Lesbian Educator Commits Suicide - Page 10

foundit66 · 12-16-2006, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alias

Of course there are black CEO's.

Do you know of any?
I don't.

By your logic, that means there aren't any.
But the truth of the matter is that just because we don't know, that doesn't mean they don't exist.

Quote:

Originally Posted by alias

You keep trying to put homos in the same class as a race. Homos are not a race.

race:
2 a : a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock b : a class or kind of people unified by shared interests, habits, or characteristics <the English race>

Gays fit the definition of "race".
The truth is that you don't see the analogy just because you approve of discrimination in one case, and not in another. That is your REAL differentiating factor.

Quote:

Originally Posted by alias

I disagree with your statement that companies can fire homos because they are homos. You cannot do that in this country. Tell me the states where you can.

Alias, once again you disagree just because you can't imagine your preconceived notions being wrong.
It would help if you approached things by trying to figure out if your ideas were right first, instead of just assuming so.

Federal Law
Although a broad umbrella of federal laws protects people from workplace discrimination on the basis of race, national origin, sex, age, and disability, those facing discrimination based on sexual orientation have largely been left out in the rain -- at least at the national level. There is no federal law that specifically outlaws workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the private sector -- although federal government workers are currently protected from such discrimination. (Attempts to pass a piece of federal legislation that would outlaw sexual orientation discrimination in private workplaces, known as the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, or ENDA, have been unsuccessful to date.)

State Laws
At the state level, there is more cause for hope. Fifteen states and the District of Columbia have laws that currently prohibit sexual orientation discrimination in both public and private jobs: California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin. Illinois has also passed such a law that will go into effect on January 1, 2006. And in Oregon, while no state law has been passed to prohibit sexual orientation discrimination in private employment, at least one court case found that sexual orientation discrimination is prohibited under the state's constitution (Tanner v. Oregon Health Sciences University, 157 Ore. App. 502, 971 P.2d 435 (199).

In addition, seven states have laws prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination in public workplaces only: Colorado, Delaware, Indiana, Michigan, Montana, Pennsylvania, and Washington.

Your Rights Against Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation - Findlaw for the Public -

Every state not listed there is an example for you. It's a much bigger list.
If you want a specific state name, start with Kansas or Nebraska.

Tell me Alias. Do you support laws which would say that it is illegal to fire gays just because they are gay?

Quote:

Originally Posted by alias

Well then, I would suggest that if homos feel that they are being discriminated against, they should move to a state that has laws that favor them. That's the great thing about The United States. What a wonderful country.

Or change the laws in the area we are in.
Quite frankly, the "move away" satisfies you because you don't have to have gays around you anymore. Your prejudice is satisfied.

It's funny how you quickly move from thinking there is a nation-wide ban on employment discrimination against gays, to telling us that we should move. A logical next jump would have been to say that you support enacting laws preventing discrimination against gays.
At least, a logical next jump for somebody not mired in prejudice.

alias · 12-16-2006, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

Do you know of any?
I don't.

By your logic, that means there aren't any.
But the truth of the matter is that just because we don't know, that doesn't mean they don't exist.

race:
2 a : a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock b : a class or kind of people unified by shared interests, habits, or characteristics <the English race>

Gays fit the definition of "race".
The truth is that you don't see the analogy just because you approve of discrimination in one case, and not in another. That is your REAL differentiating factor.

Alias, once again you disagree just because you can't imagine your preconceived notions being wrong.
It would help if you approached things by trying to figure out if your ideas were right first, instead of just assuming so.

Federal Law
Although a broad umbrella of federal laws protects people from workplace discrimination on the basis of race, national origin, sex, age, and disability, those facing discrimination based on sexual orientation have largely been left out in the rain -- at least at the national level. There is no federal law that specifically outlaws workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the private sector -- although federal government workers are currently protected from such discrimination. (Attempts to pass a piece of federal legislation that would outlaw sexual orientation discrimination in private workplaces, known as the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, or ENDA, have been unsuccessful to date.)

State Laws
At the state level, there is more cause for hope. Fifteen states and the District of Columbia have laws that currently prohibit sexual orientation discrimination in both public and private jobs: California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin. Illinois has also passed such a law that will go into effect on January 1, 2006. And in Oregon, while no state law has been passed to prohibit sexual orientation discrimination in private employment, at least one court case found that sexual orientation discrimination is prohibited under the state's constitution (Tanner v. Oregon Health Sciences University, 157 Ore. App. 502, 971 P.2d 435 (199).

In addition, seven states have laws prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination in public workplaces only: Colorado, Delaware, Indiana, Michigan, Montana, Pennsylvania, and Washington.

Your Rights Against Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation - Findlaw for the Public -

Every state not listed there is an example for you. It's a much bigger list.
If you want a specific state name, start with Kansas or Nebraska.

Tell me Alias. Do you support laws which would say that it is illegal to fire gays just because they are gay?

Or change the laws in the area we are in.
Quite frankly, the "move away" satisfies you because you don't have to have gays around you anymore. Your prejudice is satisfied.

It's funny how you quickly move from thinking there is a nation-wide ban on employment discrimination against gays, to telling us that we should move. A logical next jump would have been to say that you support enacting laws preventing discrimination against gays.
At least, a logical next jump for somebody not mired in prejudice.

Here is a story on black CEOs.

Black CEOs gaining in corporate America / Numbers growing: 18 join magazine's list of top execs

Now you find me one on homo CEOs.

