Author Topic: Congress Moves Toward Gay Workplace Protections (Read 2965 times)

Hugo Chavez · « **Reply #25 on:** August 30, 2009, 09:25:31 PM »

firing someone just because they're gay is just plain stupid.

grab an umbrella · « **Reply #26 on:** August 30, 2009, 10:16:20 PM »

Quote from: Hugo Chavez on August 30, 2009, 09:25:31 PM

firing someone just because they're gay is just plain stupid.

It may be stupid, but at the end of the day, if I own a business I should be able to fire for whatever basis I want.

Hereford · « **Reply #27 on:** August 30, 2009, 11:12:15 PM »

Quote from: grab an umbrella on August 30, 2009, 02:03:57 PM

Private companies should be able to hire based on anything they choose.

Absolutley.

However the left thinks not hurting someones feelings is more important than your business.

Hugo Chavez · « **Reply #28 on:** August 30, 2009, 11:25:36 PM »

Quote from: grab an umbrella on August 30, 2009, 10:16:20 PM

It may be stupid, but at the end of the day, if I own a business I should be able to fire for whatever basis I want.

about as moral as firing someone because they ate a turkey sandwitch for dinner at home. you fire someone because they can't do the job you hired them to do, not for what they do at home. employers that think they own you because they pay you to do a job are mentally ill.

grab an umbrella · « **Reply #29 on:** August 30, 2009, 11:42:07 PM »

Quote from: Hugo Chavez on August 30, 2009, 11:25:36 PM

about as moral as firing someone because they ate a turkey sandwitch for dinner at home. you fire someone because they can't do the job you hired them to do, not for what they do at home. employers that think they own you because they pay you to do a job are mentally ill.

While I agree and think it would be a dumb reason to fire someone, the employer should still have that right.

Hugo Chavez · « **Reply #30 on:** August 30, 2009, 11:58:48 PM »

Quote from: grab an umbrella on August 30, 2009, 11:42:07 PM

While I agree and think it would be a dumb reason to fire someone, the employer should still have that right.

employers always want all the rights and usually don't think any rights belong to the employee. all they figure is that they're paying you, fuck the rest, they own your ass. most employers have a god complex over their employees. the thought that someone is giving the bulk of the best years of their life so the company can cash in on their work would never enter their heads. It's in every aspect of how they prefer to treat people. you quit, you better give notice. they fire you, unless there is no choice, you're gone that day. it's always about them, not you.

timfogarty · « **Reply #31 on:** August 31, 2009, 12:24:12 AM »

Quote from: grab an umbrella on August 30, 2009, 11:42:07 PM

While I agree and think it would be a dumb reason to fire someone, the employer should still have that right.

what about other 'protected classes' ? should the employer be able to hire only whites or only blacks? Only men? Fire you if you get pregnant? if your wife gets pregnant? what about if you come down with cancer? marry outside your race or religion? these were all legal things to do at one time.

grab an umbrella · « **Reply #32 on:** August 31, 2009, 01:25:05 AM »

Quote from: timfogarty on August 31, 2009, 12:24:12 AM

what about other 'protected classes' ? should the employer be able to hire only whites or only blacks? Only men? Fire you if you get pregnant? if your wife gets pregnant? what about if you come down with cancer? marry outside your race or religion? these were all legal things to do at one time.

If the employer only wants to hire black people, fine. If the employer wants only women, cool by me.

Go to hooters and see if you can be a waiter tim.

Hugo Chavez · « **Reply #33 on:** August 31, 2009, 02:32:19 AM »

Quote from: grab an umbrella on August 31, 2009, 01:25:05 AM

If the employer only wants to hire black people, fine. If the employer wants only women, cool by me.

Go to hooters and see if you can be a waiter tim.

the company hires men. "hooters girl" is a position at the company that a guy will have a real hard time qualifying for...

grab an umbrella · « **Reply #34 on:** August 31, 2009, 02:32:59 AM »

Quote from: Hugo Chavez on August 31, 2009, 02:32:19 AM

the company hires men. "hooters girl" is a position at the company that a guy will have a real hard time qualifying for...

Discrimination though.

Hugo Chavez · « **Reply #35 on:** August 31, 2009, 03:13:20 AM »

Quote from: grab an umbrella on August 31, 2009, 02:32:59 AM

Discrimination though.

kind of a change in topic. to bring it on we'd be talking about a hooters girl getting fired when it got back to the manager that she kissed a girl

sounds absurd to me. and then the manager being fired for being gay enough to shun girl on girl action

grab an umbrella · « **Reply #36 on:** August 31, 2009, 03:38:39 AM »

Quote from: Hugo Chavez on August 31, 2009, 03:13:20 AM

kind of a change in topic. to bring it on we'd be talking about a hooters girl getting fired when it got back to the manager that she kissed a girl sounds absurd to me. and then the manager being fired for being gay enough to shun girl on girl action

You drinkin again?

Hugo Chavez · « **Reply #37 on:** August 31, 2009, 03:46:30 AM »

Quote from: grab an umbrella on August 31, 2009, 03:38:39 AM

You drinkin again?

wtf? nope. i'll probably have few beers in about a week if you feel the need to avoid me then.

Hugo Chavez · « **Reply #38 on:** August 31, 2009, 03:50:01 AM »

i am typing with one hand while holding a sleeping baby in the other.

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #39 on:** August 31, 2009, 06:39:31 AM »

All this is, is a give away to the plaintiffs bar.

What nonsense.

LurkerNoMore · « **Reply #40 on:** August 31, 2009, 07:21:04 AM »

Until their merger, TBS in Atlanta could legally fire someone for smoking.

