View Full Version : RADICAL GAY AGENDA MOVES FORWARD
One thing you can count on, when the DEMS took over Congress, is the radical gay agenda being pushed down our throats. #Looks like Barney (my boy lollipop) Frank, DEM, Ma. is at it again.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news....D=55654 (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55654)
ka5piu
05-12-2007, 01:24 PM
Hello.
The only issue that is even remotely valid is one of restrooms.
I see nothing wrong with fully unisex restrooms.That is to say, first come first served, and they are all the same.
In this manner there is no issue.
But, the same issues were brought out when the push for handicapped access was starting.
I still disagree with designated handicap parking as a requirement on private property.
I agree that some organizations such as churches, should be exempt on religious grounds if they oppose homosexuals.
However, I don't think that any other employers should be exempt.
Unisex bathrooms would solve a whole other set of problems too.
KI4ITV
05-12-2007, 01:38 PM
We'll this bill is just plain stupid and needs to be treated as such.
But, I don't think this is a "DEM" agenda. It is a personal agenda of Barney Frank's, he is taking advantage of his presumed special status among his more liberal party members and underlying uncertainties or guilt caused by intentionally blurred social propaganda.
The sooner legislators and special interest groups quit trying to push this type of preferential treatment, the faster the public will get over being reactionary to the real differences between us.
This is happening to most "civil rights" issues by people who seek political or financial gain from their agendas. The general public stops taking them seriously and recoils from the push of ridiculous expectations. Most of the time these proposals appear to hurt the intended beneficiaries social credibility in the long run.
Sad, actually.
k6bbc
05-12-2007, 01:55 PM
Why is it that so many on the right turn out to be closeted-queers? That Dobson guy and also the Rev. Lou Sheldon act awfully gay. And Haggard – turns out he was part of the homosexual drug underworld. I believe Jim Baker also smoked a few cigars in his day.
So what’s the deal K3XR? You seem abnormally interested in what gay people do. Perhaps you have something you have been meaning to get off your chest?
K6bbc
KI4ITV
05-12-2007, 02:17 PM
The bill actualy appears to rather benign.
Churches (etc.) and the US military are exempted.
But, honestly, would you buy a gun from a man in a dress at the big gun, big box store?
This law may force such delema on you.
Bill (or Betty) Linky (www.aclu.org/images/asset_upload_file270_29549.pdf)
Quote[/b] (ka5piu @ May 12 2007,02:24)]Hello.
The only issue that is even remotely valid is one of restrooms.
I see nothing wrong with fully unisex restrooms.That is to say, first come first served, and they are all the same.
In this manner there is no issue.
But, the same issues were brought out when the push for handicapped access was starting.
I still disagree with designated handicap parking as a requirement on private property.
What hogwash. Unisex bathrooms. ROFLMAO. I'll bet you won't find any urinals in a unisex bathroom. The womens rights groups will demand men sit down just like women. Women see men standing up and on top as threatening and a superior position. It'll never happen.
K2WH
ka5piu
05-12-2007, 03:40 PM
Hello.
It all works for me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squat_toilet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_toilet
I prefer not to use toilet paper but a washlet.
For the handicapped this is sometimes the only option.
KF0RT
05-12-2007, 03:58 PM
But, which button do I push for the colon cancer test results?
Wireless toilet control (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Wireless_toilet_control_panel_w._open_lid.jp g)
73, Rob
NoSquat, CO
kd7gwd
05-12-2007, 04:05 PM
Can't we just hire based on accomplishments ?
Seems simple , you look at the applications , and the resume's . You pick the person most qualified . And hire them .
Why can't people just do that ?
w3bny
05-12-2007, 04:21 PM
You obviously havent travelled overseas have you. tweet-twee-tweet-tweet <pee sound> Heee-hee-hee..gomen nasai... <added pee sounds>
Heaven forbid people go to the bathroom. but then again you lilleh-whyte-Neo-conservative-ultraright-proto-protestants dont poop do you http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
k4kyv
05-12-2007, 04:52 PM
Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ May 12 2007,13:29)]Unisex bathrooms would solve a whole other set of problems too.
Especially this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potty_parity) one.
The stalls are normally used by only one person at a time anyway, and there is usually a latch on the door. They would probably want a separate compartment for stand-up urinals, though.
And it would save the company some money. It would be cheaper to build a larger facility with more stalls, each with more secure doors, than to build two separate facilities.
