Tom Cruise is gay

I know about age discrimination -- I'm 16 years old and trying to make a living through work online. An you know what? If someone doesn't want to hire me because I'm too young, so be it -- even if I'm more qualified. I'm not going to insist that people are FORCED to hire younger workers like me!

You know, uncontrollable rage is a bad character trait -- I never said it was limited to anything, but the fact of the matter is that making it against the law to be a racist or discriminate is ridiculous -- why is it just related to employers? It's inconsistent.

You simply cannot force people to try to be nice. I don't like government telling people who to hire: that's absolutely terrible. Now we have the opposite of discrimination of minorities: we have people from the majority losing out even if they're more qualified, and people afraid to fire anyone who is part of a racial minority. This is just as bad.

At least the other way the employer isn't being FORCED to hire people, and at least that way, employers who are stubborn and discriminatory will lose out in the end. They can't afford to hire less-deserving people for long.

I think not hiring you because you are young has more to do with the government trying to protect you from being exploited by your employers. There are also laws which protect the young from being prosecuted as an adult--committing a murder may just send an underaged person to juvenile court or therapy as opposed to an eighteen or 21-year old getting life imprisonment or the chair. But you didn't answer my question about our dads.

I'm a litle confused about "uncontrollable rage" as being a bad character trait . . . ?

As to minorities being hired because they're minorities--I'll tell you a little bit about being one of those (a minority--I mean) THere is the assumption that because I am Asian-American and I have a good job--that I got this great job because of Affirmative Action, not because of my qualifications. Its a shame because--for the rest of my life--some people will think I got ahead--because of government freebies--not because of my mind or my hard work.

__________________
Blonde Klingons: Because it was a good day to dye!

Okay, not to make you any angrier than you already seem to be Twt, but, you do realize your argument itself is racist.

"They can't afford to hire less-deserving people for long."

You're assuming all minorities are stupid and less qualified just because they're minorities. That's okay. Nobody else realizes that's racist either. This country has had a problem with racism since the very begining hundreds of years ago before the Civil War up to this day. When you look at the stats there aren't many minorities in upper level jobs, and when you take into account America's history it's easy to see why. When a qualified minority applies for a job discrimination gives him/her a huge handicap (If the employer is pejudice) unless anti-discrimination laws are in place. Now you might argue that minorities ARE less qualified but you would have to site discrimination as the cause. So you'd be saying, if minorities want to get ahead in life they have to work past the difficulties of discrimination because America is prejudice. After you say that how can you say people should be allowed to hire whoever they want?

Now imagine you are a boss and I apply to be your Vice Pres.. so does Wart. You will hire the more qualified minority, or, you won't hire either of us but instead hire a minority to work in the mail room. Quota satisfied. But at least someone got a foot in the door. Maybe you wouldn't have even hired them for the mailroom. If you are an equal opportunity employer Affirmative Action probably doesn't even bother you because you hire everybody anyway. You probably don't even think about it.

As long as I'm on the soap box, here's something else people don't realize is prejudice. When someone says, hey, do you know Kevin? Who? You know, that gay guy. Or the black guy. That bothers me. I always try to describe people by their clothing or build. Or, that guy that's always talking about movies or something.

Not trying to make you mad Twt but you asked for a reason so that's my attempt.

Sun~

So, your point here is that "Lots of people use incorrect and discredited statistics regarding the number of homosexuals in the United States, therefore those incorrect and discredited statistics must be correct."

I have no problem with homosexuality. It's really none of my business (and it's not my job to judge people), but I do have a problem with maintaining that incorrect and discredited statistics are factual.

The statistic, though in wide use due to the laziness of writers and reporters, etc, is an incorrect statistic. It was never statistically accurate, and it was never meant to be statistically accurate. The fact that people use that statistic so often merely means that a lot of people are too lazy (or too concerned with making their point - something else that happens a lot in political discussion) to seek out the truth.

People want to be gay? Fine. But if people want to bandy statistics all about, they should take the time to find the scientifically valid stats to use, regardless of whether those stats help or hurt their cause.

Sun, I never said they are not less qualified, I said that quotas make sure less deserving people get in, BECAUSE there will ALWAYS be some of them who are less qualified. I never said they all were Sun -- you fabricated that, plain and simple.

If a company has room for 100 emloyees, and they are FORCED to hire 10 Italian-Americans, do you think all 10 of those people will be more qualified than all the other applicants of all races? Most likely not!

You're assuming all minorities are stupid and less qualified just because they're minorities.

Like I said, I didn't say it. I've just clarified it above, but if you ask me, it's not that nice to accuse someone of making a racist argument without REALLY looking at something.

And no, I'm not angry: just frustrated that I can't get a rational argument in response to mine half the time. No offense, but this doesn't help.

