DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... And so it begins

Yes. The first question is the most important. How does this infringe on his first amendment rights?

Actually bigotry is intolerance and prejudice. Calling a bigot a bigot is merely a way of identifying someone by their devoted cause of intolerance and prejudice.

I don't happen to be able to think of a PC word to replace bigot.

People who are obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially against people who cause no harm and then want to force that intolerance and prejudice into law behind the veil of religious beliefs are bigots.

A bigot doesn't actually care about the harm they cause, they only want people to accept their intolerance and prejudice. When bigots openly attempt to cause the government to enforce their intolerance and prejudice then they show themselves as bigots who desire everybody to not only accept their bigotry, but to enforce it too.

Can you think of a better word than bigot?

The right to free speech doesn't mean you have no consequences for your actions / speech... it just means you can't be arrested for them.

You can be a vocal bigot and sit at home on your couch, but don't expect to be a vocal bigot and have people employ you.

This changes everything. The news we get is often slanted and things are sometimes conveniently left out to push an agenda. And that works both ways.

I never said it was. I just don't like the idea of someone getting fired for what they do in their free time. Now, if he was passing out or distributing this nonsense at work, then, yes, by all means, fire him.

What word should I use to describe the intolerance of some people then? I would love to find a different one because using the word "bigot" actually makes me sad.



There have been many words used to describe me, but I suppose those are okay for most of you. Oh the irony.

It's not the word that I have a problem with as much as how easily it gets tossed out there as describing a wide, wide range of people.

Are all people who are religiously opposed to gay marriage therefore intolerant? Or do they simply have a different belief or opinion?

Am I a bigot because I don't think the bakery should have been required to bake the wedding cake or get sued? I believe that way because I believe it is a religious freedom issue...I've held that religious belief strongly and for a long time. So...since I've strongly held a certain belief for a long time am I a bigot?

Are the bakers bigots? Or simply following their strongly-held, lifetime religious belief?

Is bigotry against the law?

It's possible to hold your religious beliefs without hate or intolerance. I support gay marriage...I support freedom of religion...maybe I am a double-bigot.

I think it's pretty clear who the intolerant ones are on all sides....

I disagree. I think groups of people are being labeled as being intolerant or a bigot who are merely following their faith.

Is the wedding cakeless couple the intolerant ones? Or are the bakers the intolerant ones? Likely neither.

Yes...their are intolerants/bigots out there...too damn many of them...but terms such as those should only be thrown at the individual and not a group that may simply have a similar, strongly-held, long-term belief.

Following one's faith/beliefs does not give anyone a right to treat others with intolerance, imo. Unless, of course, they are Steelers or Bengals fans.

Agreed and agreed

You and I view the issue and the solutions very, very differently...providing the opportunity to share those views is why these boards exist...it's all good in that regard.

I agree.

We are all bigots at one time or another, so it would serve more purpose to expose the bigotry than to label someone a bigot.

Michelle I prefer to still call you my lap dance partner

I guess this thread is a good place to wish my brother the best of luck in his new marriage. He got married last week to his partner of 20 years. Now that it is all legal it won't make any difference to my parents who travel to his house a few times a year and stay with them, BUT they will not let my brother and his husband come home and stay under their roof. Having grown up in a house where my parents were 100 percent against homosexuals, and sharing a room with my brother who was 100 percent homosexual I have seen and heard both sides of all the arguments. I love both my brother and my parents with all my heart and it's painful to watch this one thing drive a wedge between them.

I'm glad to see your family still showing love even with something difficult to go through. Best of luck to you guys GM!

Oregon allowing 15-year-olds to get state-subsidized sex-change operations


The list of things 15-year-olds are not legally allowed to do in Oregon is long: Drive, smoke, donate blood, get a tattoo -- even go to a tanning bed.

But, under a first-in-the-nation policy quietly enacted in January that many parents are only now finding out about, 15-year-olds are now allowed to get a sex-change operation. Many residents are stunned to learn they can do it without parental notification -- and the state will even pay for it through its Medicaid program, the Oregon Health Plan.

"It is trespassing on the hearts, the minds, the bodies of our children," said Lori Porter of Parents' Rights in Education. "They're our children. And for a decision, a life-altering decision like that to be done unbeknownst to a parent or guardian, it's mindboggling."

In a statement, Oregon Health Authority spokeswoman Susan Wickstrom explained it this way: "Age of medical consent varies by state. Oregon law -- which applies to both Medicaid and non-Medicaid Oregonians -- states that the age of medical consent is 15."