In Europe, many public toilets are unisex, and no-one gives it a second thought, except maybe a few squeamish American tourists. We don't see separate facilities in planes or trains, either.
n4sva
05-12-2007, 04:53 PM
Quote[/b] (kd7gwd @ May 12 2007,03:05)]Can't we just hire based on accomplishments ?
Seems simple , you look at the applications , and the resume's . You pick the person most qualified . And hire them .
Why can't people just do that ?
A person's chosen personal habits and lifestyle very much affects their work performance.
n2ize
05-12-2007, 04:54 PM
It would be really nice to read the REAL context of the bill. Not the worldnetdaily version of the bill.
w3bny
05-12-2007, 05:51 PM
Quote[/b] (kd7gwd @ May 12 2007,09:05)]Can't we just hire based on accomplishments ?
Seems simple , you look at the applications , and the resume's . You pick the person most qualified . And hire them .
Why can't people just do that ?
Because they didnt go to Bob Jones or Regents University.
HAH!
n0jaa
05-12-2007, 06:08 PM
Quote[/b] (ka5piu @ May 12 2007,09:24)]I still disagree with designated handicap parking as a requirement on private property.
That's because you don't have to use it. #I cannot walk very far, so I utilize the handicapped spots when they are available. #It is physically impossible for some people to walk long distances (such as myself) to get anywhere. #Other people, because of one or another physical ailment, can't move very far, either. #This is the reason for handicapped parking spaces.
Imagine if you had a physical handicap that prevented you from walking very much, and you had to go to the grocery store one day, but the nearest parking space was on the far side of the parking lot. #You wouldn't be able to do it. #You might collapse before you get to the door, and you wouldn't be able to do your needed shopping, let alone walk back to your car. #And I've only seen a few grocery stores that offer wheelchairs to their handicapped customers. #Some people with walking handicaps will collapse if they walk too much.
What if you had to go visit your doctor, but you couldn't make it to the door because you had to park too far away?
I'd prefer to not have this handicap at all. #I'd like to be able to walk to and from my car without haveing to worry about whether or not I'll make it.
I've had this argument with other people before, and in almost every case, the argument started with someone who had no physical handicap and couldn't see the need for such parking spaces.
Your neighbor's yard looks a lot different when you view it from his side of the fence.
ka5piu
05-12-2007, 06:15 PM
Hello.
One of the troubles with simply looking as a resume is that it only tells part of the story.
I am a hacker, that means I like to solve problems.
The trouble is that I have a hacker mentality.
Dress code? yes, sort of.
Do I get along with others in the workplace? yes, if they have a brain that functions.
One of my former employers did not like my attitude or dress and I was asked to leave.
They now call on my original contact and contract for sertvices, at $300+ an hour.
At this rate I no longer even see the middle management.
Upper management already has somebody who has a concise report on what is expected of me.
My resume says nothing about me doing cowboy one day, gothic telephone lineman the next, and who knows what the next, all with a flair.
I was accused of being "the non-homo version of the entire village people, one day at a time".
The last straw? Islam.
But, for all of my "faults", I am more productive than anyone else, by far.
$300+ an hour, and worth every penny.
Quote[/b] (w3bny @ May 12 2007,11:21)]You obviously havent travelled overseas have you. tweet-twee-tweet-tweet <pee sound> Heee-hee-hee..gomen nasai... <added pee sounds>
Heaven forbid people go to the bathroom. but then again you lilleh-whyte-Neo-conservative-ultraright-proto-protestants dont poop do you http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
Not till we find a good target. When we do it'll be on your front porch, En el fuego!
BTW, White, conservative, male, protestants are a minority in this country and we demand our own special rights.
Unisex bathrooms are just fine and dandy till the first woman gets "interrupted", or worse, then we'll see the equal rights donnybrook of all time, the gays versus the bra burners. I've got the popcorn and beer concession for that one.
n2ize
05-12-2007, 08:53 PM
Quote[/b] (n4sva @ May 12 2007,09:53)]Quote[/b] (kd7gwd @ May 12 2007,03:05)]Can't we just hire based on accomplishments ?
Seems simple , you look at the applications , and the resume's . You pick the person most qualified . And hire them .
Why can't people just do that ?
A person's chosen personal habits and lifestyle very much affects their work performance.
So you're implying a gay person performs better on the job ? Explain ?
w3bny
05-12-2007, 09:22 PM
Quote[/b] (AC0H @ May 12 2007,13:47)]Not till we find a good target. When we do it'll be on your front porch, En el fuego!
