Why either or?

_________________

I would have gone with either (((or)))

_________________

I'd also like to make clear that I'd rather that Hill be allowed to play. I don't like the fact that the only reason the Chiefs or the NFL are doing anything is because it's damaging to their respective brands. It's cynical as shit, but thems the times we live in.

_________________

[quote="leashyourkids"However, we disagree because I don't subscribe to the delusion that the NFL gives two shits about any of it. The NFL exists to make money, period. I also disagree completely with your assertion that a private company should be divvying out punishments based on how appropriate they think the legal system was. Do they have the right to do that? Yeah, but they shouldn't. Next time a factory worker beats his wife, maybe you can petition his employer for a harsher sentence. See how many unintended consequences that has? The legal system exists for a reason.[/quote]Well, Hill exists to make money, period. The same logic exists for him. It's a business for him too, and losing out on some of that money may be the biggest deterrent to not break the kids arm again.

As for the factory worker, he isn't a public figure so it doesn't hurt the company nearly as much as Hill does. However, since you want to bring up only somewhat related examples, shouldn't you also view the guy who refused to bake a cake for people the same way? Let the courts decide who can and cannot get married. I would think you would applaud a business owner who fired a person who beat his wife just like you applauded the guy who refused to bake a cake.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

I agree. It's interesting that Adrian Peterson is largely ignored now when he beat the shit out of one of his kids with a tree branch. I don't think a lot of guys made it in this crazy violence sport because of their compassion.

_________________
Why are only 14 percent of black CPS 11th-graders proficient in English?

Those aren't even tangentially related.

_________________

They're about as relatable as a superstar WR in the NFL is to a factory worker

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

Again, if your argument is that an employer gets to decide whether or not they employ someone, I agree. But firing an NFL player is the same thing as firing anyone else, from the employee's perspective. They don't have a job. You seem to want to have one set of rules for people who are rich and one set for people who are of modest means. Maybe you're more socialist than you think.

_________________

There isn't a close relation but there isn't a close relation to the factory worker either.

Both are about the business owner letting the courts make decisions rather then themselves and ignoring their own moral issues with the behavior of others.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

There is a legal concept of a public and private figure. Firing an NFL players is literally not the same as firing a non-public figure.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

I'm NOT SAYING it can't legally be done. I'm saying that it is the same concept. The NFL can fire whoever the hell they want, and so can a factory. And in both circumstances, the people are losing their ability to derive income.

_________________

Well, when you need to start putting words in the other person's mouth, it's clear you're losing whatever's left of this "argument"

I never said anything about money or different sets of rules. I said it's ridiculous to compare star athletes to anonymous factory workers, which is a true and obvious thing, yet many people here keep trying.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

Right, which is why it's nonsense to bring up. The Baker didn't tell the gay couple they couldn't get married. He just refused to make them a cake. They were not employed by the Baker. They were customers. If you wanted an equivalent scenario, it would be the NFL turning away customers because they had committed domestic violence at some point in their lives.

I also wouldn't compare being gay to being a child abuser. Bad look.

_________________

You are saying there is no difference and ignoring us pointing out that one is a public and one is a private figure.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

Friendly note: just stop declaring yourself victor of arguments.

Anyway, of course the job of NFL player is different than a factory worker. Is that your argument at this point? Okay, thanks for letting everyone know. That's deep.

_________________

You keep on falling back to "well, legally they can, but they shouldn't". Well, legally, a business can discriminate based on sexual orientation but they shouldn't. Is that a better way to phrase it?

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

Okay, whatever. Thanks for telling me what I'm saying.

_________________

Yes, but that's not what you argued. You wanted the court to ban them from refusing to make a gay cake. That's your stance in all these discussions. You think that your opinion is right and should therefore be forced upon everyone else with the force of the government or a large corporation. I also think my opinion is right, just as everyone does with their opinion, but I don't think my opinion should be forced upon everyone else with force. You can get as individually upset as you want at all these things, and that's fine. It's when you think for some reason that your opinion should be the law that it becomes the issue.

_________________

No, it's what you are arguing in this case. I'm saying your argument is hypocritical here.

My reason was for a different reason because I don't think you should legally be allowed to discriminate based on sexual orientation. If being a child abuser gets the same treatment then we can look at my hypocritical stance.

Bold part:

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

I’m not declaring myself victor. I’m saying if you continue to make up what I’m saying there is no argument, it’s over at that point. So my friendly note would be to argue against what I said, not mischaracterize it into something easier to argue against.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

You're all over the place. First I'm supposedly a hypocrite, but then you - the one who made the almost embarrassing comparison between two completely unrelated scenarios - accuse me of comparing being gay and committing domestic violence. Just stop with the comparison altogether. It's stupid and unrelated, but that's how you argue. You use these terrible attempts at catching someone being intellectually inconsistent ("gotcha") to justify your own opinion rather than just arguing your opinion. At this point, I honestly and literally 100% have no idea what you're trying to say. And I have no idea what your laugh emoticon is supposed to represent.

_________________

Saying it might be better for the family if he keeps his job has zero equivalency to the question of whether a business should be obligated to make a gay wedding cake. It seems like the argument was made to show that Leash both supports child abuse and hates gays. Well-rounded individual.

_________________
Why are only 14 percent of black CPS 11th-graders proficient in English?

Are you really going down this path? I didn't compare the acts. I compared the rational of how a business should treat them, and if we really get down to it your acceptance of a business owner making a moral decision based on sexual orientation but they shouldn't make a moral decision based on someone abusing a child is not a poor reflection onto me. Now, I wasn't going to make the connection because I think it's unfair but you opened it by acting like I was equating the two things so now you can own that.

You were the one that brought up the factory worker so you can save the whole "you make unrelated comparisons" for a thread you didn't start it all with an unrelated comparison.

Your ultimate point is that a private business should let the courts handle all punishments for morally objectionable behavior. I can name a bunch of things to counteract that.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

That's not my point, but we'll go with it...

How is supporting a baker's right to do business with who he wants allowing a private business to "handle punishment"? This should be good.

_________________

Both businesses have a moral objection to the behavior and have done what they can to respond to it in a way that fits with their standards.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

Right, both have that right. I don't agree with either one for doing so, but that's their right.

These are two very different scenarios, but if we compare them apples to apples:

I don't think the Chiefs should fire him, but I support their right to do so.

You don't think the Baker should be able to turn away business as he so chooses, but instead of supporting his right to do so, you think the government should come in and FORCE him to do it your way.

That is a huge difference. In fact, it's the only difference that matters

_________________

Oh so you agree the Christian baker was completely wrong too. Why didn't you just say that?

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

hey at least if you #SignTyrekeHill you know that his kid ain't gonna show up acting the fool.

_________________

Now you're using intentionally charged language to paint me in a corner. No, I don't think the Baker was "completely wrong." I dont have real strong feelings either way in terms of what he should have done. I do have strong feelings about what he has a right to do, though.

Do you agree that there is a huge difference between not agreeing with someone vs saying that they don't even have a right to hold their opinion?

_________________