While 15 is the medical age of consent in the state, the decision to cover sex-change operations specifically was made by the Health Evidence Review Commission (HERC).

Members are appointed by the governor and paid by the state of Oregon. With no public debate, HERC changed its policy to include cross-sex hormone therapy, puberty-suppressing drugs and gender-reassignment surgery as covered treatments for people with gender dysphoria, formally known as gender identity disorder.

HERC officials refused repeated requests by Fox News for an interview and even gave Fox News inaccurate information about the medical director's work schedule.

Oregon Health Authority officials directed Fox News to their website. It shows transgender policy was discussed at four meetings in 2014. It was passed without any opposition or even discussion about teenagers' new access to undergoing a sex change.

Gender dysphoria is classified by the American Psychiatric Association as a mental disorder in which a person identifies as the sex opposite of his or her birth. It is rare, affecting one out of every 20,000 males and one out of every 50,000 females.

According to a 2008 study published in the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, "most children with gender dysphoria will not remain gender dysphoric after puberty."

Dr. Paul McHugh, who led the Johns Hopkins Psychiatry Department and still practices, said Oregon's policy amounts to child abuse. "We have a very radical and even mutilating treatment being offered to children without any evidence that the long-term outcome of this would be good," McHugh said.

Dr. Jack Drescher, a member of the APA who worked on the Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders Work Group, says treatment for gender dysphoria has received a lot more attention in recent years. He said this year New York changed its policy to cover cross-sex hormone drugs and sex-reassignment surgery for Medicaid recipients who are at least 18 years old. He thinks Oregon is offering the treatment too early.

"Children age 15 may not fully understand all the consequences of the procedures they are undergoing," he said.

Jenn Burleton disagrees. She underwent a sex-reassignment surgery and started the Portland non-profit group TransActive. She said requiring parental consent would lead to more suffering and teen suicide attempts.

"Parents may not be supportive," Burleton said. "They may not be in an environment where they feel the parent will affirm their identity, this may have been going on for years."

The science is unsettled. A 2010 Murad study concluded "very low quality evidence suggests sex reassignment ... improves gender dysphoria and overall quality of life." The authors admitted the evidence was "sparse and inconclusive."

Lisa Maloney, a parent and Scappoose, Ore., School Board member, is outraged.

"To know that taxpayers are now on the hook for that, that a child can do that without their parent's knowledge or information or consent, parents have absolutely no say, that's appalling," Maloney said.

The Oregon Health Authority could not say how many Medicaid recipients have been treated for gender dysphoria since the new policy took effect in January. Oregon has 935,000 people enrolled in the Oregon Health Plan. HERC assumes between 14 and 112 of them may be gender dysphoric. It estimates the total cost of adding cross-sex hormone therapy, puberty-suppressing drugs and sex reassignment surgeries to the coverage will be no more than $150,000 per year.

But HERC also believes the state will save money due to fewer suicide attempts. It estimates there will be one less suicide attempt per year. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates the average cost per suicide attempt in the U.S. is $7,234.

But Dr. McHugh says a sex-change operation, especially for young people with gender dysphoria, is never appropriate.

"We can help them if we begin to explore with them and their families what they're fearing about development, what they're fearing about being a young boy, a young adolescent appropriate to themselves."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/...nge-operations/

Your Tax Dollars at work.^^^

Yes, IF you live in Oregon. Isn't this a states rights issue for conservatives?

So you support your tax dollars going to sex changes for kids?
Why am I not surprised.

why not? you supported your tax dollars going to a BS war in iraq.

you don't really get to pick and choose what your taxes go towards. not everything you're going to agree with.

And so it begins.

I'm not from Oregon. I don't live in Oregon. It's a state thing, not "my tax dollars".

I find the ruling ridiculous than a minor can make such a choice.

Medicare is a federal program that provides health coverage if you are 65 or older or have a severe disability, no matter your income. Medicaid is a state and federal program that provides health coverage if you have a very low income.

Your tax dollars at work, I said!

I guess you missed the part where I said I thought the ruling was ridiculous. Not surprised though......

That about sums it up, but I'll also add that I am upset that ANY tax dollars would ever be used for elective surgery.... and there is no way in Hell that a minor should be allowed to make this choice.

The governor that allowed such an atrocity should be impeached for endangering the lives and mental health of children. Even with the support of the parents this is a very drastic thing for a kid to go through. Much less when your Son comes home out of the blue and says Hi dad, I'm a girl now ... This is just a very destructive and dangerous policy.

"Appalling" is too mild a word to express my thoughts. Big Brother at work; the inmates are once again running the asylum...

This is how Wiki describes it...