Yawn.. all you ninnernet tough guys make me feel reely frisky. <giggle> So if you just gotta come and poop on my porch, Its FM18sf and the addy is correct on my call sign mate!
kb2vxa
05-12-2007, 09:54 PM
By the looks of things a handicapped Black lesbian is the most powerful political force in America. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
N4AUD
05-12-2007, 10:18 PM
All I know is, it's hard to say "radical gay agenda" really fast 3 times in a row.
Quote[/b] (K2WH @ May 12 2007,10:26)]Quote[/b] (ka5piu @ May 12 2007,02:24)]Hello.
The only issue that is even remotely valid is one of restrooms.
I see nothing wrong with fully unisex restrooms.That is to say, first come first served, and they are all the same.
In this manner there is no issue.
But, the same issues were brought out when the push for handicapped access was starting.
I still disagree with designated handicap parking as a requirement on private property.
What hogwash. Unisex bathrooms. ROFLMAO. I'll bet you won't find any urinals in a unisex bathroom. The womens rights groups will demand men sit down just like women. Women see men standing up and on top as threatening and a superior position. It'll never happen.
K2WH
Maybe if men and women went to the same bathrooms, the janitors would have some incentive to keep it clean.
AS it is, the mens bathrooms are often a mess, and the womens are sparkling clean. They even have a couch too! (for what reason I can't imagine).
Quote[/b] (ka5piu @ May 12 2007,11:40)]I prefer not to use toilet paper but a washlet.
However, that is a religious matter.
Cortland
KA5S
It is a known fact through many salary surveys that gays make considerably more income on average than straights. Thousands of openly gay people serve in high management and executive positions in private industry, government, and non-profit organizations. There is no doubt that at times some may find discrimination with some small employers or at lower levels. Still, they cannot show economically that they are in any way disadvantaged in similarity to blacks, hispanics, and other ethnic/racial groups. I am rather outraged that companies will be forced by law to ask on job applications one's sexual preference. It is none of their damned business. The only thing that matters is whether you can perform the tasks and get along with staff and customers. I worked at Intel for a few months and the gays there were blatenly obnoxious. They really had an "us against them" mentality, wearing rainbow flag badges and similar displays in their cubicles. They often tried to find out people's religious views but us smart ones just changed the subject. Those that admitted to "traditional" beliefs got in trouble with HR. In many jobs I have worked with openly gay people and in each case tried to get along with them and treat them like anybody else. That is all anybody should expect.
The real issue of this is not employement access but forcing people to change their attitudes and beliefs at the point of a cop's gun. It is yet another example of the highly polarized US political system. The two-party system has created a situation where people of reason have no chance of getting nominated to the general election. The Republican party is controlled by the far right and the Democratic party is controlled by radical leftists. Just look at the presidential campaign. The moderate candidates of reason get no press coverage. The front runners are extremists. They might as well have Michael Moore run against Fred Phelps, that's our american political system in a nutshell. I'm so disgusted I don't think I'll even vote in national elections anymore. I'll show up but I'll just check off the local races.
Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ May 12 2007,11:40)]Quote[/b] (K2WH @ May 12 2007,10:26)]Quote[/b] (ka5piu @ May 12 2007,02:24)]Hello.
The only issue that is even remotely valid is one of restrooms.
I see nothing wrong with fully unisex restrooms.That is to say, first come first served, and they are all the same.
In this manner there is no issue.
But, the same issues were brought out when the push for handicapped access was starting.
I still disagree with designated handicap parking as a requirement on private property.
What hogwash. #Unisex bathrooms. #ROFLMAO. #I'll bet you won't find any urinals in a unisex bathroom. #The womens rights groups will demand men sit down just like women. #Women see men standing up and on top as threatening and a superior position. #It'll never happen.
K2WH
Maybe if men and women went to the same bathrooms, the janitors would have some incentive to keep it clean.
AS it is, the mens bathrooms are often a mess, and the womens are sparkling clean. #They even have a couch too! #(for what reason I can't imagine).
Good point. Why do women get a couch?
K2WH
Quote[/b] (K2WH @ May 12 2007,19:18)]Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ May 12 2007,11:40)]Quote[/b] (K2WH @ May 12 2007,10:26)]Quote[/b] (ka5piu @ May 12 2007,02:24)]Hello.
The only issue that is even remotely valid is one of restrooms.