Sorry, thought it was more of a statement. My dad is less than 40 -- my parents were married very young, so my dad hasn't yet had to experience what you've mentioned as far as I know. I'm not sure what it is you're asking me exactly.

As for rage: my point is that just because something is a "bad character trait", it doesn't mean it's not a horrible thing, IE: uncontrollable rage. What I'm saying is that racism is a flaw -- it's irrational, and usually very hard to get past. It makes a person worse than they are really meant to be.


I don't believe so -- being 16, I can legally work here, and I'm usually the one inquiring about the job. They certainly don't force me to do things. I think they doubt my maturity. Seeing as how they don't know how I'll be able to handle deadlines and orders, they shy away -- even if I'm the best for the job.

And you know what? Hey, it's their choice. If they told me "Sorry, we don't hire Christians", I'd be ticked off, and think of it as a very stupid reason, but I wouldn't sue them, and I wouldn't ask that they are forced to hire a certain number of Christians either -- no way.


I'm sorry some people assume that -- perhaps if we were to get rid of quotas, this problem would not exist.

I didn't say that -- you said that.

If ANYONE wants to get ahead in life they have crap to deal with, no matter their race. I have no doubt in my mind that there are MANY companies out there who would willingly hire anyone with the responsibility, ability to adapt, and raw skills regardless of their background. If you don't believe they're capable of finding a good job ASSUMING they have the necessary skills, you're probably incorrect.

The argument I here is that it's near impossible for them to "get ahead in life" without these quotas -- I don't believe that.

Question for you: Should we force employers to hire people born into poor families who could not send them to better schools or better colleges? Seems to me they have it worse than plenty of minorities at this point.

Is America prejuidice? Yes, every person in the world is, as well, to a degree. We all have a sense of loyalty and comfort with our own race. Natural, as far as I see it, but the key is in respecting others.

You want to know what racism is? It's not just a white employer turning away an Asian-American job applicant. It's old friends of mine when I was 11-12 throwing racial slurs at me. "Honkey" is just fine, so is "Cracker", but I have to watch everything I say. Why? Because I'm white, and that labels me.

What I'm really tired of is people throwing racism charges around. Jesse Jackson accuses companies of being racist because they don't have this many black employees -- what if they only go so many qualified applicants?

My point here, in summary, is that people who respect others are still labeled. I'm going to be labeled a white republican all my life -- and people are going to project their mental image of a big fat-cat republican onto me no matter what I do. I deal with it.

Bottom line: quotas ENSURE that some non-qualified people will be placed into companies. They also ensure that others get an opportunity, but personally I believe them to have other options. I find it incredibly hard to believe that a truly deserving applicant will NOT be able to find a job without quotas.

As long as I'm on the soap box, here's something else people don't realize is prejudice. When someone says, hey, do you know Kevin? Who? You know, that gay guy. Or the black guy. That bothers me. I always try to describe people by their clothing or build. Or, that guy that's always talking about movies or something.

Perhaps you're right -- however, this isn't, in my opinion, prejudice. It's the way our brains work: a person's skin color is very readily evident in most cases, and as such, it's one of the easiest ways to identify someone.

I don't think it's fair to call someone who uses such a phrase prejudice. Can it be? Yes, it can, but if it's simply a quick way to describe someone, then I see no problem. Is it any worse than saying "That really, really tall guy?" -- probably not, but once again, we come to the same point: people are racially sensitive. Somethings this is good, and sometimes it is bad. I've seen both.

WOW! This discussion thread may have strayed, but at least I am now aware of some of the reasons. Commish, I had no idea that you were 16 years old. But, after you provided me with that information, I reviewed your previous postings. It's very apparent that you are 16 years old and speaking from your own perspective only. You didn't watch TV at night and see black people in Watts being hosed down by Police because they were black. You don't have memories of PUBLIC schools denying anyone other than caucasion the opportunity to learn there .. even the applicant lived next door to the school. You don't remember when the National Guard, on the orders of the President, were called into Alabama to ensure that two little girls with dark skin could enter their school without getting rocks thrown at them. My grandfather used to tell me about his arrival to the USA from Ireland: even the YMCA denied him a room even though he had the money. While looking for employment, he saw multitudes of "Help Wanted" signs with the following phrase written on the sign: "Irish or Catholic Need Not Apply" You see, Irish, Catholics, Italians, Asians, Blacks, Gays, Lesbians, Women, Senior Citizens, Disabled Individuals have ALL experienced what pure discrimination is and what the consequences are.
Many people (myself included) don't support what is called "Affirmative Action". As I have stated, a job offer should be based upon the applicants'prior experience and whether the individual meets all requirements. But, it's a very small jump from discontinuing Affirmative Action to resuming discriminatory practices in matters like employment, housing, or health care. You speak of "Age Discrimination", Commish. The Civil Rights Act does make discrimination based on age illegal - it is intended to protect older citizens who are qualified job applicants from being denied employment due to age. (You realize that there are many older citizens in their 70's and 80's who NEED to work at places like McDonalds because they cannot afford to live.) And please remember the number of single parents who have been literally abandoned - financially, emotionally, and physically - leaving the partner to raise a child alone. Could anybody really judge a person who had three kids, no job, and had just been abandoned by the other parent of the children? Could anyone sleep at night if they denied employment to a qualified job applicant who clearly needs a job but, in the employer's eyes, is "immoral" or "sinful" because the applicant is trying to ensure that s/he feeds the kids?

