-
You aren’t addressing the substance of my argument. Groups such as the Klan have made those threats. Practices such as Jim Crow depended on those threats. Current civil-rights laws at least make it more awkward for businesses to give in to those threats. Your proposal would make it easier for businesses to give in to those threats, and thereby encourage the groups who would make those threats.
-
You are showing that you think it’s a good idea to pressure people to convert. But you realize the groups which are intolerant and powerful will be the ones willing and able to pressure everyone else to convert…
-
There are people who insist that being lesbian or gay is a choice. There are people who insist that being trans is a choice. There are people who insist that being left-handed is a choice. And of course, for some people, religion is not a choice. I think a good standard requires a fairly clear consensus on what falls on each side of that standard, or a fairly easy way to check whether something falls on each side.
-
I doubt that we would devolve to KKK making threats to every business if religion were no longer protected by the same rules which gover discrimination based on race, gender, etc. This argument strikes me as sort of a red-herring.
-
In order to convert I’d have to be dogmatic. I am not interested in teaching dogmas, but I will criticize an idea using the full force of logic, reason & evidence. Every idea deserves thorough scrutiny, and ought to be defended by something more substantial than “my god said so”. Is it really so bad to pressure people to defend their ideas with more than that?
-
Those who insist being gay is a choice, are not well supported by the evidence, and until such evidence becomes apparent I think we can safely treat it as an inherent trait of some people. Being born black, or a woman certainly is not a choice. I am yet to see any scientific consensus that would indicate religion is also something you are born with. It is a false premise to pretend that religion something you are born with. Babies do not spontaneously quote the gospels. It is very much a taught dogma, I don’t know why you bother pretending otherwise. It really quite simple to see that it is inappropriate to categorically lump religion in with things you are born with.
It can be. For example:
-
If you have to, to obtain work, housing, etc. and it isn’t directly relevant to that work.
-
If you have to, all the friggin’ time, regardless of whether you have the time and energy, whether you have other things you need to do, whether you have had to deal with the same arguments from six different people in the past day, etc.
-
If you have to deal with Gish gallops.
A lot of stuff depends on subjective experience. It can be hard to explain things to someone who has never had similar experiences, and is quite insistent that there are no such experiences. It can be valid empirical evidence for someone who has had some unusual experiences, and not for someone who doesn’t.
Choosing a deliberately belligerent form of attire in an example doesn’t appear to make for a good test of whether or not something is discriminatory.
Religion is a choice, but it’s not inherently belligerent to go about clean-shaven, for example.
No, because 1) Models don’t work for agents, the agents work for them. 2) Unattractive people are not a protected class. 3) There is no reasonable accomodation they could have made for you that would allow you to do that job.
You keep saying that, but it’s not true in any meaningful sense if the choice is that religion versus being disowned by your family and ostracized from your community and maybe eternal damnation to top it off. And those aren’t even the worst prospects some apostates face.
When a company hires an employee or freelancer, the person they hired works for the company. What makes modeling inherently different from any other such employer-employee relationship?
I didn’t say they declined to hire me because they thought I was unattractive. I’m saying they did so because I was the wrong age. And isn’t age discrimination illegal?
I wonder, why didn’t Abercrombie just put out an ad for models? Wouldn’t that have made them justified in any requirements for look and dress?
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