I see nothing wrong with fully unisex restrooms.That is to say, first come first served, and they are all the same.
In this manner there is no issue.
But, the same issues were brought out when the push for handicapped access was starting.
I still disagree with designated handicap parking as a requirement on private property.
What hogwash. Unisex bathrooms. ROFLMAO. I'll bet you won't find any urinals in a unisex bathroom. The womens rights groups will demand men sit down just like women. Women see men standing up and on top as threatening and a superior position. It'll never happen.
K2WH
Maybe if men and women went to the same bathrooms, the janitors would have some incentive to keep it clean.
AS it is, the mens bathrooms are often a mess, and the womens are sparkling clean. They even have a couch too! (for what reason I can't imagine).
Good point. Why do women get a couch?
K2WH
I'm sure the excuse will be that women have to wait longer.
Live in Idaho, your tax dollars at work.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news....D=55658 (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55658)
n2ize
05-13-2007, 12:57 AM
Quote[/b] (K3XR @ May 12 2007,17:56)]Live in Idaho, your tax dollars at work.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news....D=55658 (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55658)
Another garbage article from the fascist hate mags, eh ?
ka5piu
05-13-2007, 03:29 AM
Quote[/b] (K2WH @ May 12 2007,17:18)]Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ May 12 2007,11:40)]Quote[/b] (K2WH @ May 12 2007,10:26)]Quote[/b] (ka5piu @ May 12 2007,02:24)]Hello.
The only issue that is even remotely valid is one of restrooms.
I see nothing wrong with fully unisex restrooms.That is to say, first come first served, and they are all the same.
In this manner there is no issue.
But, the same issues were brought out when the push for handicapped access was starting.
I still disagree with designated handicap parking as a requirement on private property.
What hogwash. #Unisex bathrooms. #ROFLMAO. #I'll bet you won't find any urinals in a unisex bathroom. #The womens rights groups will demand men sit down just like women. #Women see men standing up and on top as threatening and a superior position. #It'll never happen.
K2WH
Maybe if men and women went to the same bathrooms, the janitors would have some incentive to keep it clean.
AS it is, the mens bathrooms are often a mess, and the womens are sparkling clean. #They even have a couch too! #(for what reason I can't imagine).
Good point. #Why do women get a couch?
K2WH
Hello.
I have asked that question myself quite a few times.
Nobody seems to have a good answer.
But, what is it with the flowers?
However, If I went into a bathroom and there was a couch I would have second thoughts.
Guys just do not do things like that.
CapeClover
05-13-2007, 03:54 AM
Quote[/b] (NC5P @ May 12 2007,16:15)]It is a known fact through many salary surveys that gays make considerably more income on average than straights. #Thousands of openly gay people serve in high management and executive positions in private industry, government, and non-profit organizations. #There is no doubt that at times some may find discrimination with some small employers or at lower levels. #Still, they cannot show economically that they are in any way disadvantaged in similarity to blacks, hispanics, and other ethnic/racial groups. #I am rather outraged that companies will be forced by law to ask on job applications one's sexual preference. #It is none of their damned business. #The only thing that matters is whether you can perform the tasks and get along with staff and customers. #I worked at Intel for a few months and the gays there were blatenly obnoxious. #They really had an "us against them" mentality, wearing rainbow flag badges and similar displays in their cubicles. #They often tried to find out people's religious views but us smart ones just changed the subject. #Those that admitted to "traditional" beliefs got in trouble with HR. #In many jobs I have worked with openly gay people and in each case tried to get along with them and treat them like anybody else. #That is all anybody should expect.
The real issue of this is not employement access but forcing people to change their attitudes and beliefs at the point of a cop's gun. #It is yet another example of the highly polarized US political system. #The two-party system has created a situation where people of reason have no chance of getting nominated to the general election. #The Republican party is controlled by the far right and the Democratic party is controlled by radical leftists. #Just look at the presidential campaign. #The moderate candidates of reason get no press coverage. #The front runners are extremists. #They might as well have Michael Moore run against Fred Phelps, that's our american political system in a nutshell. #I'm so disgusted I don't think I'll even vote in national elections anymore. #I'll show up but I'll just check off the local races.
What you witnessed was the agenda of the fags. They are an obnoxious lot. An attempt to riddle your co-workers with guilt while painting themselves with an aura of superiority. This is why the gays are blatantly disgusting. They are trying to subvert the nation with their immoral agenda. Then they want us to accept them as if they are on a par with decent people. My advace to my conservative brethren. Keep your guard up. Don't let the LIB/DUM/FAGS/QUEERS subvery our great nation.
