Peter Marino, the leather-clad architect best known for his collaborations with fashion labels, was sued last year for racial discrimination by a former employee. Now, he's accusing the employee of making homophobic slurs, according to a report by the New York Post.
Deirdre O'Brien worked for Marino for 14 years before, allegedly, being fired after complaining when Marino called her a "c--t." He's also been accused of using the n-word.
In response, Marino has accused O'Brien called a male co-worker a "big homo" and sent "explicit pornographic images" from her work email address.
For more on Marino, check out past Archinect coverage:
54 Comments
L O friggin' L
the tv show is coming next fall
O'brian? Racist against an Irishman? What is it 1910...
perfect place for an anti-PC rant - so they worked 14 years together and he calls her CUNT. after 14 years you are family whether you like it or not. she was probably being a CUNT by his standards. being a CUNT will probably get you fired, I suspect.........life is always stranger then fiction - so today a young exciled Christian from a Theocracy who immigrated via help of a non-profit that assists politcal exciles to become US citizens (because we nice like that) tells me his mother still has to wear a hijab which is not her religion even though it is her country - talk about intolerance. this is the same guy who said "God Bless America" after he visited a US Public Library...... around 2pm i cross from downtown to uptown in the under pass at the R train station on Canal Street. I see a woman in a hijab with an unlabeled flack jacket and illegable somewhat official patch on a jacket under her coat. she has an I-Pad in her hand and appears to be scanning the underpass. she pauses at some snacks thrown on the floor - those cream cheese pretzel cylinders. I think of the story this morning and imagine if this was an intolerant theocracy - she would be stopped in her tracks, quizzed on religous values she has no interest or belief in and then probably get thrown in jail for some strange espionage because clearly if you were a terrorist you would wear a fucking reflective orange and yellow flack jacket with no labels on it and roam the subway with an I-Pad where security cameras exist. but what if this was some stunt for her to accidently get "discriminated" against? as a private citizen worse that would happen is we get into a shouting match and she calls me racist. if a public official stopped her and somehow arrested her on obvious suspicion - NYC after 9/11 doesn't even like you taking photos in the subway - she could make some money because the intolerant can claim discrimination by a tolerant state. Maybe she is not a city employee and was just looking for an easy lawsuit? being PC is a zero sum game. The intolerant ideologies ask the tolerant ideologies to tolerate them. You will never recieve tolerance from the intolerant because its against their beliefs that you are supposed to be tolerated..........and you get this court case above. LMAO.
What's funny is in that photo, he dons the looks of Glenn Martin Hughes of The Village People.
https://www.google.com/search?q=glenn+m+hughes&biw=1658&bih=809&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi2r8Gc9pTOAhVE4GMKHXaECgMQ_AUIBigB
Especially with that hat and the general look and feel.
???
Hey you Olaf Design cunt, I am tired of you bringing Muslims in a racist way to every other post. You are a fucking pretentious fuck face KKK wanna be whore, stfu! Everything you fictionalize is laced with implicit and ugly racism while you jerk off.
That photo/persona would be funny even if the Village People had never existed.
What does he wear on casual Friday? A jockstrap and nipple clamps? The employee deserves a raise just for not bursting into laughter every time the boss squeaks into the office-- for 14 years!
knock knock, besides that being a true story not sure why your intolerance for free speech critisizung a religion is being expressed as such. do you hate the critics? .....would you like to meet the young Iranian who had to leave less than 2years ago? i am sure its all is hunky dory in your world, probably a western state that tolerates everyone including angry people like yourself. peace.
citizen,
LOL! Concur.
would also like to thank you knock knock for prooving my point with your intolerance but i will tolerate you. i know you have to work on some inner emotions.
No way I am going to tolerate a racist like you. Now, go fuck yourself.
when did Islam become a race you fool!! your ignorance is proof of , well your ignorance. check my history i critisize other religions too but none of their members become fanatacial whack jobs like your psychotic hateful self. maybe i should report you? CUNT
Olaf,
Your right. Technically, the word 'racism' is a misnomer and technically racism doesn't exist because we are all ONE RACE.... human race.
However, discriminating against Islam in context with a group of people is not just religious but also CULTURAL discrimination which is in fact what the word 'racism' encompasses.
Religion itself and off itself alone is just religion. However, when religion is integral into the cultural fabric and identity of a group of people then the religion itself is intertwine with the culture so discriminating the religion of a group of people may very well be discriminating against that people's culture and in essence the cultural group itself.
