|
Attn: VivianC | by Ravenlock | 2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
|
Close Enough | by VivianC | 2005-10-06 09:58:54 |
| I think he was well deserving of the damages... |
by Ravenlock |
2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
awarded to him. Sounds like he was doing something well within his rights, or at least it would remain well within his rights until they asked him to leave, which apparently they didn't do. They were in the wrong, and it appears a court agreed.
I would hope that is a unique case rather than a usual one, but I freely admit that I don't have a whole lot of experience in abortion clinics. Let me change the focus a bit, then. You called the suggestion that an organization getting federal funding should adhere to federal hiring policies a "red herring" because of this theoretical pro-lifer-in-the-abortion-clinic scenario.
Does that make BloodyViking's observation somehow wrong? Just because the Madison Abortion Clinic obviously doesn't have a good handle on how to treat people who disagree with them - and you obviously believe other abortion clinics have the same problem - does that give the Salvation Army the right to practice discriminatory employment?
I believe Illiad and others tried to go over yesterday with ducimus the Tu Quoque fallacy and the fact that just because one side is doing something wrong, that doesn't mean the other side doing it is suddenly right. It doesn't even mean Side A can no longer justly criticize Side B; Side A should expect to be criticized in return, but both sides should still stop. From you I feel like I'm getting more of a "yeah right, the abortionists would never adhere to that" (something I'm still not convinced of but it makes little difference here) "so why should anyone else?" Logically, that doesn't fly. |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
There was wrong-doing on both sides. | by BloodyViking | 2005-10-06 10:45:07 |
|
They should have called the police immediately. | by Havoc | 2005-10-06 10:49:53 |
|
Fair 'nuf. | by Ravenlock | 2005-10-06 12:46:56 |
|
More arguing at the extremes. | by esbita | 2005-10-06 11:51:30 |
|
You have a good point there. | by Ravenlock | 2005-10-06 13:04:09 |
|
Nor did I mean it to. | by esbita | 2005-10-06 13:08:00 |
|
invalid argument | by unjust | 2005-10-06 13:16:10 |
|
Bull pucky, invalid argument. | by esbita | 2005-10-06 13:23:42 |
|
no it is invalid in this case | by unjust | 2005-10-06 13:45:36 |
|
Gag me with a spoon. | by esbita | 2005-10-06 13:57:03 |
|
still doesn't make it vaild in reguard to the | by unjust | 2005-10-06 14:10:13 |
|
Now I wonder | by bara | 2005-10-06 13:59:40 |
|
Did any ever apply? | by BloodyViking | 2005-10-06 14:11:36 |
|
While lip service is given to counseling... | by esbita | 2005-10-06 14:15:50 |
|
Do you know that for a fact, | by BloodyViking | 2005-10-06 14:18:54 |
|
Anecdotal, sadly. | by esbita | 2005-10-06 14:28:18 |
|
Having been told By Who exactly? (n/t) | by BloodyViking | 2005-10-06 14:36:00 |
|
Pro-abortion orgs. | by esbita | 2005-10-06 14:40:02 |
|
You mean like for | by BloodyViking | 2005-10-06 15:08:35 |
|
Gah. | by esbita | 2005-10-06 15:18:51 |
|
I hope you noticed the smiley. | by BloodyViking | 2005-10-06 15:21:58 |
|
Yeah, it's a sensitive point, though. | by esbita | 2005-10-06 15:25:46 |
|
most recent reply so i'm saying ta ta here | by unjust | 2005-10-06 15:21:59 |