I am surprised that the owner of this website has basically stated that he does not oppose discrimination. This website is about film. Does the owner remember when the government "banned" films? When Lucille Ball was forced by CBS to use the word "expectant" instead of "pregnant"? Does he remember the McCarthy Hearings that accused Hollywood of being anarchistic and conspiring to overthrow the USA and establish communism? Does he remember that actors, directors, writers, and scripts were "black-balled" by Hollywood? Does he remember the "Casting Couch" syndrome hen actors (of both genders) would be guaranteed a role in a film .... IF certain sexual favors were performed? I wonder if he even recalls when Rock Hudson announced that he was dying of AIDS ... and the cast of "Dynasty" reportedly flipped out...

There's a lot more to film than "movieforum.com", Commish. There's the history, the stories, the background, the presentation ... all of which are a reflection upon society. I don't want to go back to the days of book-burning and picketing films. Eample: believe it or not: There were huge protests by Catholics including members of parishes, priests, bishops, etc who picketed "The Exorcist" when it was released. Years later, even the Pope stated that he felt that "The Exorcist" was vulgar, but certainly portrayed the power of God and was not a betrayal of faith. When I saw "The Exorcist", it was a sin, like being gay.

This thread has turned into a small discussion board, and I think that the results have been helpful and informative to all. Commish, by no means do I imply that your input is invalid because you are young. I simply mean that at this time your experience in life is fairly limited. Your education is limited. If you wish to REALLY state that sexual orientation is a sin because "the Bible says so..,", I would highly recommend that you explore resources offering perspectives on what the "meaning" behind what "the Bible says.." really is.

Peace to All - Kevin B

Just so Chris doesn't feel isolated in his thoughts on here, I'd like to say I agree with him. I don't like how corporations hire less qualified people because they are pressured to. I feel if someone is bold enough and ambitious enough to start their own buisness/corporation/enterprise, then they should be allowed to hire whoever they feel will have the sufficent skills needed to do the job. I don't think they should be allowed to hire only a specific creed because they don't like a certain peoples. If such a thing is becoming apparent, and on a large enough scale, then the government should maybe investigate and try to come up with a solution to propose to the head of that business. I don't think the government should force them to hire people because of quotas. We live in a free market economy, where individuals are allowed to start their own business without government control, we(and when I say we I mean the United States Citizens) do not live under a authoritarian, totalitarian, dictatorship, or communist controlled government. I feel the government should not try to control people just because they are appearing racist, sexist, or preferntial to certain people. It's their business, they should be allowed to hire whomever they see fit. Sure its the land of freedom and opportunity, but I think those opporunities shouldn't be given to someone simply because they need to have a certain number of different employees. If the person meets your standards of qualification, hire them, if they don't I don't think that person should be hired over someone who has the qualification.

__________________
Horror's Not Dead
Latest Movie Review(s): Too lazy to keep this up to date. New reviews every week.

Hindsight is everything, I suppose. I'm not going to defend my maturity or the validity of my arguments due to age -- the fact that you had "no idea" I was 16 will defend those things for me. I will ask you one thing however: who's perspective SHOULD I be speaking from exactly? Seems we all speak from our own perspective.


And this makes what I've said less valid? I see nothing I've said that requires firsthand experience to state. If you don't like what I've said, just tell me why.

Oh, and by the way, I've been called a religious wacko. Why? Because I said I try to go to Church every Sunday. I put up with it, plain and simple.


I'm glad to hear you do not support it. PLEASE keep in mind that I have not stated that these quotas are worthless, simply that they are not a good idea. I believe they have their good points, but they do not outweigh the problem of forcing employment -- that's a lack of business freedom.


Yes, I know it is not specific for me -- and I don't think it should be. I am simply giving you another example of how someone has passed me over for a reason other than raw skill and ability. That's their choice.


I don't understand what point you're trying to make now. I was partially raised by a single mother, though, and saw what it was like. It was difficult at times, but my mother didn't need a quota to get her her job, and for that I am glad.


And when did I say that, Kevin? I am sorry, but you are out of line now. You and sunfrog are tossing fabricated accusations at me.

Here is what I said: that people should not be forced to hire minorities if they don't want. That they should hire who they want. That quotas are bad.

