ENDA drives the bigots crazy! - Page 6

fxashun · 11-13-2007, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pensacola_niceman

I think a law should be passed making it easier for companies to fire assholes.

What you got against me? I'd never be able to keep a job.

Gadgetory · 11-13-2007, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fxashun

I think it's just too convenient to blame "religion" on anyone who finds something amiss with homosexuality. Even in a room full of staunch anti religious atheists, there will be a certain number of people that find homosexuality "wrong". Hell, even among homosexuals themselves, there are a few of them that can't come to grips with it by literally rationalizing the hell out of it, and they just end up committing suicide. Religion guides many people's lives and gives them support for their natural aversion to homosexuality, but it's not "why" homosexuality is abnormal.

If a business owner doesn't want to work with a gay person, why should they be forced to. No one forces a small business to hire women, any particular ethnicity, or religion. Why should they be forced to hire and retain a gay person they don't want to be around.

I used to date a young lady from St. Loius who's dad owned a building supply company. Her father had no black employees, and he purposely kept his number of employees low enough so that he wouldn't be required to hire any. Was that wrong? Yes. Was that his right as a business owner...Why not? I know of more than a few "black" businesses that would go out of business before they hired a white person. And there are more than a few Hispanic landscaping companies that are 100% Hispanic.

As Dog the bounty hunter was afraid of, I too have been in the company of people at work that talked disparagingly of gay people in a rather flippant manner. I'm sure there are companies with employees that talk the same way about women, blacks, other religions, and ethnicities. If I owned a company where I knew we dropped the "fag" bomb on a regular basis, the last thing I would want to do is hire a gay person and set myself up for a harassment lawsuit.

I think its abnormal for straight peoiple to be so concerned about homosexuality they spend all day every day telling other people how they should live their lives and do nothing but discuss homosexuality...do you have nothing else to do???..sorry its weird..

And the people with less then simple minds don't think anyone is being forced to hire a gay person merely not use it as an excuse for not hiring them and again its a neutral term..it means all sexual orientations including straight people...sorry but this is not a law about gay people just people...

And if I owned a business where they called women skanky ho's....black people the "n" word...mexicans beaners or gay people fags and so on I'd fire the people who where saying it because unlike yourself I do not support discrimination and or prejudice ..shame you think its OK or at least 'understandable'

fxashun · 11-13-2007, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gadgetory

I think its abnormal for straight peoiple to be so concerned about homosexuality they spend all day every day telling other people how they should live their lives and do nothing but discuss homosexuality...do you have nothing else to do???..sorry its weird..

How many times are you gonna say that? Acknowledged and forgotten. Next.

And the people with less then simple minds don't think anyone is being forced to hire a gay person merely not use it as an excuse for not hiring them and again its a neutral term..it means all sexual orientations including straight people...sorry but this is not a law about gay people just people...

Since there are only 2 orientations other than those that are REALLY confused between the two, and I seriously doubt anyone is gonna get fired for being hetero...LOL. This is a law about gay folk. If you don't think so, you are the simple minded one.

And the reason I say someone is being forced to hire a gay person is because if a gay person hides their "gay" during the interview process, if the owner of the company oesn't want to hire a gay person, there is no recourse after the person is hired. You ARE in essence being forced to hire a gay person.

And if I owned a business where they called women skanky ho's....black people the "n" word...mexicans beaners or gay people fags and so on I'd fire the people who where saying it because unlike yourself I do not support discrimination and or prejudice ..shame you think its OK or at least 'understandable'

I have worked in businesses where we spoke disparagingly of women and gay people in a regular basis. It was called the Marine Corps.
And if I owned a business, I would be reluctant to hire a woman, because I am crude, and I know it. The last thing I want is to have to control my language at my own place of business.

garysher · 11-13-2007, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tristanrobin

But if you have legal recourse to address the issue, the company who treated you in a discriminatory manner will be forced to give you money to help you over the bridge time until you get another job.

I think this should be the proven cause of firing - just as it should be proven that race was the cause of firing and not poor job performance - and hearsay shouldn't be taken at face value. But, for the most part, these issues are usually real.

From a practical standpoint how could an employee ever prove that they were let go because they were homosexual?

Indeed how would the employer even know they were homosexual? Will this be an additional question on the application form?

And what about the manipulators who claim AFTER they are fired, that they are homosexual, and that's the reason they were fired?

If this ludicrous Bill ever becomes law the lawyers will be ribbing their hands in glee!

fxashun · 11-13-2007, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by garysher

From a practical standpoint how could an employee ever prove that they were let go because they were homosexual?