We have to remember that beliefs, religions and way of living as a people are not silos but very integrated. Don't forget when you talk about the American culture or more specifically, regional parts of the U.S., we have religions deeply integrated into the culture of people and communities and areas.
Atheism is a religious belief as well. We live in a country with competing religions and cultures all competing to influence the country. This country was founded on Christian culture as that was in the hearts of our founding fathers. Separation of Church and State was established, first and foremost to address issues from British Empire precedence. We did not want in the U.S. what was frequently happening in the British empire where the in the British empire, the "State Religion" of the British Empire was the religion of the monarch. Example: The switching between Anglican, Protestant, and Catholic church religion. In the U.S., we didn't want whoever we elect as President (for example) or the dominant religion of the Congress, President, Vice President and the Supreme Court justices being the religion of the nation. In addition, it also was make certain the Pope or other religious leaders do not dictate national law, rules and policies. While, each person elected in office will inherently be influenced by their religious beliefs, the system allows for people to individually to make decisions for themselves. Since each person has the freedom to have their own religious beliefs, the Congress can very easily encompass individuals of many different faiths and therefore, diminishes the capacity of any particular religious institution to have absolute control over the country's laws, rules and policies.
Now, you may assess for yourself whether or not you are discriminating on basis of religion or cultural beliefs.
I just don't have an interest in wasting my time to assess you.
Some interesting stuff in these cases.
The original complaint reveals yet another (not so subtle) way in which starchitects control their employees (before anyone comments on the Marino as a Starchitect, he's a the top of his/the game in his market segment, "we" just don't take it seriously). In fact, I'll suggest that he even more than fits the role as a starchitect if you consider this alleged verbal abuse in the context of how members of this forum suggest other high profile architects behave. His gender preference has nothing to do with his mannerisms and demeanor, anyone can be rude and inappropriate. The real question will be if he used this to his advantage (eg. I'm a male who uses male pronouns and prefers the company of other males- as a marginalized person, I can make any hate or hurtful comments as I please).
On the flip side, this woman spent 14 years there, being full aware that she was condoning this behavior - along with the rest of the staff- by staying in the office. They're all enablers with the understanding that they will get good work in their portfolios -or similar work experience, and then move on. Again, this sounds like the pattern present in so many starchitect offices. Take the insults, or the lack of pay, or both with the knowledge that when you move to the midwest you'll be seen as a superstar.
As for the references to religion or the need to make comments about what Marino is wearing, I'm not so clear how any of that matters. He could be wearing a Vuitton, Barney's or Armani suit and it would be the same problem Or perhaps it's because he chooses to wear a costume (in the museum curatorial sense) that is so different from expected norms that makes it difficult to get to the core matters.
Marc,
Good points there.
ok Ricky and Marc (based on Rickys logic) .....so its about cultural issues. then this entire Marino case should be thrown out and any discrimination in a Starchitect's office should be accepted as cultural. why can you find his behavior offensive if this is accepted Starchitect cultural behavior? its what you signed up for like say joining the Marine Corps. Since when can one not discriminate against culture? culture is human made, its not REAL (like religion) but has far less creedance because your entire existence is not based on your cultural beliefs although intertwined, your existence is based on your religious beliefs. Rick, i am not an Aetheist, I am just not interested and do not find any of it useful for day to day activities just like most working Muslims and Christians, etc...I am attacking the 'ideas' and the ignorance to uphold them as valuable to "cultural evolution" and more over as a reason to justify your "feelings" of being discriminated against. Racism is obvious but cultural discrimination is not with regard to at what point is one culture more justifiable than another......if Starchitect culture and Marinos behavior ensure good architecture then shouldnt that be not only the status qou but also the culture we architects strive for? just basing this on Rickys googled PC logic......i am waiting for a PBS special to tell me - cultures should not compete - but they have and this is the world you have.
is it 'bigotry' to develop a culture that meets the greatest ends for an entity of social interaction? is Marino's success based on a culture that works for producing good architecture and if so what standards decide the "starchitects" culture is indeed wrong when in fact it produces the "best" architecture to date? who gets to decide which cultural morality overides others cultural morality at what point? yes there are laws, but since when are sentences and intentions "illegal".....this all sounds very "subjective" to me and requires a narrative doesn't it - lawyers.
Does he wear the leather outfit in summertime or does he have a linens?