Did I say I liked the idea of discrimination? Did I say I was not opposed to employers discriminating? NO! I am only opposed to FORCING them. I think it's horrible for them to do that, but worse to force them to hire people of this race or that race -- that in and of itself is racist, because it denies certain races entry automatically.


1 - What point are you trying to make here?
2 - It's MovieForums.com, with an S.
3 - I do not claim to be a movie expert. You seem to be taking shots at me as if I thought I were some kind of movie know-it-all. I just enjoy movies, and enjoy talking about them. If you think that makes me less than qualified to run this site, well, I'll have to disagree.


From The Bible...

That makes it pretty clear to me. Perhaps you have a different inpreretation -- I'd be fine with hearing it, but I likely won't agree. This verse, to me, seems very clear.

Two things that I thought of as I read through some of the posts:

1. I actually had a relative who was branded a Communist during the Red Scare. He actually was a Communist, but he was of the mild variety. He actually spent six months in jail for refusing to name contributors to an organization that supposedly had ties to the Communist Party.

2. Speaking of quotas, the town I grew up in lost a PGA-sponsored golf tournament because there were no African-American members of the Country Club where the tournament was held. As it turned out, no African-American had ever even applied to be a member of this club (the town has a very, very small African-American population, and an even smaller Upper-Class African-American population. This is a high-dollar Country Club we're talking about). To have kept the PGA event, the Country Club would have had to find several African-American families and essentially cajole them into joining, even if those familes couldn't afford the dues that regular members paid.

I just thought that situation was odd. The Country Club wasn't trying to keep African-American members out. There just weren't any African-American families who had the desire to join this Country Club (not that I blame them. The place was this town's equivilent of a Blue-Blood Club. I would never be a member there, either. And even their golf facilities, pool facilities and tennis facilities are not as good as the other Country Club, which is far cheaper and far less snobby). There are sometimes reasons other than racism that keep African-Americans or other minorities from joining such Country Clubs. But the PGA didn't want to hear it, and there is no PGA-sponsored event in that town anymore.

Okay, I have to agree, quotas do insure that some less qualified people will get jobs. I was actually going to present the opposite side of the quota argument with an example like the PGA one. What if you live smack dab where there aren't any minorities? Then you would be hard up to find one and hire anybody who came along, qualified or not.

Now, I'm not saying all employers or companies are prejudice and no one is getting a job. I'm saying it used to be that way. And that Affirmative Action has helped but it's still not the time to end the program. Someday it should end when we don't need it anymore, but it's working and this is not the time yet. Maybe 10 more years.

In all good things there is some bad, and in all bad things there is some good. Now I'm gonnna bust some Ying Yang on you.
In this Affirmative Action thing I think there is more good done than bad.

Should all poor people have quotas is a really, really good question. One I've never heard before. I think this goes on to be an argument for free schooling. There are many countries on Earth that offer free schooling. Not America but I think it should be. I have to think about this one a lot more.

Not all religions think being gay is bad is really interesting. Which ones? I'm just curious. That's also something to think about. Also something in Kevin's post implied he doesn't experience workplace discrimination. I can't find it now. But I know this guy who is gay, like really gay. Flaming. Sorry, I don't know if that word is offensive, but you know what I mean. Anyway, I saw people be mean to him because of it, including my own boss. Eventually he lost his job. I have to say it was because he's gay.

Saying, that black guy does bother me, but I have to admit I used to do it too. One day I said that and the black guy looked at me with a sad, not you too look. That made me realize what I had just said and since that day I try never to do it. I don't remember the guy's name. I didn't know him that well. Maybe that's why I said the black guy. I don't remember, this was years ago. Someday our brains won't work that way. This is my dream and maybe what Kevin was trying to say when he was bothered that this thread even exists.

This thread kicks butt btw. I hope it keeps going

Commish, you don't get it because you don't get it. At the age of 16, you simply did not witness discrimination (and firebombings of churches, murders of supporters of Civil Rights Act). I would hope that this era would be explained in a High School History class, but I guess it's not.

RE: Affirmative Action - Again, I repeat, the most qualified person should get a job or a promotion. That means anyone who is qualified with the specifications of the job description - regardless of gender, age (unless specifics of job require that a minor cannot hold the position), sexual orientation, ethnic background, or religion. I don't agree with quotas: Yes, Affirmative Action programs were needed initially to help legal American citizens of minority groups to gain equal access to employment and education. BUT, I do believe that it is the DUTY of the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a federal agency) to ensure that the conditions of the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Equal Pay Act are upheld.

One thing that was ridiculous was the posting that if an employer wants to hire all "blue skinned" employees, that would be okay. Let's face facts: HUMANS DO NOT HAVE BLUE SKIN. It's not a far jump to say that an employer has the right to hire only people who meet arbitrary conditions such as gender, age, race, religion, sexual orientation, or political party membership. To deny employment based upon the statistical facts of the person rather than his/her ability and experience to perform the job IS out and out discrimination. The fact that you used "blue people" as a metaphor for a minority does not change the underlying message you're sending: that it's okay to deny employmetn to qualified applicants based on factors other than his or her qualifications, experience, and references. Please, Commish, check out the Civil Rights Act ... check out wages paid to minorities vs. white males, check out the number of women in executive management: you will get the point.

