Carl Paladino Says Homosexuality Not an 'Equally Valid and Successful Option'

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

MJinZ

Diamond Member
Nov 4, 2009
8,192
0
0
Perhaps. Jim Steinman said "Every hero was once, every villein was once, just a boy with a bad attitude", so you have a point. I myself would not have equated Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. with naked dancing men cavorting in a parade in front of children, but to each his own I suppose.


I once applied for a TVA training program, or tried to. I was not allowed to take the test or even fill out an application because they were only taking minorities. (Technically they were only taking minorities and children of existing TVA government workers, but one can't say that to the non-elite.) Your interpretation is that it's perfectly okay to discriminate against me in order to discriminate for someone else because he has darker skin, and that will somehow make up for discrimination against some third person. In other words, we aren't real people, we're merely representatives of our respective racial groups, so it's okay to make me less equal if it will make their group more equal. I can't imagine how you possibly reconcile that with the concept of America, however imperfectly realized.

I do wish I had known earlier that I was in a position of privilege. When I was young and had to leave the house to use the bathroom, that might have helped. On those cold nights when the coal stove roasted you on one side and froze you on the other, when I'd wake to find ice crystals on the inside of our windows so that you couldn't see out, my position of privilege might have warmed the cockles of my heart. ;)

It's all on a spectrum.

Honestly, it's not the dancing flamers that make much of a difference, but the outspoken gay lawyers and activists and all that. But in any case, everyone who stays quiet should honestly realize how much others who actually put themselves out have accomplished on their behalf as well.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
It's all on a spectrum.

Honestly, it's not the dancing flamers that make much of a difference, but the outspoken gay lawyers and activists and all that. But in any case, everyone who stays quiet should honestly realize how much others who actually put themselves out have accomplished on their behalf as well.

I agree, to a degree. I just think that if I were gay, I would not appreciate the gay pride people. It's hard enough to say you're somehow different from the norm without some jackholes giving people the idea that your particular difference makes you some freak of nature without the propriety of a Senator in an airport bathroom. But maybe I'm wrong - maybe gays in the closet are thinking "Wow, they really set the bar of behavior in a ditch! I could come out and look like a saint by comparison!"

I don't known. Luckily I don't really care either. :D
 

Carmen813

Diamond Member
May 18, 2007
3,189
0
76
Perhaps. Jim Steinman said "Every hero was once, every villein was once, just a boy with a bad attitude", so you have a point. I myself would not have equated Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. with naked dancing men cavorting in a parade in front of children, but to each his own I suppose.


I once applied for a TVA training program, or tried to. I was not allowed to take the test or even fill out an application because they were only taking minorities. (Technically they were only taking minorities and children of existing TVA government workers, but one can't say that to the non-elite.) Your interpretation is that it's perfectly okay to discriminate against me in order to discriminate for someone else because he has darker skin, and that will somehow make up for discrimination against some third person. In other words, we aren't real people, we're merely representatives of our respective racial groups, so it's okay to make me less equal if it will make their group more equal. I can't imagine how you possibly reconcile that with the concept of America, however imperfectly realized.

Honestly my interpretation of that situation is that you were victim of a terribly implemented diversity program. These programs aren't a matter of making you less equal, it's about addressing inherent disparities that exist in the system. Like it or not, being male, white, and straight confers advantages upon a person that a person of color, woman, or homosexual individual simply does not have by nature of their birth.

My argument is not that these programs are fair. They aren't fair. But guess what? In our society it's not fair to be a person of color, female, or homosexual (not to mention from lower socioeconomic status, ect). Diversity programs are at best an attempt to address inherent disparities that exist in the system. As I said, I hope someday these programs aren't necessary...but until we address the underlying (and gigantic) disparities that exist in our society, I see no other alternative.

I will say that I personally believe diversity programs have done me TREMENDOUS benefit as a white male. Sure, I may have lost out on some opportunities along the way. However, other opportunities that I've had have allowed me to work with individuals from vastly different backgrounds and I believe that has enriched my life in many ways...the benefits outweigh the costs.
 