Olaf,
Religion and culture is real. It's not physical. It is metaphysical. Lets put it in a terms. You have your beliefs, right? Therefore your belief is real as you are real.
What is real is that people have established beliefs. Many such beliefs are integral to the identity and definition of individual cultures.
^religion is not real Ricardo. It's fairy tales held together only with the use of force and intimidation/social pressure for centuries. All are just as ridiculous as the other. Even if someone's superstition is integral as you say, their beliefs can, and should, be criticized and called dumb.
I expected this to be a much bigger dumpster fire. I guess everyone is feeling relaxed today?
I'm not clear how culture is relevant. Is this Nationalism, regionalism, local, or office?
Assuming national or even regional (states), culture does play a factor in that it has been deemed inappropriate to attack someone based on gender/sex AND it has been deemed inappropriate to attack someone based on gender/sex preference. If this had not been established as a cultural expectation, neither case could be filed reasonably (and I'm pretty sure that neither of these cases fits the bill for reasonable given the timeline).
Religion? Even more tangential, if relevant at all.
religion is not real ricky ballsack. it's a fairy tale as NS has stated. and ricky, your beliefs are proven time and time again to be false and not based in reality.
cultures change over time. once there was the tolerant Moorish culture but now things have changed for the worse in that culture.
regarding the other discussion. if marino is at the top of his game and to get good design built requires being an asshole than so be it. tell me someone who is practicing today and does good highly visible work (not some idealist hippy with a solar powered trailer in north dakota) and isn't a difficult personality to work for at the very least.
N.S.,
You missed my point entirely. By your theory, architectural theories don't exist because they are theories. They are just thoughts. Religion is protected under the 1st Amendment with speech and press being modes of expression is audible and expressions in physical mediums. Your architectural theory which is your architectural religion doesn't exist by your logic because the theory is just theory and theories are beliefs and beliefs don't exist because it is not a physical reality.
In Christian faith, the very fact you have existence means God exists because God created the universe and absolutely everything within it. I am not a believer of a literal 7 earthly days that the universe and earth and everything in it is created. Somewhere at some point all existence came to be. I believe the 7 days are metaphors using symbolic numbers that represents holiness, divine, and wholeness. This is something you would understand if you understood theology.
Do you know the difference between physical and metaphysical?
How do you know air is real? Do you have your own proof? Have you ever saw air molecules with your own eyes?
The human race has a deep rich history with many beliefs, cultures (many of which were developed from these beliefs), etc.
I believe in possibility of parallel universes because I believe science as a study of the Creator's creation. I do believe there is a creator of existence as we know it. How? How did matter, energy, etc. came into existence. There is always a point where time first began and existence came to being. Our universes matter came into existence for the first time. Some how, it began. If you continue tracing back, there is a point where there is a Creator that "architected" time itself and all space-time-matter-energy continuums, all dimensions, all universes, etc.
Interesting that I may say that? I believe that we are beginning to understand quantum mechanics and quantum relativity which if you understood it would make very well the possibility of reality beyond one single material universe. Infinite combinations. Infinite possibilities.
Should beliefs be critiqued? Sure. Civally.... yes. Respectfully. Yet, here's the irony, you are all right and you are all wrong. Your own beliefs are as you say "just as ridiculous as the others" but is also as "brilliant as all the others".
"Do you know the difference between physical and metaphysical?"
Yes, the first is real/tangible, the other is made up googly-cock idiots spew to try and make their meaningless lives more interesting
"How do you know air is real? Do you have your own proof? Have you ever saw air molecules with your own eyes?"
Plenty of empirical evidence and reproducible observations would confirm this. No need for me to actually replicate them myself, not my domain.
Creator's creation? Creator that "architected",
For Sir Sean Connery's sake balkins, that's one of the most asinine things you're added to these forums. Damn stupid watchmaker attempt at a point.
Dumb ideas are not protected from criticism and respect is subjective. If I call the pope, or what ever is the equivalent in all the other stupid faiths, a cunt, I think I am being respectful given all things considered.
no_form,
Humans don't know shit.
What if one can manipulate the very matters of the universe with a will of thought by being so one with the universe that the universe is that one's body and move the atoms of the air as if it is their fingers and hands and limbs.
You say.... impossible. Can't be done. The fact that you don't know how to do it and yet your manipulating atoms and molecules everyday and yet not know that the universe itself is your body as well if you open your mind but you belief a belief that its impossible because you don't know.