The Civil Rights Act and other legislation was NOT designed to enforce quotas. It's purpose is this: To ensure that a qualified applicant for a job not be pre-judged on the basis of things other than the ability to perform the work.


As far as what perspective you "should" speak from, I believe that you should speak from whatever you believe in. It's your opinion, not fact. But, I also think that it's only fair to let the general audience at large realize that a teenager is posting comments about issues that he has no experience with, and apparently the school system isn't doing a very good job of explaining American History and Civics. It took a Constitutional Amendment to allow women (who make up 52% of the population)to vote. Ending slavery nearly destroyed this country during the Civil War. Employment laws were passed for a number of reasons, including protecting children from being forced to work, establishing a minimum wage (albeit an amount that no one could live on), establishment of the definitions of a work day and a work week, employee rights and obligations, and employer rights and obligations. I sincerely doubt that you would say that an employer has the right to deny employment to people who are ___________ (fill in the blank with any minority group).

Regarding the Biblical quote, as I stated before, I am a Christian ... but I recognize the fact that the Bible is a MAN-MADE publication that is based on stories that were first passed along verbally, then written, and then translated over and over again. A quotation from the Bible in no way ensures that the quotation addresses the issue it seems to address.

As I have said before, Live and Let Live. And "Judge Not ... Yest ye be judged". Peace to All.

I'm sorry Kevin, but you are not understanding what I'm saying at all -- a common trait in a lot of your posts here I'm afraid. If I'm wrong, tell me why -- don't tell me I'm 16, because I already know that.


That is blatantly incorrect. I'm saying people should be ALLOWED to discriminate -- not that they should, or that it's nice, or that I support it, only that I am against people being forced to hire based on anything other than what they want -- it's their business, let them hire whoever they please for whatever reason they please.

Does that clear it up a bit? The blue skin comment was a joke -- a ridiculous exaggeration to illustrate a point. I had thought this was obvious. I'm not trying to hide the fact that blue skinned people can be replaced with any statistical group -- that was my whole point! If an employer wants to be unfair, they should be allowed, as stupid as it is.


Answer me one simple question: should there be a law against racism, or sexism?


Last I checked your words were also opinion. No experience? So you're telling me that because I have not seen, say, a black person discriminated against up close and first-hand, I have no idea what I'm talking about?

Let me ask you this: do you need to see a school shooting to realize how horrible it is?

By the way: I'm homeschooled, and I learn more here than I ever could in public school. I understand how horrible discrimination was in the past, but that does not influence my opinion now, which is that you cannot outlaw discrimination, even if it's morally wrong.


Yes, I do say that they should. And it doesn't mean I like it, or think it's morally sound -- It means I think it's worse to outlaw it.

Let me give you an example: adultery is a terrible thing, but does anyone here support outlawing that? No, because while horrible and sometimes capable of ruining lives, it is a human flaw -- a big one, but a flaw nonetheless, and you cannot force people to get around that with laws, the same for discrimination.


Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I believe The Bible was divinely inspired with Truth, from God Himself. As for that quote at the end: yes, it is one to live by, but it's also, unfortunatly, taken out of context all the time. It does not mean that we cannot make decisions and have opinions on issues.

Kevin: I want to have this conversation with you, but I think you're making it un-necessarily difficult. I say I don't support outlawing discrimination, and then you say I "support it", or that I'm "not opposed to it" -- the only thing I'm opposed to is trying to enforce it with laws.

I will let this conversation continue (and this thread to remain open) as long as it remains respectful. I feel I've taken the time to read your posts and understand your arguments plenty, but I get the impression the same might not be happening in return.

And, once again, if I'm wrong, tell me why. The fact that I'm 16 doesn't mean anything other than that I'm 16. Do I lack experience in some areas? Yes, but as an adult, realize that you may be biased in pride, and the disability to want to concede even the smallest point to someone of my age -- so as far as I'm concerned, we both have our shortcomings here.

I'm 15, if you weren't able to tell, and I doubt you were had you not previously read it, and I see blatent discrimination for almost any category you can think of, everyday. So do I not get it also? I have seen many things I doubt even you have seen, Kevin. And if it seems like I'm attacking you, I'm really not. There is an extremely large amounts of discrimation that occurs every 10 minutes in a school of 2,270. I have seen black and white kids beat the living snot out of each other because of meaningless ratial slurs. I have seen homosexual kids teased, ridiculed, and even fought against because of who they are. I could go on, but won't. It seems to me I'm trying to make myself sound like something that your just going to doubt.

