Oh look, you misrepresenting what was actually said.... again.

No where in the bill does it say you can't hold personal beliefs on abortion or gay marriage, it clearly states that it would look for police candidates that have exchanged "racist or homophobic messages." Given the climate, from an HR perspective, if I were a defense attorney protecting a city - it'd probably be helpful to the defense efforts to not have prior knowledge of bigoted behavior.

That only a certain group of people are getting bent out of shape about this is VERY telling.
 
#37
#37
Septic said:
Oh look, you misrepresenting what was actually said.... again.

No where in the bill does it say you can't hold personal beliefs on abortion or gay marriage, it clearly states that it would look for police candidates that have exchanged "racist or homophobic messages." Given the climate, from an HR perspective, if I were a defense attorney protecting a city - it'd probably be helpful to the defense efforts to not have prior knowledge of bigoted behavior.

That only a certain group of people are getting bent out of shape about this is VERY telling.
Click to expand...
again read the actual statement i posted of what the bill actually says...you are wrong (as usual) and trying to project feelings on others you disagree with (as usual). There is a reason that most everyone here sees the same issues with your "logic"
 
#38
#38
Rickyvol77 said:
again read the actual statement i posted of what the bill actually says...you are wrong (as usual) and trying to project feelings on others you disagree with (as usual). There is a reason that most everyone here sees the same issues with your "logic"
Click to expand...

I apologize if the logic is beyond your grasp, things can be explained to you - but it's up to you to understand them.

It's no ones fault but your own that you've lathered yourself up over an issue that seems pretty reasonable to rational people. It's hilarious that some of you would identify as people being targeted by a bill that would prevent hate speech and open bigotry by LEO's.

Your position on this ginned up outrage should be surprising to no one, that a police boot licker like you would be outraged over this common sense approach to vetting new hires.

The idiotic hole you're digging get's deeper with every post.
 
#39
#39
Septic said:
You're right but my guess is that many of the folks in question don't, won't or can't make that distinction.
Click to expand...
Dumbassery on an individual’s part that you’re pointing to in reply doesn’t discount the correct nature of McDaddio’s statement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#40
#40
Rickyvol77 said:
The bill defines hate speech as “as advocating or supporting the denial of constitutional rights of, the genocide of, or violence towards, any group of persons based upon race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability.”

This can be construed a lot of ways.

"i don't believe in abortion"
"i don't believe in gay marriage"
"gender dysphoria is a mental illness"
"Free Palestine, Israel needs to be stopped"
"Black Lives Matter is a criminal organization"

Using the same kind of "fact checking for hate-speech" that leftists are currently using, one could justify firing or not hiring someone based on these type statements, which violate the EEOC and the courts will not allow this bill to pass
Click to expand...

Most of these examples are irrelevant since they don't involve constitutional matters. The abortion example is irrelevant since it doesn't involve any of the groups the law applies to. Saying "I don't believe in gay marriage" also isn't explicitly advocating or supporting the denial of a constitutional right and would not stand up in court if someone objected to being fired for it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RockyTop85
#41
#41
McDad said:
Well fluck a duck.
I didn't read article. If headline is clickbait and there is no discriminatory practices based on religion in the actual bill, I retract my previous responses.
Click to expand...
I read the article but not the bill. If the article is correct the wording of the bill sounded somewhat ambiguous and highly open to interpretation. That’s dangerous and the bill should die if the article represents it accurately
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77 and McDad
#42
#42
NorthDallas40 said:
Dumbassery on an individual’s part that you’re pointing to in reply doesn’t discount the correct nature of McDaddio’s statement.
Click to expand...

I agree, you can tell by the way I said "you're right."
 
#44
#44
hog88 said:
Because a devout Muslim would belong to a group that supports the denial of constitutional rights of people based on their religion, gender, gender identity and sexual orientation. Same would apply to devout Catholics.
Click to expand...

Show me in a holy Islamic text where it talks about the U.S. Constitution. Or where it says that you need to go around verbalizing your beliefs about who should be denied constitutional rights.
 
#45
#45
Wafflestomper said:
Show me in a holy Islamic text where it talks about the U.S. Constitution. Or where it says that you need to go around verbalizing your beliefs about who should be denied constitutional rights.
Click to expand...

Luther come on, that’s not moving the goalpost. That’s throwing them out of the stadium.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#46
#46
Septic said:
I apologize if the logic is beyond your grasp, things can be explained to you - but it's up to you to understand them.

It's no ones fault but your own that you've lathered yourself up over an issue that seems pretty reasonable to rational people. It's hilarious that some of you would identify as people being targeted by a bill that would prevent hate speech and open bigotry by LEO's.

Your position on this ginned up outrage should be surprising to no one, that a police boot licker like you would be outraged over this common sense approach to vetting new hires.

The idiotic hole you're digging get's deeper with every post.
Click to expand...
I really shouldn't listen at all to conspiracy theorist political hacks who couldn't even cut it as a simple front line RN, but it's fun that everyone here is saying the same thing about you in nearly every thread. I am sure the Georgia shooter probably thought no one could grasp his "logic" either

Your problem is you lack the critical thinking skills to understand WHY these type of attempted bills are illegal and wrongheaded. But then again you are a cheerleader for fascist type thinking under the guise of "equality, diversity or saving someone's feelz".

Thankfully the police, judges, courts in this case will win out over the dumb liberal politicians on this issue.
 
#49
#49
Rickyvol77 said:
I really shouldn't listen at all to conspiracy theorist political hacks who couldn't even cut it as a simple front line RN, but it's fun that everyone here is saying the same thing about you in nearly every thread. I am sure the Georgia shooter probably thought no one could grasp his "logic" either

Your problem is you lack the critical thinking skills to understand WHY these type of attempted bills are illegal and wrongheaded. But then again you are a cheerleader for fascist type thinking under the guise of "equality, diversity or saving someone's feelz".

Thankfully the police, judges, courts in this case will win out over the dumb liberal politicians on this issue.
Click to expand...

Septic is just a troll, what he really believes is anyone’s guess.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#50
#50
NorthDallas40 said:
I read the article but not the bill. If the article is correct the wording of the bill sounded somewhat ambiguous and highly open to interpretation. That’s dangerous and the bill should die if the article represents it accurately
Click to expand...
This the pretty much common agreement on it from normal people
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top