[Beasty]

Gay and lesbian is breaking the rules of relgion which means it breaks the private school rules nuff said. Back then there was no such thing as same sex marriage because it sounds retarded even thinking about it. But the society has evolved to accepting almost about everything. Heck, they are even about to legalize all drugs one day and then cause a medical breakdown across the nation. Little off topic.

To be honest, Leaf pretty much nailed points that shouldn't even be challenged. Teachers send their kids to private schools because they want a religious environment around them. If they accept a homosexual person in that classroom, then that literally defeats the whole purpose of bringing your kids there.

Well there's your problem, you're not even open to examining things from a new perspective. What if this I was just playing Devil's advocate? One should always be wary of their own confirmation biases. Nothing should be held above scrutiny, and in most cases they aren't; and that includes God himself.

I don't care about why parents send their kids to private school. I don't even care what parents want for their children. Society has a greater interest in ensuring that children grow into decent human beings than a parent does, and quite frankly society often does more to raise a child, and is better at it too. You say these parents have an interest in sending their kids to religious schools to avoid certain ideas, and I respond to that by saying society has a greater interest in telling these parents to fuck right off.

[Beasty]

Battle, you're not helping. And beasty they're refusing to renew his contact not because they don't like his kind, but because him working there will have a direct effect on business. Its like saying a strip club can't replace overweight workers with more appealing ones. Its a business decision and its logical. If someone else will keep/gain more customers then a business can make that decision.

I know why they're doing it, and the point is irrelevant. Besides, the strip club analogy is a false equivalence, because "fat people" is not a protected demographic, which is fair because 1) a person's weight can actually effect their job performance and 2) weight is a choice, the result of poor choices and self control. Yes, there are medical exceptions, but that's the exception, not the norm.

[Beasty]

No one should tell anyone how they should run their Privet Business. It's their business so those people feeling "discriminated" need to look somewhere else. A simple solution is to move on and find a place where people respect your color and willing to employ you. But no one should tell how a CEO of a Privet Corporation that has to full control of his company tell how and what he must do. Those people that complain about this has no power or any influence so they just need to understand they can do anything when it comes to employment or financially.

Freedom? Yes people have Freedom. But that does not change that fact that Privet Corporations have their Freedom to make their own decisions. And not have others that did nothing or was never part of the company to tell them what to do.

Hahahahaha, do you even hear yourself sometimes?

I think I get the gist of the problem, however. You guys are not looking at this through the big picture.

Within any society, there exists needs to be satisfied, and they may be satisfied in a variety of ways. Companies, corporations, businesses, all of these things are manifestations of the human need to satisfy these needs. Just to digress a bit, when Marxists talk of the internal contradictions of Capitalism, this is what they mean; institutions in which the primary function is capital accumulation find themselves torn between such a contradiction. At a fundamental level, companies exist to provide services and goods to satisfy human needs- however, because they are so divorced from the human needs they cater, which is a result of privatization, ergo that they must sustain themselves through the accumulation of capital which conflicts the satisfaction of those human needs, they find themselves torn between satisfying their societal purpose and intentionally not doing so.

And this effect is blatantly obvious today. Take, for example, a car company. Cars do not need to be continuously bought because one car can last an incredibly long time. Therefore, what does a car company do when everyone has a car? Because the car company can not allow itself to go out of business as there are human livelihoods depending upon it's existence, it can do one of several things; the car company can artificially raise the prices to cover long term droughts of sales, which is detrimental to society because it ensures that humans can't live to their full potential as it now exists behind and artificially high pay wall. Another option is to simply sell inferior products so that people will always need to buy the newer upgrade or pay for continuous repairs. This is also detrimental because it again disallows humans and society to live to the highest potential.

This is how the company, as with any "private institution" faces internal contradictions within a capitalist society, because it is not allowed to fufill it's social obligations. This is why their is a disconnect between companies and people, regardless of who composes such a thing. That is to say that a company, corporation or other private capital accumulating entity is met with a level of distrust and dislike by nearly all people; that is because in ensuring it's survival, it enforces upon society a sub-standard, and at a fundamental level we recognize this to be inefficient.

How does this tie into companies hiring gays or other minority groups against their will? Well because of the very nature of their existence, they are intended to satisfy human needs within society, and so to that extent one should be compelled to reject the notion that we ought to hold them to a standard in light of their "private nature" (which is really a misnomer, nothing within an economy can be truly "private" in the sense that no one person is economically independent of another, and as such the idea of something being wholy "mine" is just stupid and we don't even really follow it today, but that's another topic for another post.)

[Vergo]

Wow why u so against what they decide beasty? Its a private school man , jesus. Just a serious question, are you gay?Because there must be a reason for all this chit chat.

[Beasty]

If you'd have bothered to read what I wrote, you'd know why I'm "so against what they decide".

And you wouldn't have to make fucking inferences about someone's sexual preferences to discredit. I'm pissed at you because you have the gall to actually sit there and not read what I wrote (which it explicitly outlines the nature of the problem and why I think it's important to act that way withing the context), and then ask me why I could possibly be opposed to it. Must be because I'm a faggot, right? It's insulting.

[Vergo]

Sorry Chris but I just dont get your point. Where I live everything is legal. Even gay marriage. But in catholic private schools they dont accept teachers that are married to the same gender. Nobody goes against that. And the teachers knows that they cant argue bcs it was written in their contract. Now idk how the law or how does everything function in the USA but if it was written he cant do shet about it. They have the right to kick out who they want , as simple as that. It's the same in this forum. Cloud can ban/kick who he wants bcs its his forum.

[Leaf]

Beasty, the strip club example does make sense, if a worker is bad for business you get rid of them simple as that. The point is people need to realize that if someone is fired because their bad for business it's a legit reason, and I'm sick of hearing about discrimination all the time. Life is tough, it's not fair it'll never be fair, so get over it. If you think corruption or discrimination will ever end you're an idiot. And if you think that infringes on his right to be gay, he needs to find a job where being gay won't affect business ie. Almost any other job. If you still don't get my point you might be as close minded as battle. Jk battle you're cool I just like to joke.

[SmG Battlefire]

People's rights don't protect them from discrimination.

[Beasty]

How the fuck does being gay affect his ability to do his fucking job? you say it affects businesses, but that's not an excuse. It isn't an excuse when racist southern white buisness owners put up signs saying "no niggers" and it isn't an excuse now either.

Who the hell ever said that I thought that life was always fair, or that descrimination can be eliminated. I don't even want that to happen. It is an ideal to be worked towards, even if it never happens. Don't you understand that? Just because there will always be murders does not mean that we should simply accept that. It's something to be opposed, if even in futility.

The entire point is that private or not private, institutions, especially education, play an important role in society and so as a result they should be held to a standard. You have every right not to want to bake a cake for gay people- but you will, because when you bake a cake for somebody, you play a role in society whether or not you like it, so you are obligated to follow the customs of such a society.

If you don't like that, then look to open a business where it's acceptable to descriminate, to turn that little bit on it's head, because it is not acceptable to do that here.

PS, no, the strip club example IS a false equivalence, because being fat inhibits the strippers ability to do her job. Being gay does not have an impact on being able to teach children.

[Leaf]

A fat stripper can still strip. A gay teacher can still teach. And if someone else would bring in more revenue the business can replace them.(in a religious private school)But you just don't get it. I'll agree to disagree on this one. Can this topic be locked?