That's fine with me, either change the laws or move to where the laws are you like. That's called freedom.

As far as employment, if a person owns a company, they should be able to hire and fire who they want to. That is also called freedom.

I know a guy around here who owns a couple homes that he rents and I know he will not rent to anyone except families with a mom and a dad because he told me so and why. He wants families and no homos living in his homes. What are you going to do to him? Nothing, that's what. They are his homes and he can do as he pleases with him because he is a free American. Whine about it.

Anything else on your mind?

foundit66 · 12-16-2006, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alias

Here is a story on black CEOs.

Now you find me one on homo CEOs.

There is NO POINT in this whole stupid rant on "gay CEOs".
It doesn't even back up any real argument.

Quote:

Originally Posted by alias

That's fine with me, either change the laws or move to where the laws are you like. That's called freedom.

As far as employment, if a person owns a company, they should be able to hire and fire who they want to. That is also called freedom.

In other words, it's precisely like I thought and I've seen it before.
Some guy prejudiced against gays thinks there is a law protecting discrimination in employment, but then supports the capability for an employer to fire somebody just because he is gay when he finds out there is no such law across all 50 states.

Quote:

Originally Posted by alias

I know a guy around here who owns a couple homes that he rents and I know he will not rent to anyone except families with a mom and a dad because he told me so and why. He wants families and no homos living in his homes. What are you going to do to him? Nothing, that's what.

But let me guess.
He's not prejudiced, and neither are you...
ROFLMAO

You don't seem to get by now that your demonstrations of prejudice do not bother me. I just use them as examples for others to prove my point.
I know people like you exist out there. It's a reality I accept.

alias · 12-16-2006, 07:57 PM

In other words, you can't find any homo CEOs and the rest is just sour grapes. Have a nice night.

chrisg967 · 12-16-2006, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alias

I know a guy around here who owns a couple homes that he rents and I know he will not rent to anyone except families with a mom and a dad because he told me so and why. He wants families and no homos living in his homes. What are you going to do to him? Nothing, that's what. They are his homes and he can do as he pleases with him because he is a free American. Whine about it.

Anything else on your mind?

Hmm.. isnt' there an Equal Opportunity Housing act or some such? Doesn't the federal government prohibit discrimination based on a few things, like sex and race? Seems like your friend might be in violation of that law. Yes, they are his homes, but he may find he's hit with a fine he didn't anticipate...

foundit66 · 12-17-2006, 12:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alias

In other words, you can't find any homo CEOs ...

No. I haven't even bothered looking.
It's a pointless request. You could ask me to prove the existence of penguins in Africa and it wouldn't mean anything regarding this issue.

The REASON you were asking for that has already been addressed. Successfully.

Quote:

Originally Posted by alias

...and the rest is just sour grapes.

No. The rest was pointing out hypocrisy, the real root of your arguments, etc, etc...
You can't address that, so instead you just claim it's something else.

Quote:

Originally Posted by alias

Have a nice night.

You too.

alias · 12-17-2006, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

No. I haven't even bothered looking.
It's a pointless request. You could ask me to prove the existence of penguins in Africa and it wouldn't mean anything regarding this issue.

The REASON you were asking for that has already been addressed. Successfully.

No. The rest was pointing out hypocrisy, the real root of your arguments, etc, etc...
You can't address that, so instead you just claim it's something else.

You too.

FOUNDIT: "No. It means we don't know.
Do you know of any black CEOs?
I don't either.

Guess that must mean there aren't any..."

You're the one who brought up the comparison bub, not me. How come everything is "irrelevant" or "pointless" when you back yourself into a corner on something you can't answer?

foundit66 · 12-17-2006, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alias

FOUNDIT: "No. It means we don't know.
Do you know of any black CEOs?
I don't either.
Guess that must mean there aren't any..."

You're the one who brought up the comparison bub, not me.

I brought up the comparison to show the foolishness of the argument.

You seem to think that two people not knowing something proves it doesn't exist.
I put forth that it just means that we do not know.

Quote:

Originally Posted by alias

How come everything is "irrelevant" or "pointless" when you back yourself into a corner on something you can't answer?

I have answered it. And I have explained why it is irrelevant.
Your request lacks a purpose.
If I prove a hundred gay CEOs, what does it prove??? Anything?

You've lost track of a point with this inane request.
If you think it has a point, maybe you can explain what you think it is...

alias · 12-18-2006, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

I brought up the comparison to show the foolishness of the argument.

You seem to think that two people not knowing something proves it doesn't exist.
I put forth that it just means that we do not know.

I have answered it. And I have explained why it is irrelevant.
Your request lacks a purpose.
If I prove a hundred gay CEOs, what does it prove??? Anything?

You've lost track of a point with this inane request.
If you think it has a point, maybe you can explain what you think it is...

Uh yeah, right. I think we all get the picture.

If you can't produce any homo CEO's, then how can we assume there are any? That is called wishful thinking and you do a lot of it.

foundit66 · 12-18-2006, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alias

Uh yeah, right. I think we all get the picture.

Ahh yes. Resorting to sarcastic pretense of how others in your supposed "we" have come to a conclusion...
Usually a sign that you're trying to pretend you've won without being able to address the ACTUAL issue at hand.

Quote:

Originally Posted by alias

If you can't produce any homo CEO's, then how can we assume there are any? That is called wishful thinking and you do a lot of it.

I am not assuming one way or the other.
YOU are.

And as I have asked you, SO WHAT. Suppose there aren't any gay CEOs.
What does that supposedly prove?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode