Jump to content

Merlyn_LeRoy

Members
  • Content Count

    4558
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Everything posted by Merlyn_LeRoy

  1. What if you are asked to cite a policy that you never claimed existed?
  2. You can't even follow a conversation, can you? I've said a number of times now that their official policy is NOT that.
  3. SOME might discriminate in practice, but that isn't official policy, and if you think it's likely illegal, file a lawsuit. I think the courts would say the GSUSA, like the BSA, is a private club and that they can discriminate any way they like. I'm defending the GSUSA's official policy and vilifying the BSA's official policy. I have no problem when units ignored official policy (and when they continue to ignore it now and admit atheists). You, on the other hand, are vilifying the GSUSA as if that's their official policy. It isn't. By the way, if you really think it's illegal, wh
  4. This isn't situational ethics, it's the difference between what official policy is and what happens in your neck of the woods.
  5. That isn't a matter of official GSUSA policy, you have a local complaint. Just like local units can exclude gays.
  6. I didn't "find" them, and your red herring is ridiculous, particularly since you haven't bothered to condemn the archbishop's shielding of actual, known degenerates.
  7. Girl Scouts raise record amount of money after Catholic Church attacks them http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danthropology/2016/03/girl-scouts-raise-record-amount-of-money-after-catholic-church-attacks-them/
  8. None - it was because they were legally obligated as a public accommodation to serve the public and refused -- the same, legally, as refusing to serve a mixed-race marriage if it goes against the owner's conscience.
  9. They do. http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/20/living/girl-scouts-welcomes-transgender-girls-feat/ The BSA still discriminates on the basis of religion; the GSUSA doesn't.
  10. I point out when people equivocate because it's a dishonest debating tactic.
  11. I replied to your post because you replied to mine with more equivocation.
  12. Because I was describing what fred Johnson was doing -- equivocating.
  13. Your reply makes no sense -- "equivocation" makes words near-meaningless, so equivocating doesn't help discussions about morals or anything else.
  14. And if everybody equivocated on the meaning of words like "discrimination", discussing morals would be impossible.
  15. And I agreed it was discrimination, just like Restricted clubs excluding Jews. So what are you trying to point out?
  16. Or not Jewish in order to join a Restricted club. As in, it's exactly discrimination.
  17. Cherry-picking examples can prove anything. There are plenty of examples of bad things done by people who follow supposedly divine moral codes, and even bad things allowed by such moral codes.
  18. By paying attention to people who ARE experts in the language. How do you determine it?
  19. You can't determine what the original meaning is, no. And I'm not a Hebrew scholar.
  20. Every single one? I disagree. And there are plenty of bad god-based moral codes.
  21. No, I'm saying the 10 commandments considers women as property. It's pointless to use English to argue what the commandments mean as they weren't written in it.
  22. I agree, but they were, listed right along with all the other things owned by your neighbor that you shouldn't covet, like his slaves and animals.
×
×
  • Create New...