I'm starting to agree more and more with Chris on this. That last post was an extremely well stated arguement on Chris' part, I'd just like to say well done Chris. Your ability to so accurately express yourself always amazes me.

Oh and as a question for Kevin, Isn't your saying Chris doesn't get it because he is only 16 discriminatory??

I won't comment on the age issue much further -- I reliaze there are some things that can only be learned with age, but I don't see how this is necessarily one of them.

One thing I will say about the age issue: you admitted yourself you had no idea I was 16. That speaks for itself mostly.

Commish and Others: The BOTTOM LINE is that the Civil Rights Act protects groups of minorities from discrimination. The Civil Rights Act DOES NOT however state that an unqualified individual of a minority group be hired, nor does it state that choosing the minority candidate is the law.

Regarding age issues, yes, I believe that the educational system has failed you. It becomes apparent when you use words like "blue-skinned" rather than REAL racism, discrimination, and disparate treatment. The Civil Rights Act DOES NOT repeat DOES NOT call for "quotas". It simply states that a qualified individual cannot be discounted as a viable candidate for a job on the basis of gender, race, ethnicity, or national origin. It isn't ME that is missing the point here - it is you, Chris. An employer simply does not have the right to discriminate, whether YOU agree with that or not. We are talking about FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT LAWS.

For most of the history of the USA, the controlling group consisted of white heterosexual males. The truth is that white heterosexual males are NOT a majority of population. This government is based on democracy - - to quote the Declaration of Independence, NO ONE is to be denied the RIGHT (not privilege) of the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness.

Are either of you saying that you agree with racism, sexism, age discrimination, religious discrimination, or lifestyle discrimination? That certainly seems to be the case. Commish - I shall repeat myself again: Human beings are not blue-skinned. Are you implying that an employer has the right to deny hiring a person due to his or her color, ethnic background, religion, sexual orientation, gender, or age? If so, then have the guts to use those words. Say flat out that "If an employer wants to hire only white males, that should be allowed." But, holding such opinions supporting discriminatory practices is absolutely contrary to the reasons the United States were originally established. In the 1700's, religion was the reason. Now, THREE HUNDRED YEARS later, you seem to be supporting the notion that an employer or landlord has some "right" to pick and choose among groups of people and deny these people employment or housing based solely on the fact that they are a member of a minority group. THAT is not only illegal, it is contrary to USA laws. These laws were enacted because of the discriminatory practices that occurred before the laws were passed. Should we dispense with minimum wage requirements? Should we abandon child labor laws? I say NO, not in this country. Enough of that crap happens in other countries. Again, from the Declaration of Independence, "all ... are created equal". To entertain other interpretations undermines the freedom of democracy ... and has the potential to set civilization back by 300 years.

Do I think your age is a factor in your statements? Absolutely. Do I think that you are facing environmental beliefs that allow you to validate these beliefs? Yes, I do. Humans aren't born with prejudicial ideas. Bigotry is learned behavior (often from parents) that is inconsistent with federal laws and most religious traditions, including Christianity. This subject was originally about rumors that Tom Cruise is gay. Once again, my response is that Tom Cruise's life off-screen should be respected. (No one mentions the fact that Nicole Kidman miscarried a child that was NOT Tom Cruise's biological child. She is an adulteress... yet she's getting all the "sympathy") Once again, our nation is based upon principles that our society is a melting pot ... a safe harbor for those whose civil rights arent recognized. If you feel that discrimination IN ANY FORM is okay, then just come out and say it. Don't hide behind statements about employees having the right to hire people with blue skin. If you intend to say that an employer has the right to hire/fire on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation, age, or national origin WITHOUT REGARD TO THE FACT THAT THE APPLICANT FOR THE JOB IS FULLY QUALIFIED, then have the guts to SAY IT. I don't know what the KKK website address is, but it seems that you might be more at home there than in a Movie Forum discussion. Then you can hide like the rest of those cowards, beat people to death because they aren't "the same as you", deny them employment and housing to them while wearing a pillow case that hides your identity. KKK members wear those uniforms to conceal themselves because deep down they KNOW that they should be ashamed of their conduct.

By the way, as some other contributor has said : "Don't look back... we are definately gaining on you". The days of disparate treatment are OVER. Now, you and the rest of the world need to GET OVER IT too.

Peace to all, regardless of age, gender, race, sexuality, religion, lack of religion, or national origin. My prayers are with you ... especially when I hear that CHILDREN lacking life experience old still support discrimination. It is definately a sad day in the USA.

Kevin

Commish,

Usually, I try not to squeeze between fellows in dicey situations like this (besides being infernally tired), but I must say, Commish, I find your views rather shocking. "People should be allowed to discriminate ... it's their business, let them hire whoever they please, for whatever reason they please. ... If an employer wants to be unfair, they should be allowed, as stupid as it is."