Indeed how would the employer even know they were homosexual? Will this be an additional question on the application form?

And what about the manipulators who claim AFTER they are fired, that they are homosexual, and that's the reason they were fired?

If this ludicrous Bill ever becomes law the lawyers will be ribbing their hands in glee!

That's a GREAT point. I never even thought of that.

garysher · 11-13-2007, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fxashun

That's a GREAT point. I never even thought of that.

I assume candidates would henceforth have to declare if they were homosexual on the job application form.

As you point out homosexuality is not always as evident as with other classes protected by employment legislation (race, gender, age, handicapped, etc).

Of course when a guy shows up for interview wearing a leopardskin leotard, feather boa and pink tights there's a good chance he's not straight and won't get the job at the tyre depot!

Clearly this bill is another offering at the alter of political correctness and has not been thought through.

fxashun · 11-13-2007, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by garysher

I assume candidates would henceforth have to declare if they were homosexual on the job application form.

As you point out homosexuality is not always as evident as with other classes protected by employment legislation (race, gender, age, handicapped, etc).

Of course when a guy shows up for interview wearing a leopardskin leotard, feather boa and pink tights there's a good chance he's not straight and won't get the job at the tyre depot!

Clearly this bill is another offering at the alter of political correctness and has not been thought through.

Sometimes you are a serious nut. The visual was right out of "America's Got Talent". The seriously gay looking tall russian guy.

forester814 · 11-13-2007, 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fxashun

Her "intolerance" is my "common sense".

They cover intolerance of all sorts of people at diversity training, not just gay people. Race, religion, gender, handicap, age, marital status, veteran status, the list goes on and on. Sexual orientation joins this list as just another unimportant personal difference in the workplace.

Be intolerant off the job, fine, knock yourself out. But on the job? Well, firing a muslim for being a "camel jockey" will get you in exactly as much trouble as firing a gay man for being a "faggot."

If you feel better about getting disciplined or fired for the latter than the former, I submit it as more proof that common sense is not as common as people think.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fxashun

The aversion to homosexuality is as innate as the aversion most people feel for the other sexual perversions.

Really? So you think "most people" feel the same ick factor about gays as they do about child molestors? Or rapists? Again, more proof that common sense is not as common as people think.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fxashun

Not a single modern society has voted in favor of homosexual unions, never mind "marriage".

And not a one has voted in favor of heterosexual unions either, for the same reason: because we don't vote on basic human rights. We simply recognize and uphold them as self-evident.

fxashun · 11-14-2007, 06:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by forester814

They cover intolerance of all sorts of people at diversity training, not just gay people. Race, religion, gender, handicap, age, marital status, veteran status, the list goes on and on. Sexual orientation joins this list as just another unimportant personal difference in the workplace.
Be intolerant off the job, fine, knock yourself out. But on the job? Well, firing a muslim for being a "camel jockey" will get you in exactly as much trouble as firing a gay man for being a "faggot."
If you feel better about getting disciplined or fired for the latter than the former, I submit it as more proof that common sense is not as common as people think.

As I have always said, in a privately owned company, a person should have just as much "right" NOT to hire anyone they don't want to. And in the case of "gay" this law precludes them having a DADT stance on the situation. It's not like a person can hide their gender, race, or handicap that is severe enough to matter. Gay is like religion in that aspect. And we all know how some people here feel about "religious" people.

Really? So you think "most people" feel the same ick factor about gays as they do about child molestors? Or rapists? Again, more proof that common sense is not as common as people think.

Same? No. But just as gay people want to claim the "discrimination" black people suffered is the same as theirs. The mechanism that causes the "ick" against gay people IS driven by the same feeling one would feel toward a pedosexual or zoosexual. They are all unsupported by our bodies or any real purpose and any person can see that. Actually IMHO the feeling against a rapist is different since "rape" evokes different feeling depending on the perpetrator and victim.
And I agree about the common sense thing. Some people think abortion ISN'T murder and that liking prepubescent children is "normal".

And not a one has voted in favor of heterosexual unions either, for the same reason: because we don't vote on basic human rights. We simply recognize and uphold them as self-evident.

Actually biology of nearly every living animal on the planet too care of that "vote" by giving a reason/purpose/result to heterosexuality. Homosexuality has none. It's just no different than masturbation in that it only relieve sexual tension but never serves any othereal purpose. People can get the same result from formed latex.