lolgaxe wrote:
Alma wrote:
So, before you go around calling people an "embarrassment", you need to look yourself in the mirror.
You do your job, huh. Seems you have plenty of time to post on Zam, sir. I can't think of a single deployment I've done that gave me even a minute to post on an internet forum playing semantic games. But you keep telling yourself you're doing a good job. You're the only one that will.
I'm not going to lie, the amount of free time that I have now has increased dramatically. That is odd as my work load has more than doubled. This is actually my YM/FB/skype time, no one just so happens to be online and I'm about to go to sleep.
Nad wrote:
You're a gay man that won't come out and you live with your parents. That's pretty embarrassing.
Is that really the best you can come up with?
When I come back, I have to end up renting a freaking 4 bedroom just because everything else is taken up. I almost wouldn't mind having some company to fill up space and pay for rent.
Jophiel wrote:
Smiley: laugh I guess you felt like you had to run away from the jobs thing to some safer-ground strawman.
No, I'm just pointing out how silly your argument is. Of course it's discrimination. Just because some form of discrimination is accepted and logical doesn't make it any less of discrimination.
Jophiel wrote:
Simplistic but not especially accurate in this scenario for multiple reasons.
Which are? Please enlighten me. Seriously, maybe I'm missing something. If I'm correct, it took a Dem to add DADT and it took a DEM to remove DADT. Most Republicans voice traditional Christians morals and values which more often than not speak against homosexuality. Every time SSM is shot down, people blame Christian views. Then, some how when talking about percentages of U.S Americans favoring homosexuality in the military, Christians are all for it?!?!?!
Jophiel wrote:
Because the purpose of BFOQs is to establish what does and doesn't count as discrimination and you're still crying about the lack of black actors playing Lief Erickson and demanding that we all call it discrimination.
No, just because a form of discrimination is accepted, i.e. minority scholarships, racial quotas, etc., doesn't mean it isn't discrimination. To you it's not discrimination, but not to the person who lost a job and ultimately a paycheck. So, what happens if every director "envisions" white male characters and there aren't any roles for anyone else? Is that also covered?