You don't know what you don't know. You don't know how to unlock your mind. You don't know how to transmit your thoughts and impulse of your mind and manipulate matter and energy at the finest level yet you do it to a much more microscopic level subconsciously but yet you do not consciously know and understand how to do it on a greater scale.
You're own beliefs are your own self-imposed barriers.
Religions are real but they are what is metaphysical.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/metaphysical
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/metaphysics?s=t
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/
Philosophically, we ask the questions of metaphysical matters for a long time.
I think what you don't understand is there is different layers of reality.
In the real world, the reality is that you only have a perception of reality. You only see or understand an abstraction. Reality in a quantum reality is imperceptible in the limited human mind due to cultural framework we are in lead to believe.
What you think is reality is no more reality than your own theories. In reality, it's all worldviews, regional, local, and individual views and theories. All you can come to is truth not the totality of facts which you can not and do not want to know. Therefore, you don't ask the questions you don't want to know the answer to.
I believe there is a factual reality and that there are perceptions of reality. Two are two different things. Factual reality is what is.... from which we do not know or conceive the entire "factuality" of what is. Then there is the perceptions of reality which is what everyone really talks about in regards to reality.
You can not factually claim something does not exist in reality when you do not know all that is fact and what is not. You do not know the entirety of factual reality because you do not exist in a place where you see and know all reality.
We only look at the facts in a very narrow spectrum.
N.S.,
Is love real?
Your logic is physical is real/tangible. In turn your logic is reality is only that which is tangible and physical.
Is love itself physical or is it metaphysical?
What is real and what is not?
Tell us all what is real if you really think you know what is real and what is not. Tell us, give us a list of all that is real and not real.
The depth of your ignorance is real Balkins.
balkins, that's a wonderful letter you've written yourself. remember - you don't know shit. and your view of the world is very narrow in spectrum to paraphrase. in fact (no pun intended) yours is more narrow than 99% of the people on this forum.
no_form and N.S.,
When either of you lived through 1 Trillion years and have a memory of that long after and 5+ billion human life times, then come talk to me about understanding reality. Until then, be quiet and learn.
N.S.,
The depth of your ignorance is real Balkins.
Ha!
While that maybe true but my depth of ignorance of what is real is just a scratch in the sand compared to your Challenger's Deep scale depth of ignorance.
marc - office culture. it is clear though certain legal and moral cultures supersede office....but then again is that not the point of privatized secret clubs and if these clubs beat the transparent public ones then what is the better cukture? office.....i am into the protrstent work ethic lately which relates to economics, hence religion and pc.
btw weber does have studies of capitalism in various religions....but thats getting way off subject and if i say islam again someone will yell at me....geeez
No Balkins. Reiterating my well thought out and accurate single line response will not earn you any internet points. Regroup, refocus, and try again later. It's almost like you're not even trying.
N.S.,
Talk to me after you have finally get your head out of your ass. YOU SAID what is real is only physical and tangible. That is EXACTLY what you said with your logic. That is EXACTLY what you believe in. THAT is your religion.
Therefore, I do not have the desire to argue with your equally idiotic religion.
I guess love doesn't exist. Maybe for you. Too bad. Too sad.
Since you are incapable of elevating your thinking because of your smug arrogant ignorance that you are so devout that I can not see any possible fruitful discussion on this topic with you. You are so smug, arrogant and happily ignorant with your head so far shoved up your ass that you can french kiss yourself that it is so impossible to have rational discussion on this matter with you on this.
Your logic is in line with your butt buddy Olaf.
Olaf,
when it comes to discrimination laws and rules, it is about discriminating against a person because of their religious beliefs / association and/or cultural associations & beliefs.
For example, it is unlawful discrimination for an employer to not hire a person because of their religious association & beliefs or their cultural or even national origins, ethnicity and other such protected classes. It's not the discriminating against the culture or religion itself but the people and their association. The Constitution prohibits laws and rules being adopted or enforced that unreasonably imposes hardship against people based on national origins, ethnic origins and/or association, religious / cultural beliefs, etc. Racism, while a new word should be created to replace this archaic word for combined ethnic and cultural discrimination which by extension may also be religious discrimination.
May you critique a belief and exercise your freedom of speech, press, expression for or against it. Yes.
However, workplace environment, hiring practices, etc. shall not discriminate against a person because they are from a different culture or have a different religion or belief, etc.
Religion, beliefs, etc. are real but not a physical or tangible reality but an intangible aspect of reality.
