If I thought that most of what I've read in this thread represented high moral values, I wouldn't ridicule it. I don't think it represents high moral values or even American values. Since when did bigotry and prejudice become a high moral value?

You're labeling people here as bigots, based off how they would vote for a Presidential candidate and that is a fairly strong label.

 

Where has anyone stated, they have hatred and intolerance toward an atheist or homosexual....Isn't that a requirement, to be a bigot.

 

When you attend a Trinity game, I would presume you're for Trinity and not the opposing team, which is your choice but I would hope, doesn't label you as a bigot.

 

Thank goodness, we're allowed to have an opinion.

Not speaking for LBC or anyone else, I think an openly gay candidate comes with an agenda and extreme pressure from his/her peers to push through legislation for their benefit. I suppose the same argument could be offered for any number of groups, but I don't see the pressure as the same.

 

Doesn't the group credited with getting Republicans elected have an agenda?

 

Doesn't the teacher's union have an agenda?

 

Teamsters?

 

Lawyers?

 

Why would the "pressure" not be the same?

There are a lot of people I wouldn't vote for, but none of the reasons are on that list. I vote for people because of their political views and personal qualifications. They don't have to share my race, religion, gender, marital status or sexual orientation.

 

But they do have to be Democrat.

I find it hard to believe that anyone sincerely believes that what a person does in private has no bearing on their qualifications to hold the toughest job in the land.

 

:thumb: :thumb:

If I thought that most of what I've read in this thread represented high moral values, I wouldn't ridicule it. I don't think it represents high moral values or even American values. Since when did bigotry and prejudice become a high moral value?

So, in voting for President we can only judge people on whether they deserve our vote or not on what you deem as votable characteristics? Anything else and we are bigots.

 

Your hyperbole of putting them in special regions is ridiculous as no one has uttered any post that even minutely resembles that. They simply said that they would not vote for that person for President.

 

Am I a bigot because I will not vote for ANYONE who supports abortions from being legal in this country? Because the main point of my stance is my Christian faith, meaning I am judging those political candidates on a Christain basis.

When it comes to tolerance the most intolerant among us appear to be the ones claiming to be tolerant but are intolerant towards those they deem intolerant.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I've been watching the debates.:creepy:

According to Wikipedia, a bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own.

 

By this definition, a person who is prejudiced or intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities including those of other bigots is also a bigot.

 

A person with no judgment regarding the opinions, lifestyles or identities of others lacks intelligence.

 

Given the choice of being either a bigot or an idiot… I’ll accept that I am a bigot.

 

Every human is religious about something. That’s just the way we’re wired. Each person’s innate belief system affects every judgment and decision they make. Being tolerant does not mean that one must tolerate everything. Some ideas and beliefs are better than others. To suggest that everyone and every belief system is equal in this sense is absurd.

 

Call me a bigot, but I will not vote for a candidate who has pledged his soul to satan, practices sadomasochistic bestiality and pedophilia, practices self-mutilation while smoking pot and snorting coke in private, but can balance a budget.

 

There are numerous lesser offenses both public and private I also feel impair a candidate's qualifications for office.

 

I prefer to label the application of sound judgment in the evaluation of these qualities as discernment, but if bigot floats your boat so be it.

So, in voting for President we can only judge people on whether they deserve our vote or not on what you deem as votable characteristics? Anything else and we are bigots.

 

Your hyperbole of putting them in special regions is ridiculous as no one has uttered any post that even minutely resembles that. They simply said that they would not vote for that person for President.

 

Am I a bigot because I will not vote for ANYONE who supports abortions from being legal in this country? Because the main point of my stance is my Christian faith, meaning I am judging those political candidates on a Christain basis.

If you want to take issue with what I say, feel free, but please bother to read what I said and please don't make up things I didn't say and then respond to them.

 

The hyperbole was there for a reason. I wanted to point out that when you consider otherwise qualified candidates to be unacceptable because of their religion, race, sex or sexual orientation, then yes, that is bigotry. What are the acceptable limits of bigotry? I think it is a question everyone needs to ask themself. Read the question. "Would you vote for a QUALIFIED candidate that is xxxx?" Seventy years ago, the poll results regarding people of my religion were not much different than homosexuals today. Was that bigotry? You bet it was. What about the poll results for blacks fifty years ago or for that matter, even today. What about the poll results for hispanics? If the question had been regarding positions on political issues, that would be a different matter.

 

There has been a small number of folks that have tried to make the case that Abraham Lincoln was gay. I have read some of the evidence and I don't buy it. But, just for the heck of it, let's suppose that a long lost stack of love letters between Lincoln and some fellow were found that proved that he was, in fact, gay. Would that change the job he did as President?

A person with no judgment regarding the opinions, lifestyles or identities of others lacks intelligence.