But why encourage stupidity, Commish? Shouldn't one attack stupidity wherever one finds it? Why let it go on & on like some sort of self-perpetuating sin? Commish, you have made it clear with every word you say that you wish to preserve the status quo -- but this is so wrong. If the status quo had been preserved, the Chinese Exclusion Act would never have been repealed and thousands of hard-working immigrant Chinese would not have had the privilege of naturalization. If the status quo had been preserved, blacks today would still have separate bathrooms and water fountains and seats at the back of the bus.

I do not wish to be as harsh as Kevin, Commish, even though I agree with a great deal of what he said. But your patronizing attitude towards fellow posters ("you are not understanding what I'm saying at all--a common trait in a lot of your posts here I'm afraid") and lack of compassion for those born without your advantages profoundly disturbs me.

Sincerely,
Pigsnie

__________________
Pigsnie, Vicar of Fries!

Pigsnie: I have show no less respect than has been shown to me.

In addition, I am not at all "encouraging stupidity" -- I'm just saying it shouldn't be outlawed! Does keeping adultery legal mean we encourage it? No, it just means it's unreasonable to try to regulate it with laws.

I don't believe you know what kind of situation I've been born into, but let me tell you right now, I have experienced poverty -- no doubt about that. This is not about compassion, it's about realism: you cannot make it against the law to discriminate -- it doesn't work.

Kevin and Pigsnie: if you don't like what I'm saying, respond to my arguments! What about adultery? Should we ban that? Should we force people to remain faithful to their spouse? Heck, marital infidelty and random fornication, arguably, may have cost the English the Revolutionary War, it's been said! Many lives lost there.

The flaw in your reasoning is this: me wanting to preserve some status quo now does not BIND me to support all throughout history -- your last few sentences are irrelevant.

Goodness, Kevin, I thought I'd answered this? YES, I am not denying that "blue-skinned" was used in place of other minority groups -- this is probably the third time I've said that. It's my whole point: if an employer wants to be ridiculous, they should be allowed.

My blue-skin comment was an example to illustrate that racism is stupid and ridiculous, but that an employer should be allowed to be stupid and ridiculous -- how on EARTH is that a reflection on my education, which, by the way, is not provided by a public school?


Ok, this uneducated 16 year old who doesn't "get it" has a small correction to make: we live in a republic. If we lived in a democracy, we'd vote on these kinds of laws directly, rather than vote on respresentatives to vote on them for us. The Founding Fathers went out of their way to avoid Democracy!

Ok, so, if denying employment is denying the right to the pursuit of happiness, WHAT ABOUT ADULTERY? I'm going to harp on this analogy as long as I have to. If someone sleeps with my wife, I'd say my pursuit of happiness has taken a severe blow.

Keep in mind that it is the PURSUIT of happiness -- not happiness. No one is guaranteed to get what they want. That phrase, like your Biblical reference from before, is often mis-used.


Guts? I'm the one defending myself against two people here -- both older and likely more educated than I. And it was I who IM'd you directly, and I who went out on the 'Net and found evidence to debunk that ridiculous 10% number.

YES, an employer SHOULD have the right to be a racist -- and if you think that's ridiculous, answer this question: should racism be illegal? Should adultery be illegal? I've asked these questions before --- why won't you answer them?

I was demonstrating absurdity by being absurd -- that's a phrase I heard awhile back. I do not lack guts to say the "actual words."

Pigsnie: see what I mean? I've stated this kind of thing before. I don't think it's unreasonable for me to assume my posts are not really being read here.


Alright Pigsnie: I hope now you realize my character has been attacked 100 times worse than that of Kevin's

Kevin: you are rude and out of line. You have just accused me of being a racist. Accused me of being the type to burn crosses and murder black children. It's disturbing that you would stoop to such a level.

[red]Listen up: I'm making my stance 100% clear, and if you don't understand it this time, then you're not going to ever, I'm afraid:

1 - Racism is bad.
2 - Discrimination of any kind if bad.
3 - It is not practical to ban racism or discriminatory practices, but it should be encourged to cease at every opportunity.
4 - If you want discriminatory practices involved, what about adultery, and racism on the whole? Where is the line drawn.
5 - Thinking something is okay, and that it shouldn't be illegal, are two different things. Once again Kevin, I point to adultery.
[/red]

There, now many I'll actually get some responses to my post.

I'm going to warn you Kevin (yes, warn): if you accuse me of such a thing again, I will seriously consider shutting this thread down. I will argue with you until the end of time, but if you are so on the defensive as to stoop to accusing me of being more at home with the KKK, then you have no place on this site.

This board is a place where people are to try to respect each other, and if you can't do that, you have no place here. I have been much more respectful to you than you have to me, and if that doesn't change, this will not go on. You want to talk about maturity? You've insulted me more than I have you, and you had no idea I was 16 at first. I don't think you have a leg to stand on when it comes to that issue.

