Oh, so you are telling us she committed suicide because she was a homo?

No.


Why do you have no reply to this Alias???

And again, even if we accept your statement as true, SO WHAT?

The same could be said of a lot of Christians. Politicians typically include statements about their religious beliefs. And it seems fairly obvious that a lot of Christians want to infiltrate schools and promulgate Christian prayer.

Yet how many offices do you see where the boss gets everybody together for a morning prayer?

Does that prove something negative about Christians?

Christians are not the topic. The topic is why are homos public about their sexual life when in a government or education job, but silent when in the business world? I state it is because of the progressives in the government and education who promote the homos to show they are progressive thinkers. To do so in business would be bad for business. So far, all you have done is a blow a lot of smoke, but I don't see any evidence to refute my points.

And I am ANSWERING that question with Christians as an example.
You cannot handle the response, PROVING that your question has no validity and PROVING that your question is true of MULTIPLE attributes, so you refuse to listen.

The reason why gays are public about their sexual orientation in politics is because EVERY ASPECT of their being is open in politics.
Education job? Kids ASK QUESTIONS about their teacher's lives. Should the teacher lie?


What the heck do you think you are talking about when you mention "in government"????

Please. Answer that question.
WHAT POSITIONS do you think have gays outing themselves just because they can be seen as "progressive"?


Alias, you often describe me in a way which fits you more appropriately.
It is YOU who haven't produced any evidence to refute my points.

My explanation fits MORE ATTRIBUTES than just the "gay" thing.
I HAVE ACTUALLY disproven your claims. You claim that the government wants gays in positions because it is good for "progressive thinking" perception, but at the same time you pretend that being against gay marriage demonstrates people are against gays.
You can't have it both ways. If most people are supposedly against gays, then WHY would the government put them in positions just because they were gay? Such a tactic would back-fire under your contradictory thinking...

And around and around we go. I have already made my point. Check the thread.

We aren't going "around"...

Over and over again, I argue you to the same point where you just plain stop.

I prove that gays are not bad for business by pointing to non-discrimination policies which companies adopt ON THEIR OWN, which you ignore.

I ask you questions about your claims which you habitually STALL on answering. I still don't know what the heck you think you mean about "government" having open gay people.
It should seem obvious that some of the Republicans, like Foley, are obviously in the closet. Disproving your claim.

You still haven't addressed the contradiction inbetween claiming that being against gay marriage means "anti-gay", and your claim that promoting gays in the government is about seeming progressive. Either people are for gays or they aren't, right?

Each time you ignore these issues, they don't go away. People can see you avoid them.

I stated very plainly the being publicly homo in government or education is tolerated because of the progressive atmosphere in government and education. It is not tolerated in business because to do so would be bad business.

That's as plain as it can be stated. Now show us all where my statement is not true.

Yes. You "stated" that.
But the problem is that you have FAILED to respond to the arguments proving your claim false.

It IS tolerated in business, as is proven by the companies adopting NON-DISCRIMINATION POLICIES against gay employees.
If it's "bad for business", then it would make NO SENSE for them to adopt policies which ensure that they HAVE TO DO THINGS in a way that you claim is "bad for business".

And being "publicly gay" in government, education, or whatever is not tolerated just because of "progressive atmosphere".
It's because most people aren't so prejudiced that they actually worry about such crap. John states that he's married with a kid and nobody blinks an eye. But if Jim states he's gay, then THAT is something you're all concerned about because of "progressive".
It has nothing to do with "progressive".


NONE of what I said above is new.
I have said ALL of it before.
Now how about you actually respond to what I SAID this time???

You are confusing the issue. Hiring practices is not the same as a CEO of a corporation that they are a homo. Try again.

It's amazing how often you repeat these words.
They invariably surround some statement of yours that you are offering as irrefutable, without basis or substantiation. An opinion you are unwilling to defend further and you offer up with a hope that it will allow you to ignore multiple issues you have ignored.


Employment discrimination is not just about "hiring practices".
If you don't promote a person just because they are black or Jewish or female or gay, that is ALSO discrimination.
And as I requested, with again NO RESPONSE from you, you cannot show me ANY example where an "openly gay" person was up for a CEO position and was turned down.
By your logic, that must mean that it never happened, which would destroy any semblance of an argument you had left.

But regardless, since you'll ignore all of the above anyways, how are they supposedly significantly different?
Quite frankly, when I go into a store to shop, I see the person behind the counter who helps me. Often in a company which forbids discrimination against gays.

I have no clue as to who the CEO is. Most people who shop don't know who the CEO is at the store they are shopping at, nor do they know what his attributes are.

So in addition to the above, maybe you can explain how it's supposedly "bad for business" to have a gay CEO as well...

(Oh gee. More for alias to ignore...)