I believe reality is far more comprehensive than crude matter of flesh and bone (or any atomic matter).
Now, photon is energy nor matter so it has no atomic mass and therefore has no tangible existence so by some idiotic logic like the idea that you and n.s. has about reality and what is real must be physical and tangible. If your so called logic of reality and what is real was fact, then light must not be real, either.
You better have a more comprehensive view of reality than just the physical / tangible things.
Engage brain and think. You must obviously think light is real. Metaphysical exists outside just the natural reality. I believe there is multiple aspects to reality. Religion is real but religion as real doesn't mean religion is entirely factual. Your thoughts are real, right?
I consider them real. I may not necessarily believe or follow your belief as factual. They are real constructs on thoughts. I don't take religion as necessarily historical fact. They may have grains of truth founded on pieces of facts and non-facts throughout history.
That is what I been talking about in the first place.
Balchachino, unlike you, my head has never been in my ass. It is you who lacks the ability to think in any logical way. You seriously need some real life experience and quality education first before attempting to comment on subjects like you do above.
N.S.,
Your logic is so fucked up that the only thing real to you is something that is physical that you can touch and have mass.
That is what............... YOU....... said.
Think for a second. Photons (light) is intangible. Photons have NO atomic weight because photons have no atomic mass. Therefore, it can not be touched and it has no mass.
If you impose real to only be that which has mass and is tangible, then photons are not real.
Reality is more than just crude physical matter. What is real is more than just physical and tangible.
If you believe light is real then logically, you must also believe that reality is more than just the physical and tangible. Metaphysical by definition is about aspects of reality and what's real that is more than just physical matter.
You say that this is wrong. You said that my belief that reality is more than just physical and tangible is wrong. You made that by your personal attacking of me by saying statements like "The depth of your ignorance is real Balkins." This statement is implying what I said about reality is more than just the physical and tangible is wrong.
You insult me.
...just when I thought you would not sink lower, you give us this gem of a reply.
Bravo.
Honestly, well done. It's difficult to compose something so empty of intelligence.
N.S.,
I'm going to ask you these two questions below and please answer it honestly.
Do you believe that only things that are physical and tangible is real?
Do you believe that reality is only things that are physical and tangible?
oh ballskins--- your problem is that you never question your own beliefs. if you believe it, it must be true. but you're wrong as always. such a silly man. go mow your parents lawn.
Olaf-
Given that these cases were filed in public court it is safe to say that backroom dealings are off the table and the social plenum is superseding the office plenum. It's also to say that behaviors, manners and patterns of professionalisms at PMA are being aired out- so that back room is gone as well.
And if you're going to apply theory or philosophy to this why not look apply something more appropriate like queer theory? This is not a clear cut case of work ethic and the prole, but one of gendered politics.
In general, these broad applications of religion, race and philosphy really cloud the matter at the core
I'll answer my questions:
Do you believe that only things that are physical and tangible is real?
No. These are simple reasons why I believe what is real is a lot more than just atomic matter.
For example:
Love. Love is not physical. Love is feelings. Feelings are real. I believe cultures are real because the values are alive in the people. Do I believe the culture's beliefs are the right way to truth and facts of everything? Not necessarily. I believe Islam religion is real as is the 7+ Billions of beliefs from religious, political, secular, etc. Thoughts are real. They are not in themselves tangible but thoughts are real whether or not the thoughts have been expressed or created into a tangible form. I see and experience thoughts from people every day. I know its real as this forum itself is empirical evidence.
Do you believe that reality is only things that are physical and tangible?
No. As I said above. The points still rings true. I believe metaphysical is real and part of reality as is emotions and any idea. They are real as the nature of ideas are inextricably linked to person.
There is empirical evidence everywhere to prove my point. If light and love in intangible and real then why would reality be limited only to that which is physical.
Ricky, the discussion here is not about how you define things like love. "love" is but a label we attach to certain feelings of which, as I am sure even you're aware, can vary greatly. It is not however physical or tangible in the sense that it can be caught and bottled.
People love to find patterns out of nothing. This does not mean these are real physical things or "forces" if you want, that can be alternated or otherwise controlled. Effects are real, but there is no love ether to be captured and studied.
Do you believe that reality is only things that are physical and tangible?
Yes. There is reality for which is only comprised of our natural world, ie. things we can see, touch, measure, observe, all without the influence of supernatural handicaps. Everything else, be it religion, new-agey spiritual hipster jive, or other, is but noise... annoying and unintelligent noise... pedestrian attempts to rationalize ignorance.
Also, please note that secular/atheism is no religion. If you took 12 seconds to think this through, you'd see the fallacy(ies). I also don't think you know the meaning of evidence.
but marc is the matter clouded by these matters you so quickly throwout. are not the basic laws and approaches to various theories derived from much older and rigisld theories? my question remains though, if morally unjust behavior when considered in the broader sense is more effective than the morally accepted than which is better? its like asking, is cheating more right than being honest when playing a game where the end result only matters.....but yes will look into the other matters, i probably started to broad as you suggest.
Non Sequitur,
You know as well as I do ALL words are labels ascribed. It is so we have as rather universal language.
As for reality, I think at this point it is best that we just agree to disagree.
If you read through the Wikipedia link below, you'll know that there is more than one perspective of what reality is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality
Yes, the Wikipedia is not a complete picture of the different concepts but a summarized compilation of different points of views on reality. Feelings are not physical or tangible in and of themselves. They are metaphysical. You are only defining existence or reality only from your human senses. Physical and tangible implies being able to touch it or have a physical existence which in science means to have mass.... atomic mass.... at the atomic scale. Emotions do not have a physical mass but they are real. You are only perceiving reality only from a material reality ignoring non-material reality. Are you going to say psychology is not a science because it deals with non-material science.
What I mean in metaphysical and metaphysics can be understood to an elementary level through these links:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/
https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/metaphysics/v-1
Reality to me is more than just material reality which is just crude atomic matter. If that is all reality is, then emotions don't exist. To me existence and not just physical but also non-physical in nature. If you truly believe that reality is only physical material existence, I would have to argue that, by your logic, your feelings do not exist. Emotions or feelings do not exist therefore is a fantasy.
You are a believer in "materialism" / "physicalism".
I believe existence may transcend out observable perception capacity. I do believe in the possibility of quantum mechanics, multiverses, etc. I do not claim they do exists but scientists are researching already quantum mechanics as it is. However, this research is entirely in its infancy. Just because we can yet physically touch it, doesn't mean it isn't there. I'm not talking about 'new-age spiritual jive' stuff. The problem is, your view does allow for one to have the drive to explore the unknown. Your world view isn't one that would challenge you to learn and explore the domains of what you don't know. The people who challenged us to explore space, to explore new worlds, to explore uncharted territory of knowledge beyond our human senses takes a person who believes that reality is more the crude matter. To say religion is not real and therefore does not exist means you're saying Islam doesn't exist. Existence depends on being real and is in the reality of existence. If something is real, it exists. If something is not real, it does not exists. Real and existence is inexplicably inseparable. The definition of existence and real are facets of the same 'coin'. The definition of what is real and not real is a question of existence and non-existence. It is how one may define if something is real of fantasy. That's a question of existence and non-existence. How does one define existence and non-existence or understand existence is important.
Atheism is a religion. A person's god may not necessarily be a person or some divine being. Money or yourself maybe your 'god'. Depending on the particular definition ascribed to the word 'religion' which is in fact varied.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/religion
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion
As I see it, religion is a set of beliefs that a person holds devoutly. Devoutly means a person is devoted to...
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion
"devoted to a pursuit, belief, or mode of behavior :"
Your materialism and beliefs is in fact a religion in itself. A personal religion but a religion in itself.
Your "god" may not necessarily be a person or an object itself but an ideology.
Even irreligion is in fact technology a religion to a person.
Olaf- explain how religion applies in the specific set of counter suits. That would only apply if one were s member of a religious cult that is sworn to disparage heterosexuals or one was sworn to a sleeper cell for a religious cult sworn to disparage homosexuals.
short version - the general abstracted logical content in various religious ethics have influenced and affected seemingly abstract secular legal mechanisms for judgement of values with regard to actions brought against fellow citizens. (probably a good social science thesis)
No Balkins, it's not and no amount of gratuitous use of 'ism" will give your points, if I can even call them that, any merit.
Olaf, I think the secular abstract logic precedes the advent of religion. There was a time before invisible sky daddies afterall.
Yeah I'd say too broad. That's the legal and social mores. We're all bound to that once we step into the court (assuming burden of proof is legal and moral). So the burden here is to determine who used meaner words over the course of 14 years of complicit behavior.
and which meaner words are more harmful to the person even if it made good architecture
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.