If you want to debate, then answer my points as I do yours -- it seems like every post of yours you attack me in some way, I respond, and then ask questions of my own, and you ignore most of them, and ask me more questions, and attack me again.

Sorry Kevin, but right now I am thinking you are the one lacking the education. Several examples come to mind, firstly the Civil Rights Act. Your knowledge of the Civil Rights Act is incorrect. The discrimination provision of the 1967 Civil Rights Act did not come into play untill 1988. I don't think you know exactly what the Civil Rights Act says concerning discrimination. It simply says "If any part of an orginization recieves federal aid, no part of that organization may discriminate on the basis of race, sex, age, or physical handicap." The 1988 Civil Rights Act provision only concerns federally aided orginizations. Did you know that??

You were correct in saying "The Civil Rights Act DOES NOT repeat DOES NOT call for "quotas"." That is true. These "quotas" are created by the state government, and the federal government when concerning a federal job. These quotas are created to "correct past effects of racial disrimination" and enforced by the federal government. Artical 5 of the fifth ammendment gives the federal government this presedence over the state. So, simply put, quotas ARE created by the government, and are strictly enforced by the government. In most cases an employer is pressured to fire a number of the "majority" workers in order to make room for "minorities. (The above quotations are take dirrectly from my American Government: Seventh Edition text book. If you would like any clarification of the Civil Rights act or quotas, just ask.

A second thing I noticed wrong with your post was that you said "This government is based on democracy - - to quote the Declaration of Independence, NO ONE is to be denied the RIGHT (not privilege) of the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness." Like Chris said, this is a republic. And secondly you misquoted the Decleration of Independence. The correct quote would be, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".

Don't attack the youth of America's intelligence if you yourself do not know what your talking about.

Oh, and adressing the pursuit of happiness and our rights as US citizens, if a racist employer feels the need to discriminate against a race or creed, is that not his "pursuit of Happiness". Is that not his right as a US citizen. I think it is. Discrimination is protected by the US Constitution, the Decleration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights, which I believe was Chirs' point in saying that you can not outlaw racism, it just can not be done. I don't see how you took his saying that as something else.

I also think you misquoted my signature, but I won't deal with that because I don't see what your misquoting it had to do with anything in the first place.

"especially when I hear that CHILDREN lacking life experience old still support discrimination. " I, and I think Chris, are not so much supporting discrimination, but are supporting the rights given to every US citizen. I am not racist. You may not believe that, and I am sure you don't, but believe me when I say I am not. Before I moved to Virginia I attended a school in St. Louis, MO that was 85% African American students. A large majority of my friends were black. Many of my neighbors, considering I lived in the inner city of St. Louis, were black. I have been to rallies supporting the deseg program in St. Louis. I have a patch on my back pack that says "Racism Sucks". I am not a racist person, neither is Chris. Me supporting the allowance of someone else to be racist does not make me racist, or Chris for that matter. If ANYTHING it makes us patriotic since we are supporting another US citizen's constitutionaly given rights.

Before you adressed that Chris, being 16, did not have the maturity or life experience to understand discrimantion, yet you are the one who resorts to childish name calling(do I detect the reminants of Mr. Fong?!??). I'm starting to think that Chris is more mature than an aged man. When that happens it is a sad day in the USA.

(Maybe you should read up on your rights, you will be surprised at what rights you thought you had, but don't.)

A mild addition: in one of my former houses, maybe 5 years back, I had a group of friends throughout several years: one was Korean, one was white, one was black, and one was Latino. They're all good friends to me, and ironically, the one who was white was considered pretty annoying by all of us.

Does this prove anything? No, but ironically I never even realized these friends of mine came into varied backgrounds until a year ago, when an online debate similar to this came up.

Boy it sure is gloomy in here. Hi TWT! I read Kevins post, I agree, he shouldnt have said anythin about the KKK because that is a very bad thing wiht which to accuse anyone. I read Pigsnies post too, believe me that is not the harshest post he has ever writen.but some of the things you said bothered him a lot. I wont go into it because its up to him to answer, not me, but I just want you to know that my bro is a good man who wouldnt say the things he has if he didnt have a good reason.

I dont know much about racism & quotas-- I guess I havent even thought about it much, but probly the reason for this is I have been very lucky. I am lucky not to be born black or albanian or livin in a sewer because chances are, Id be out there too, scratchin for a job nobody wants to give me. Fact is guys, specially white guys says pigsnie, are luckier than anybody. Pigsnie told me once that when he was very young, he applied for an office job along with a guy from nigeria. Well Pigsnie says they didnt even look at the nigerian man. His interview was only like 5 minutws long, it was shameful because everybody else got a good half hour. And this was in the UK!! but that is why Pigsnie is probly the way he is.

__________________
God save Freddie Mercury!