CapeClover
05-13-2007, 03:55 AM
Quote[/b] (K2WH @ May 12 2007,17:18)]Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ May 12 2007,11:40)]Quote[/b] (K2WH @ May 12 2007,10:26)]Quote[/b] (ka5piu @ May 12 2007,02:24)]Hello.
The only issue that is even remotely valid is one of restrooms.
I see nothing wrong with fully unisex restrooms.That is to say, first come first served, and they are all the same.
In this manner there is no issue.
But, the same issues were brought out when the push for handicapped access was starting.
I still disagree with designated handicap parking as a requirement on private property.
What hogwash. #Unisex bathrooms. #ROFLMAO. #I'll bet you won't find any urinals in a unisex bathroom. #The womens rights groups will demand men sit down just like women. #Women see men standing up and on top as threatening and a superior position. #It'll never happen.
K2WH
Maybe if men and women went to the same bathrooms, the janitors would have some incentive to keep it clean.
AS it is, the mens bathrooms are often a mess, and the womens are sparkling clean. #They even have a couch too! #(for what reason I can't imagine).
Good point. #Why do women get a couch?
K2WH
That's the feminazi's at work. These women are another bunch that we have to be careful of. Keep em tied down in the kitchen and keep em quiet. Otherwise they'll subvery every last bastion of freedom that was reserved for the white American male who founded America. Keep em in their place. Men fight. Women keep house.
Is it time to investigate the Big Hate Crimes industry??
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn....pf.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/11/AR2007051102133_pf.html)
CapeClover
05-13-2007, 04:05 AM
Quote[/b] (K3XR @ May 12 2007,21:02)]Is it time to investigate the Big Hate Crimes industry??
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn....pf.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/11/AR2007051102133_pf.html)
The hate crimes nonsense is more hippocracy from the LIB/DUMS.
ka5piu
05-13-2007, 04:28 AM
<span style='color:orange'>Hello.</span>
<span style='color:red'>I have nothing against the rainbow coalition.</span>
<span style='color:blue'>What I do have issues with is the attitude.</span>
<span style='color:orange'>If a gay wants to do his or her thing, that is fine</span>just do not push this on everybody else.
n6hcm
05-13-2007, 04:44 AM
Quote[/b] (n2ize @ May 12 2007,09:54)]It would be really nice to read the REAL context of the bill. Not the worldnetdaily version of the bill.
read it here (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.2015:)
as usual, the worldnetdaily clowns don't get it right--the bill doesn't require anyone to hire anyone ... it prohibits undue discrimination on specific grounds. employers which hire folks on the basis of their relevant individual achievements and qualifications won't have a problem.
n6hcm
05-13-2007, 04:59 AM
Quote[/b] (ka5piu @ May 12 2007,21:28)]just do not push this on everybody else.
who's pushing? nobody's asking you to engage in homosexual behavior.
KC4RAN
05-13-2007, 05:40 AM
Quote[/b] (n6hcm @ May 12 2007,21:44)]Quote[/b] (n2ize @ May 12 2007,09:54)]It would be really nice to read the REAL context of the bill. Not the worldnetdaily version of the bill.
read it here (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.2015:)
as usual, the worldnetdaily clowns don't get it right--the bill doesn't require anyone to hire anyone ... it prohibits undue discrimination on specific grounds. #employers which hire folks on the basis of their relevant individual achievements and qualifications won't have a problem.
And let's say you run a Christian bible-oriented store and someone comes in whom you suspect to be homosexual. Today, the employer can probably choose not to hire that person, regardless of the most stellar resume.
Once this bill passes? Oh yes, they will be 'required' to hire someone.
This bill is a bad idea. Sexual preference / orientation is not an 'immutable' characteristic like the existing discrimination prohibitions. You can't change your race.
ab8ro
05-13-2007, 06:31 AM
Quote[/b] (KC4RAN @ May 11 2007,23:40)]Quote[/b] (n6hcm @ May 12 2007,21:44)]Quote[/b] (n2ize @ May 12 2007,09:54)]It would be really nice to read the REAL context of the bill. Not the worldnetdaily version of the bill.
read it here (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.2015:)
as usual, the worldnetdaily clowns don't get it right--the bill doesn't require anyone to hire anyone ... it prohibits undue discrimination on specific grounds. #employers which hire folks on the basis of their relevant individual achievements and qualifications won't have a problem.