MJinZ

Diamond Member
Nov 4, 2009
8,192
0
0
I agree, to a degree. I just think that if I were gay, I would not appreciate the gay pride people. It's hard enough to say you're somehow different from the norm without some jackholes giving people the idea that your particular difference makes you some freak of nature without the propriety of a Senator in an airport bathroom. But maybe I'm wrong - maybe gays in the closet are thinking "Wow, they really set the bar of behavior in a ditch! I could come out and look like a saint by comparison!"

I don't known. Luckily I don't really care either. :D

I don't know, maybe gays realize majority of gay people are like senators ... seemingly straight. ;)
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,673
28,825
136
Somehow I doubt those men dancing naked in gay pride parades are suffering any of those things. Personally I think there should be no protected classes; equality means equality, or it means nothing at all. With protected classes we're merely agreeing that government has the right to treat people differently and enshrining that some groups of people are not equal and never will be.

I agree with Walter Williams: If someone hit me in the head with a bat because I'm black, the important term in that sentence is "hit me in the head with a bat", not "because I'm black."

Using WW logic setting fire to a cross on someones lawn would just be the illegal burning of refuse. Subject to a small fine.
 

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,336
11
0
I agree with Walter Williams: If someone hit me in the head with a bat because I'm black, the important term in that sentence is "hit me in the head with a bat", not "because I'm black."
What if I hit you in the head with a bat to send a message to the other yous that I will or my buddies will do the same to them...?
 

sao123

Lifer
May 27, 2002
12,650
203
106
Sao123,
The problem with those passages is that they are incredibly vague. I imagine it's due to an issue with translation, but a broad phrase like "sexual immorality" could quite literally mean just about anything. Given the way that Paul wrote about sex, I doubt he considered anything sexually pleasurable moral.

That vague nature is also what allows other Christian sects to say that homosexuality is not immoral, and not conflict with the teachings of the Bible. Those books are not written by Jesus, but rather his followers, so it's entirely possible they didn't properly understand his teachings.

Do I necessarily believe this is the case? It's not really important. I simply point this out to you because using a broad statement that "Those people are not Christians" is a very powerful to make, and I remain unconvinced that you've provided sufficient evidence to back such a statement. Those people simply do not agree with your view of Christianity.

Well I believe the passage in acts is the most important and telling of all.
This is the specific passage which (original jewish laws) the gentile christians are bound to in order to follow christianity, and which ones they are not. Sexual immorality is the same in the NT as it is in the OT, therefore many of the laws, which you conviently claim are OT (and none of which apply to christians), still must be followed.

It was not intentionally vague, it was broadly encompassing the entire set of laws on a particular subject. Peter's target audience was jewish, they already knew all the laws, so there was no need to specifically restate them all individually.


It's in the Old Testament. In the New Testament, which is all that really applies to Christians, the only person who directly discussed homosexuality was Paul, and he was more or less against sex in all forms.
 

actuarial

Platinum Member
Jan 22, 2009
2,814
0
71
Lets assume that sexual preference becomes a protected minority group. For an otherwise qualified candidate applying for a paid church leadership position (aka pastor etc), the church could be forced into hiring a homosexual. This would be in direct violation of the principles of that church. Thus violating freedom of religion.

Could the church be forced into hiring a woman?
Could the church be forced into hiring a Rabbi?
Could the church be forced into hiring a 100 year old man?
 

sao123

Lifer
May 27, 2002
12,650
203
106
Could the church be forced into hiring a woman?
Could the church be forced into hiring a Rabbi?
Could the church be forced into hiring a 100 year old man?


whats your point? none of these go against the principles of the church.

This would be more akin to a black church being forced to hire a KKK member as its leader.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
What if I hit you in the head with a bat to send a message to the other yous that I will or my buddies will do the same to them...?
A good non-hysterical result would be that you are arrested and prosecuted just like if you hit anyone else in the head with a bat because we don't send messages with bats. (Except, like, passenger bats, when the radios are out and the pigeons won't fly in the dark.)
 

actuarial

Platinum Member
Jan 22, 2009
2,814
0
71
whats your point? none of these go against the principles of the church.

This would be more akin to a black church being forced to hire a KKK member as its leader.

There is no such thing as a female priest in the Catholic (and other) church. You think being a member of another religion isn't against the principles of any of the major religions?

Age is a protected class. Does that mean you're forced to hire anyone over 40 who applies?