 

Who is living the more moral lifestyle, a celibate homosexual or a shacked up heterosexual? A hard working, family loving Mormon or a wife beating evangelical? An aetheist that performs great works of charity or a Catholic that runs around on his wife? We should all take the personal characteristics of candidates into consideration. The question was about qualified candidates. Eliminating someone because they fall into a group, without considering their personal characteristics or qualifications is wrong.

I'm wondering, at this point, at the extent of the qualifiers we place on our elected leaders indicates.

 

The question I have is: Would you rule out employment by a company or organization run by an individual who may exhibit or embrace a difference you wouldn't accept in an elected official.

 

For instance, would you work for someone who was homosexual, or was an athiest. Would you even know if you did? If you didn't know when you were hired, would you find a new job when you did? Just some random questions that I've been thinking of all last evening.

 

I have no problem with people having personal expectations of anyone. I do think that objectivity must be used when evaluating the overall candidate for being qualified for the job.

 

If we were speaking of religious leaders, I would definitely have a different set of expectations than I do for our elected government officials. If I lived in a theocratic state, then I again, would look more closely at how the candidates would align with my beliefs.

According to Wikipedia, a bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own.

 

Using this definition, about 99.9% of the population are bigots. Those who have zero standards would be the only ones not bigots.

If you want to take issue with what I say, feel free, but please bother to read what I said and please don't make up things I didn't say and then respond to them.

 

The hyperbole was there for a reason. I wanted to point out that when you consider otherwise qualified candidates to be unacceptable because of their religion, race, sex or sexual orientation, then yes, that is bigotry. What are the acceptable limits of bigotry? I think it is a question everyone needs to ask themself. Read the question. "Would you vote for a QUALIFIED candidate that is xxxx?" Seventy years ago, the poll results regarding people of my religion were not much different than homosexuals today. Was that bigotry? You bet it was. What about the poll results for blacks fifty years ago or for that matter, even today. What about the poll results for hispanics? If the question had been regarding positions on political issues, that would be a different matter.

 

There has been a small number of folks that have tried to make the case that Abraham Lincoln was gay. I have read some of the evidence and I don't buy it. But, just for the heck of it, let's suppose that a long lost stack of love letters between Lincoln and some fellow were found that proved that he was, in fact, gay. Would that change the job he did as President?

The rub is that with the reasons I vote, those candidates would not be qualified because they do not represent me as a person.

....For instance, would you work for someone who was homosexual, or was an atheist. Would you even know if you did? If you didn't know when you were hired, would you find a new job when you did? Just some random questions that I've been thinking of all last evening....

1) NO....I would not work for someone who was a homosexual or atheist.

2) Would I know....not sure but if revealed to be true, I would leave.

3) Yes....on find a new job.

 

All personal choices on my part.

 

The great thing about the US, is we have the right to choose, whom we vote for and what trust/ability we place in our elected officials. We're brought up with norms and traits, that are often nurtured by our parents.

 

If raised by Baptists, often become a Baptist and those many traits. If raised a Catholic, often become a Catholic and so on.....doesn't make one a label, right or wrong but it's who we are and our belief system.

I'm wondering, at this point, at the extent of the qualifiers we place on our elected leaders indicates.

 

The question I have is: Would you rule out employment by a company or organization run by an individual who may exhibit or embrace a difference you wouldn't accept in an elected official.

 

For instance, would you work for someone who was homosexual, or was an athiest. Would you even know if you did? If you didn't know when you were hired, would you find a new job when you did? Just some random questions that I've been thinking of all last evening.

 

I have no problem with people having personal expectations of anyone. I do think that objectivity must be used when evaluating the overall candidate for being qualified for the job.

 

If we were speaking of religious leaders, I would definitely have a different set of expectations than I do for our elected government officials. If I lived in a theocratic state, then I again, would look more closely at how the candidates would align with my beliefs.

Personally, I have had and wrestled with being a Christian and being hogtied at my workplace with what I can and cannot do with my faith. I have considered leaving for those reasons. And decided to stay and find around the laws that prevent me from being the Christian I think Jesus asks me to be.

 

Are we not supposed to vote for candidates that represent our ideas, beliefs, values and judgement?

Personally, I have had and wrestled with being a Christian and being hogtied at my workplace with what I can and cannot do with my faith. I have considered leaving for those reasons. And decided to stay and find around the laws that prevent me from being the Christian I think Jesus asks me to be.

 

Are we not supposed to vote for candidates that represent our ideas, beliefs, values and judgement?

 

There are no candidates that I've ever voted for that 100% represented what I would like in a candidate.

 

What we have to do is take into consideration these fallible human beings, with their faults and their failings, and make the decision that can get the best person for the job. So, in essence, I feel we all have a utopian ideal that we would like to see elected. What we actually have to choose from are humans, in which case I largely set aside my personal moral standards and concentrate on deciding the person I think is best able to "run the business" of the US.