The phrase "tyranny of the majority" (or "tyranny of the masses"), used in discussing systems of democracy and majority rule, involves the scenario in which decisions made by a majority place its interests above those of an individual or minority group, constituting active oppression comparable to that of tyrants and despots.[2] In many cases a disliked ethnic, religious or racial group is deliberately penalized by the majority element acting through the democratic process.[3][4]

I think that sums it up.


Yes, if the teacher isn't breaking any laws and is a good teacher, their partying and their social media is their own business.


So if I say... He's allowed to be gay, he's just not allowed to be gay and work here... then that's ok? Because I haven't infringed on his right to be gay????


Neither does the naivety... do you want a list of things that were always thought of and defended one way, with substantial legal precedent behind them... right up until they were changed?

This isn't the right of majority thing, however. I remember reading on the old forums a joke about someone firing all of his employees who voted for Obama. No one said he was in the wrong and it's no different here.

So you're completely fine if a good teacher has a sex tape? What someone does on their own time is fine, right? Shouldn't be commented on?

Yes, it's unfortunate that the US mistreated gays. However, being psycho isn't a protected class like sexualities is. They're not equatable.

Sure. Show me EQUATABLE analogies. Show me the US forcing Churches to do something against the law or constitution. So nothing like the nativity scene that wasn't legal in the first place.

So being a teacher entrusted with peoples children making a sex tape is the equivalent of being a fire chief and writing a Bible devotion? And then you ask ME for equitable analogies?


Psycho? Who is the psycho?


It's coming. I know a lot of people are in denial... still in the "that could never happen here" mode, but it's coming. I just read about the D-Sen from Wisconsin who said that the first amendment is to protect a persons right to worship in church but doesn't protect you much beyond that... it's coming.

j/c:

Wait! What?

A 15 year old can choose to have a sex change, but he/she can not vote, buy cigarettes, or purchase alcohol?

That would be stupid because everybody knows they'd hang out on corners smoking cigarettes, drinking alcohol and talking about trying to force people to accept polygamy and marriage to an ottoman.

What would be stupid? Not sure I am following...

What if she was in a biblical porno? The person you are outside of work influences the person you are at work. You do not become a dichotomy because you spend the rest of your waking hours doing something else. Religion does not excuse you to be a horrible human being.

So no examples? OK, then.

Yet somehow this guy spent over 30 years rising through the ranks of the fire department, working with and managing hundreds of different people, men, women, Christians, non-Christians, black and white, straight and gay...... without a single complaint of discrimination... It was only after this book came out that people assumed he couldn't be trusted... that's pretty much the definition of pre-emptive thought policing.


Not a single person has described him as a horrible human being in the way he conducted his business and did his job... not a single complaint that I'm aware of regarding his professional or private life for over 30 years. Yet he puts one Biblical based sentence in a church devotional.. and suddenly he's a horrible person...

So they copped out and fired him because he lacks good judgement.. what a freakin' joke. Over his career he made hundreds, if not thousands, of decisions that put peoples lives at risk.. and they kept promoting him so I can only assume he generally made good decisions.... then he writes a sentence in a book and now his judgment can't be trusted. Just man up and say it, "He offended gay people, and we can't have that." If somebody, like you, had called him a horrible person, or a psycho, for being a Christian.. heck, we can live with that... but don't offend anybody else.

Please show me how this man was being a psycho? Just because he is religious? Please, show your thought process.

As much a liberals don't like to admit it, religion is a protected class, just like race and sexual orientation. Go read the Civil Rights Act of 1964, since it's obvious that you haven't.

Am I allowed to fire someone for being gay, or promoting a gay lifestyle in the workplace? Nope. Am I allowed to fire someone for following their religion or promoting a religious lifestyle in the workplace? Nope.

Is that a clear enough analogy for you?

You'll note that I bolded an addendum that you made to part B or your analogy that was left off part A. And he wasn't just "promoting" the Christian lifestyle. There was a chapter of his book where he compared homosexuals to pedophiles and people who have sex with animals. If a homosexual came to work and passed out books with chapters about how Christians were insane, terrible people whose psychosis is ruining the foundation of America, then, yes, I would absolutely fire them, without a doubt. It's creepy and inconsiderate and has no place in the arena of professionalism. Go pass them out at the coffeehouse after work.

Question: If this guy went to work and passed out Bibles to people who requested them (what has been reported happened in other articles in the thread), should he be fired?


And how did I leave something out of my analogy? Replace "gay" in part A with "religion" and "religious," and you get part B. Pretty shameful, for being a self-professed English professor.