They had a non smoking policy in effect and anyone that was a smoker was given 90 days to stop. You were not even allowed to smoke in your own home after hours. If you smelled like smoke after the 90 days, you were given a warning and probation, if it happened again, you were axed.

drkaje · « **Reply #41 on:** August 31, 2009, 10:05:47 AM »

Quote from: timfogarty on August 30, 2009, 08:55:51 PM

don't confuse your gays. Bay's the one that thinks everyone is secretly gay.

and I'm not arguing individuals 'feel threatened', but I think there is plenty of evidence that society is much more tolerant of females taking on non-standard characteristics than they are of males, that society 'feels threatened' when ever masculinity is challenged. Why is it easier for women celebrities to be open about their sexuality? Why is it hardest for men in hyper-masculine cultures like pro sports and hip-hop music?

Stop giving similar answers, LOL!

Men love women because they have pussies. Even Lesbians have pussies so there's always a context in which men can relate to them.

tonymctones · « **Reply #42 on:** August 31, 2009, 10:12:43 AM »

Quote from: Hugo Chavez on August 31, 2009, 02:32:19 AM

the company hires men. "hooters girl" is a position at the company that a guy will have a real hard time qualifying for...

this is true and the same can be said for other types of business most financial institutions are very conservative and have very conservative clients you think they want to walk in and see some flamboyantly gay person? how about a person with gender identity problems?

If they do their jobs right their personal life would never come into play in the first place and this shit wouldnt be needed. If what you did in your personal life was kept personal how would the company know to discriminate against them?

timfogarty · « **Reply #43 on:** August 31, 2009, 10:25:33 AM »

Quote from: tonymctones on August 31, 2009, 10:12:43 AM

If they do their jobs right their personal life would never come into play in the first place and this shit wouldnt be needed. If what you did in your personal life was kept personal how would the company know to discriminate against them?

And we know Don't Ask Don't Tell works so well in the military! Powell said he expected discharges to drop significantly when he implemented this policy. Instead the number of discharges per year went way up.

tonymctones · « **Reply #44 on:** August 31, 2009, 10:31:07 AM »

Quote from: timfogarty on August 31, 2009, 10:25:33 AM

And we know Don't Ask Don't Tell works so well in the military! Powell said he expected discharges to drop significantly when he implemented this policy. Instead the number of discharges per year went way up.

the military is completely different bro apples and freaking oranges, they sleep together, shower together, spend extended time weeks/months with one another.

Sorry tim thats a very invalid comparison

sorry bro but id get thrown out if i went and tried to shower with women and sleep with them but its ok for a gay man to shower with another man? no bro completely different

Dos Equis · « **Reply #45 on:** August 31, 2009, 10:37:34 AM »

Quote from: timfogarty on August 30, 2009, 08:55:51 PM

don't confuse your gays. Bay's the one that thinks everyone is secretly gay.

lol.

Dos Equis · « **Reply #46 on:** August 31, 2009, 10:40:50 AM »

Quote from: timfogarty on August 31, 2009, 10:25:33 AM

And we know Don't Ask Don't Tell works so well in the military! Powell said he expected discharges to drop significantly when he implemented this policy. Instead the number of discharges per year went way up.

It does work.

Regarding ENDA, I think the problem is primarily with the whole gender identity thing. I think that is a quagmire. (Giggity. drkaje that was for you.

timfogarty · « **Reply #47 on:** August 31, 2009, 12:46:05 PM »

Quote from: tonymctones on August 31, 2009, 10:31:07 AM

Sorry tim thats a very invalid comparison

you misunderstood the comparison. Powell really believed that DADT would allow gays to serve, would reduce the witch hunts, reduce the discharges. Instead it gave fuel to the witch hunts. you wrote

"If what you did in your personal life was kept personal how would the company know to discriminate against you?"

which is no different than

"If what you did in your personal life was kept personal how would the military know to kick you out?"

timfogarty · « **Reply #48 on:** August 31, 2009, 12:49:29 PM »

Quote from: Beach Bum on August 31, 2009, 10:40:50 AM

It does work.

Powell said he though DADT would drastically reduce the number of discharges. Instead they're way up.

Quote

Regarding ENDA, I think the problem is primarily with whole gender identity thing. I think that is a quagmire.

that's the great thing about the USofA, we have the ability to try things in different states before trying them at the national level.

"Twenty-one states have laws prohibiting workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and 12 extend those laws to gender identity: California, Colorado, Iowa, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. Several other states protect public employees who are gay or transgender."

there has been no significant problems in any of these states

Dos Equis · « **Reply #49 on:** August 31, 2009, 12:56:13 PM »

Quote from: timfogarty on August 31, 2009, 12:49:29 PM

Powell said he though DADT would drastically reduce the number of discharges. Instead they're way up.

that's the great thing about the USofA, we have the ability to try things in different states before trying them at the national level.

"Twenty-one states have laws prohibiting workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and 12 extend those laws to gender identity: California, Colorado, Iowa, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. Several other states protect public employees who are gay or transgender."

there has been no significant problems in any of these states

If discharges are up that's the fault of people who don't keep their private sexual conduct to themselves, as the policy requires. That doesn't mean the policy doesn't work. It actually allows homosexuals to serve, despite the fact their private conduct violates military law. Pretty amazing if you ask me.

How can you be certain there have been no significant problems in states where they have redefined gender by statute? I think you'd need to talk to business owners and determine how it has affected them.

Part of the reason this may not make large ripples is cross-dressers, etc. are such a small percentage of the population. But that doesn't change the fact that it is dangerous precedent (redefining gender). I'm not even sure how to address "gender identity" in the workplace, particularly with the bathroom issue.