Edit: Your analogy is also valid for a church being forced to hire a Muslim as its leader. Religion IS a protected class, so why doesn't it happen?
 
Last edited:

Dekasa

Senior member
Mar 25, 2010
226
0
0
There is no such thing as a female priest in the Catholic (and other) church. You think being a member of another religion isn't against the principles of any of the major religions?

Age is a protected class. Does that mean you're forced to hire anyone over 40 who applies?

Edit: Your analogy is also valid for a church being forced to hire a Muslim as its leader. Religion IS a protected class, so why doesn't it happen?

You just said hire a woman, which is what churches have secretaries for. Secondly, many church secretaries are very specifically *not* from the religion/church at which they work.

And it doesn't happen because there aren't any Muslim's who're pissed off they can't work in a Catholic church. It's like an unsaid "live and let live." They don't want to be in those situations, so they stay away from them.
 

actuarial

Platinum Member
Jan 22, 2009
2,814
0
71
You just said hire a woman, which is what churches have secretaries for. Secondly, many church secretaries are very specifically *not* from the religion/church at which they work.

And it doesn't happen because there aren't any Muslim's who're pissed off they can't work in a Catholic church. It's like an unsaid "live and let live." They don't want to be in those situations, so they stay away from them.

So if they'll hire non-believers as secretaries, why won't they hire gays as secretaries? Is taking it up the ass worse than worshiping a false idol? Is that not more against the core values of the religion?

The response I quoted said that they could be forced to hire an otherwise qualified candidate applying for a paid leadership position (aka pastor) that is a homosexual if it becomes a protected class.

You still haven't answered my question: Can a catholic church be forced to hire an otherwise qualified woman applying to be a priest considering gender is a protected class?
 

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,336
11
0

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,336
11
0
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap...StR6vUmW8S_A-PJIOThgD9IQRA3O1?docId=D9IQRA3O1
Report: NY's Paladino once rented to gay clubs

(AP) – 4 hours ago

NEW YORK — State liquor license records show that New York Republican gubernatorial candidate Carl Paladino had once collected rent from two gay clubs located in buildings he owned in downtown Buffalo, according to a published report.

The report in the Daily News on Wednesday comes just after Paladino told a group of Orthodox Jewish leaders that he opposed schools for what he called "brainwashing" of students into thinking that being gay is just another choice and "not the way God created us."

The newspaper reported that a club named Cobalt operated as a gay bar in 2004 and most of 2005 and was run by Paladino's son, William. It was housed in a building owned by one of Paladino's many companies, Huron Group LLC, the newspaper said. The club was run under another corporate name.

Sometime in 2005, the club began catering to straight clientele, the Daily News reported.

The newspaper said liquor license records also showed that the other club, Buddies II, operated under the name Queen City Entertainment in another Paladino building in 2005 and 2006.

Buddies II described itself as a "bar where anyone and everyone is welcome (and) prejudices are left at the door," the News said.

Paladino's spokesman, Michael Caputo, did not immediately comment on the report.

The report comes a day after Paladino apologized to the gay community for what he called his "poorly chosen words," in his speech to the Orthodox Jewish leaders. He said Tuesday he should have edited more of the phrasing out of the speech he gave Sunday.

Paladino said he opposes same-sex marriage but would actively recruit gays to his administration. He has also mentioned his gay nephew in saying that the discrimination he and others face is a "very ugly experience."

In a brief telephone interview with the New York Post, the nephew, Jeff Hannon, said "Obviously, I'm very offended by his comments." He declined further comment.

The 23-year-old has not been seen at his uncle's campaign headquarters in Buffalo where he works since the remarks, the Post said.

Paladino has blamed some of the latest controversy on press reports that included phrases that were in an earlier version of the speech that the Orthodox leaders had distributed to reporters but that he had struck out before delivering it.

Copyright © 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Gay money is equal to straight money for Paladino.
 

sao123

Lifer
May 27, 2002
12,650
203
106
There is no such thing as a female priest in the Catholic (and other) church. You think being a member of another religion isn't against the principles of any of the major religions?

Age is a protected class. Does that mean you're forced to hire anyone over 40 who applies?

Edit: Your analogy is also valid for a church being forced to hire a Muslim as its leader. Religion IS a protected class, so why doesn't it happen?

Those are the dummest examples ever.

1)Females in the catholic church are given the position of Nun or Minister, not excluded from holding any position whatsoever.
There are LOTS of female ministers in the protestant denominations.

2) There is nothing in christianity which would make any claim that you cannot hire and OLD person. What conflict of interest are you trying to present? Churches hire old and young all the time.

3)Generally speaking you cannot be both MUSLIM and CHRISTIAN at the same time... unless your name is obama. Since they are opposing sides of an issue, they will NOT flock together.


What is true however, is that you cannot also be both SINNER and CHRISTIAN at the same time, they are unreconsilable. I dont know of any churches (and I know a lot of churches, since im related to at least 6 ministers.) which will hire any non-believer, sinner, homosexual for any LEADERSHIP position within the church.

I'm not talking about the guy your church pays to do its landscaping.
I'm talking about Leadership: AKA
Priest
Minister
Youth Paster
Associate Pastor
Sunday School Teacher
Elder
Deacon
Clergyman
Trustee
Treasurer
Usher
Super-Intendent
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126

WTF? He's a murderer. He intentionally killed a fellow human being who was doing nothing to him. I do not care if he did it to "send a message to Jews", or because G-d lives in his neighbor's doghouse, or because the victim had a great pair of Nikes and he merely had Keds, or because the victim was carrying a buttload of cash, like any good conservative I say light him up until he glows (just not during peak demand.) It's only liberals that find some murders more heinous because of what the murderer was thinking.
 

actuarial

Platinum Member
Jan 22, 2009
2,814
0
71
Those are the dummest examples ever.

1)Females in the catholic church are given the position of Nun or Minister, not excluded from holding any position whatsoever.
There are LOTS of female ministers in the protestant denominations.

2) There is nothing in christianity which would make any claim that you cannot hire and OLD person. What conflict of interest are you trying to present? Churches hire old and young all the time.

3)Generally speaking you cannot be both MUSLIM and CHRISTIAN at the same time... unless your name is obama. Since they are opposing sides of an issue, they will NOT flock together.

What is true however, is that you cannot also be both SINNER and CHRISTIAN at the same time, they are unreconsilable. I dont know of any churches (and I know a lot of churches, since im related to at least 6 ministers.) which will hire any non-believer, sinner, homosexual for any LEADERSHIP position within the church.

I'm not talking about the guy your church pays to do its landscaping.
I'm talking about Leadership: AKA
Priest
Minister
Youth Paster
Associate Pastor
Sunday School Teacher
Elder
Deacon
Clergyman
Trustee
Treasurer
Usher
Super-Intendent

Of course they're dumb examples, just like the KKK one was (gay people don't hate straight people).

My point about the age was you're not FORCED to hire anyone. Just like a church isn't FORCED to hire any gay candidate, and isn't FORCED to hire any Muslim candidate. Is religion being a protected class forcing a whole bunch of Muslim Cristian priests? OF COURSE NOT. Just like there won't be this big rush of gay priests.

In a world where a church is forced to hire a gay man because sexual orientation is a protected class, a church would be forced to hire a non-believer (or a believer of another religion) because religious affiliation (or lack there-of) is a protected class.

So where's the evidence? Religious affiliation is a protected class, so where is the Christian church that was FORCED to hire a Muslim?

The crux of my argument is: protected class does not equal HAVE TO HIRE (and you proved it above in bold). Come up with a new reason to not offer rights to others that you are afforded.
 

sao123

Lifer
May 27, 2002
12,650
203
106
Of course they're dumb examples, just like the KKK one was (gay people don't hate straight people).

My point about the age was you're not FORCED to hire anyone. Just like a church isn't FORCED to hire any gay candidate, and isn't FORCED to hire any Muslim candidate. Is religion being a protected class forcing a whole bunch of Muslim Cristian priests? OF COURSE NOT. Just like there won't be this big rush of gay priests.

In a world where a church is forced to hire a gay man because sexual orientation is a protected class, a church would be forced to hire a non-believer (or a believer of another religion) because religious affiliation (or lack there-of) is a protected class.

So where's the evidence? Religious affiliation is a protected class, so where is the Christian church that was FORCED to hire a Muslim?

The crux of my argument is: protected class does not equal HAVE TO HIRE (and you proved it above in bold). Come up with a new reason to not offer rights to others that you are afforded.


ok... so 2 equal job candidates. 1 white, 1 black. Same experience, same degree from the same school. The white man gets hired. The black man is going to sue claiming the hiring was racially biased. Maybe-maybe not.
BUT IT HAPPENS EVERY DAY.

ok... so 2 equal job candidates. 1 homosexual, 1 not. Same experience, same degree from the same school. The not homosexual man gets hired. The homosexual man is going to sue claiming the hiring was sexual- preference biased. Hes right.

See the distinction?
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,505
2
0
Churches/religious organizations are private institutions and, as such, should be able to hire (or not hire) whomever they want.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
47,994
37,167
136
ok... so 2 equal job candidates. 1 white, 1 black. Same experience, same degree from the same school. The white man gets hired. The black man is going to sue claiming the hiring was racially biased. Maybe-maybe not.
BUT IT HAPPENS EVERY DAY.

ok... so 2 equal job candidates. 1 homosexual, 1 not. Same experience, same degree from the same school. The not homosexual man gets hired. The homosexual man is going to sue claiming the hiring was sexual- preference biased. Hes right.

See the distinction?

Runs squarely up against the 1st Amendment. The church cannot legally be forced to hire anyone they don't want to. End of story.
 

actuarial

Platinum Member
Jan 22, 2009
2,814
0
71
ok... so 2 equal job candidates. 1 white, 1 black. Same experience, same degree from the same school. The white man gets hired. The black man is going to sue claiming the hiring was racially biased. Maybe-maybe not.
BUT IT HAPPENS EVERY DAY.

ok... so 2 equal job candidates. 1 homosexual, 1 not. Same experience, same degree from the same school. The not homosexual man gets hired. The homosexual man is going to sue claiming the hiring was sexual- preference biased. Hes right.

See the distinction?

ok... so 2 equal job candidates. 1 Muslim, 1 Christian. Same experience, same degree from the same school. The Christian gets hired. The Muslim man is going to sue claiming the hiring was religious biased. He's right.

How about this: when the job position requires you to denounce homosexuality, being a homosexual makes you a less qualified candidate. Thus the candidates WOULD NOT BE EQUAL. Much like when the job position requires you to praise the Christian God / Jesus, and only the Christian God / Jesus, praising Allah / Mohammed makes you a less qualified candidate.

Also, why would a homosexual take a job which requires them to denounce homosexuality? Much like why would a Muslim take a job which requires you to only praise another deity?

There is no way you can structure an argument that a Church would be forced to hire a homosexual that can't be applied to a Church being forced to hire a Muslim/Jew/Christian. Religious affiliation is a protected class, so I once again ask: if they're going to be forced to hire gays why aren't Christian churches forced to hire Muslims?
 

actuarial

Platinum Member
Jan 22, 2009
2,814
0
71
Here's some more food for thought: the only reason you would not want a specific designation 'protected' is if you want to (or have a reason to) discriminate based on that designation. The reason to protect a class is because those discriminations exist and it needs to be stopped.

So either argue that a) homosexuals aren't discriminated against or b) there is a reason why discriminating against sexual behavior is of social benefit.

I have laid out why b) doesn't apply to religious hirings, but you can hold to that point if you want. Got any other reasons?
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Here's some more food for thought: the only reason you would not want a specific designation 'protected' is if you want to (or have a reason to) discriminate based on that designation. The reason to protect a class is because those discriminations exist and it needs to be stopped.

So either argue that a) homosexuals aren't discriminated against or b) there is a reason why discriminating against sexual behavior is of social benefit.

I have laid out why b) doesn't apply to religious hirings, but you can hold to that point if you want. Got any other reasons?

Not at all true. It's possible - even preferable - to prefer that all people be treated equally under the law.
 

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,336
11
0
Paladino's Adviser Went To (And Participated In) Gay Parade
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/paladino_aide_had_gay_old_time_jjmInDE1Q8as4YTmLZARWO

pride1--300x300.jpg


pride2--300x150.jpg