D0wn with Levi Strauss & C0.!

CrAz3D · March 25, 2005, 12:16 AM

Quote from: dxoigmn on March 23, 2005, 04:53 PM

Who cares that he's gay? Does that make him less of a man? Do his outdoor skills become null because he is gay?

I do, it is wrong in my belief. I don't know about less, but it makes him different than most other men. His outdoor skills aren't what is in question, his morality is. Same goes for the atheists that can't join

Arta · March 25, 2005, 04:59 AM

Quote from: Hazard on March 24, 2005, 11:35 PM
Arta, its ridiculous. You'd think twice about it, deep down, you'd have a problem with it, and you know it. Stop taking the high and mighty approach of "Oh I know better," and face it.

No, I categorically, completely, totally wouldn't. I would have a problem with a sex offender in that role. Need I remind you that they're not the same thing?

To address a previous point:

Quote
Its the same reason that adult men are not allowed to be unsupervised on Girl Scout outings, its covering all the bases before something terrible could happen.

On something like a camping trip, I don't think it's sensible for any adult to supervise children alone, and it's got nothing to do with sexuality or sexual behaviour. It's just simple good sense. What would happen if the adult were to be hurt? There should always be at least two supervising adults anyway.

There's no reasonable argument at all against gay people in this kind of role, so the only thing you can really say is "I'm homophobic and I don't like it". I'd have much more respect for that argument than for trying to pass off homophobia as concern for children. At least it would be honest.

Adron · March 25, 2005, 07:27 AM

Quote from: Hazard on March 24, 2005, 11:35 PM
Arta, its ridiculous. You'd think twice about it, deep down, you'd have a problem with it, and you know it. Stop taking the high and mighty approach of "Oh I know better," and face it.

I'd be very happy about it. I think gay men take excellent care of children. Many seem a little more feminine, more caring about fashion, design etc, and that can't be wrong. Besides, if I know the man is gay and living out his sexuality with a mate, it's got to be less likely that he's a paedophile.

CrAz3D · March 25, 2005, 10:14 AM

I'm not homophobic, I just don't believe in their way of living.

How about multiple men supervising a girl scout camp out?...

Arta · March 25, 2005, 01:23 PM

Quote from: CrAz3D on March 25, 2005, 10:14 AM
I'm not homophobic, I just don't believe in their way of living.

That's the same thing! "I'm not blind, I just can't see..."

Quote from: CrAz3D on March 25, 2005, 10:14 AM
How about multiple men supervising a girl scout camp out?...

I think having a woman around would be good. Sometimes girls need female assistance. Perhaps that wouldn't apply so much to women supervising boy scouts, but I'd still think it would be good to have a man around as well as women.

To be honest, this all just seems a little silly to me.

CrAz3D · March 25, 2005, 01:44 PM

It isn't the same thing. Phobias are fears of something, I don't fear gay people, I don't agree with how they live their life.

Adron · March 25, 2005, 03:20 PM

Quote from: CrAz3D on March 25, 2005, 01:44 PM
It isn't the same thing. Phobias are fears of something, I don't fear gay people, I don't agree with how they live their life.

But does it disturb you? I may not agree with your stock placements, but that won't disturb me if I'm talking to you or affect whether I'd like you to lead a boy scout camp.

CrAz3D · March 25, 2005, 05:28 PM

I think it is wrong.

Also, that is all besides the point. My original point is that they are discriminating against us. They funded us then withdrew funding later on because of the fact that we do not allow gay/atheist people to join/lead. Isn't that being hypocritical? If they want us to accept everyone based on whatever views the joining person has, shouldn't they do the same?

Adron · March 25, 2005, 07:24 PM

Quote from: CrAz3D on March 25, 2005, 05:28 PM
Also, that is all besides the point. My original point is that they are discriminating against us. They funded us then withdrew funding later on because of the fact that we do not allow gay/atheist people to join/lead. Isn't that being hypocritical? If they want us to accept everyone based on whatever views the joining person has, shouldn't they do the same?

Well, it's not really that strange. They'll accept everyone who in turn accepts everyone? They may have gay employees, suddenly you're not accepting all their employees. Why should they accept you if you're not accepting all of them?

Hazard · March 25, 2005, 07:36 PM

Arta, stocks and your child are different.

quasi-modo · March 26, 2005, 02:11 PM

Levis are nice jeans... they fit better than Lee jeans do.

CrAz3D · March 26, 2005, 02:58 PM

Quote from: Adron on March 25, 2005, 07:24 PM
Quote from: CrAz3D on March 25, 2005, 05:28 PM
Also, that is all besides the point. My original point is that they are discriminating against us. They funded us then withdrew funding later on because of the fact that we do not allow gay/atheist people to join/lead. Isn't that being hypocritical? If they want us to accept everyone based on whatever views the joining person has, shouldn't they do the same?

Well, it's not really that strange. They'll accept everyone who in turn accepts everyone? They may have gay employees, suddenly you're not accepting all their employees. Why should they accept you if you're not accepting all of them?

But by saying they won't RE-except us unless we accept gay people, they aren't excepting everyone which is exactly what they are trying to make us do.

Adron · March 26, 2005, 08:30 PM

Quote from: CrAz3D on March 26, 2005, 02:58 PM
Quote from: Adron on March 25, 2005, 07:24 PM
Well, it's not really that strange. They'll accept everyone who in turn accepts everyone? They may have gay employees, suddenly you're not accepting all their employees. Why should they accept you if you're not accepting all of them?
But by saying they won't RE-except us unless we accept gay people, they aren't excepting everyone which is exactly what they are trying to make us do.

It sounds like they're accepting everyone who shares their ideals - equal rights? And like I tried to say in my previous post: Maybe they're just accepting everyone who accepts them?

CrAz3D · March 27, 2005, 12:39 AM

But they accepted us before, then said they couldn't support us any longer. If they want to TRULY be non-discriminate, shouldn't they except *everyone*?

Adron · March 27, 2005, 05:54 AM

Quote from: CrAz3D on March 27, 2005, 12:39 AM
But they accepted us before, then said they couldn't support us any longer. If they want to TRULY be non-discriminate, shouldn't they except *everyone*?

Maybe their VP is gay and got rejected trying to join the boy scouts, and you just pissed him off? You can't know what triggered their rejection...

It sounds like a very likely scenario for me though - I've heard about companies withdrawing sponsorship for organizations because the organization rejected a few of their employees.