And let's say you run a Christian bible-oriented store and someone comes in whom you suspect to be homosexual. Today, the employer can probably choose not to hire that person, regardless of the most stellar resume.
Once this bill passes? Oh yes, they will be 'required' to hire someone.
This bill is a bad idea. Sexual preference / orientation is not an 'immutable' characteristic like the existing discrimination prohibitions. You can't change your race.
Because gays really want to work in christian bible bookstores.
KC4RAN
05-13-2007, 07:00 AM
Quote[/b] (ab8ro @ May 12 2007,23:31)]Quote[/b] (KC4RAN @ May 11 2007,23:40)]Quote[/b] (n6hcm @ May 12 2007,21:44)]Quote[/b] (n2ize @ May 12 2007,09:54)]It would be really nice to read the REAL context of the bill. Not the worldnetdaily version of the bill.
read it here (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.2015:)
as usual, the worldnetdaily clowns don't get it right--the bill doesn't require anyone to hire anyone ... it prohibits undue discrimination on specific grounds. #employers which hire folks on the basis of their relevant individual achievements and qualifications won't have a problem.
And let's say you run a Christian bible-oriented store and someone comes in whom you suspect to be homosexual. Today, the employer can probably choose not to hire that person, regardless of the most stellar resume.
Once this bill passes? Oh yes, they will be 'required' to hire someone.
This bill is a bad idea. Sexual preference / orientation is not an 'immutable' characteristic like the existing discrimination prohibitions. You can't change your race.
Because gays really want to work in christian bible bookstores.
And guys really want to work as table wait staff at Hooters. What does it matter? If you set it up as a protected category, someone will make a case of it.
Absolute first thing that will happen? Prices will go up everywhere, from the additional liability insurance that will be necessary and the additional legal costs due to frivilous lawsuits claiming illegal discrimination.
We'll all get to pay for it. But hey, you guys go right ahead and help them....
If this goes through, then I say the next thing is a 'viewpoint' or 'beliefs' anti-discrimination. Protect your racist views! No one should deny you a job just because you're a racist! So what that 90% of the clients of that business are the race you don't like, you deserve that job!
'Physical condition' anti-discrimination! Now women with weight issues can get jobs in the same uniforms at Hooters too!
'Personal hygene' anti-discrimination! No need to take showers every day. Now those illegal French immigrants in the US can really get a job!
'Personality challenged' anti-discrimination! Just because you're rude and snippy with people, you can't help it! You deserve that job as the host/hostess at the nice restaurant just as much as the polite guy! Even more! And you'll prove it!!
'Foreign language' anti-discrimination! Can't speak to the customers in the language they understand? No problem!! After all, it should be the job of the business to bend to your needs, right? Just because you'll drive half the customer base away since they can't understand a word you're saying, it'll be OK. You have the law on your side.
'White male minority' anti-discrimination? No... sorry, that would be racist and sexist.
Quote[/b] (K3XR @ May 12 2007,08:37)]One thing you can count on, when the DEMS took over Congress, is the radical gay agenda being pushed down our throats. Looks like Barney (my boy lollipop) Frank, DEM, Ma. is at it again.
Text of HR 2015 (http://www.aclu.org/images/asset_upload_file270_29549.pdf)
The Bill doesn't appear to require accepting illegal conduct; it looks to me as if objections have mainly to do with the Bill making the boss put up with workers whose opinions on sex he disagrees with.
Cortland
KA5S
KC4RAN
05-13-2007, 08:18 AM
Quote[/b] (ka5s @ May 13 2007,00:58)]Quote[/b] (K3XR @ May 12 2007,08:37)]One thing you can count on, when the DEMS took over Congress, is the radical gay agenda being pushed down our throats. #Looks like Barney (my boy lollipop) Frank, DEM, Ma. is at it again.
Text of HR 2015 (http://www.aclu.org/images/asset_upload_file270_29549.pdf)
The Bill doesn't appear to require accepting illegal conduct; it looks to me as if objections have mainly to do with the Bill making the boss put up with workers whose opinions on sex he disagrees with.
Cortland
KA5S
Who said anything about illegal conduct?
Quote[/b] (CapeClover @ May 12 2007,19:55)]Quote[/b] (K2WH @ May 12 2007,17:18)]Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ May 12 2007,11:40)]Quote[/b] (K2WH @ May 12 2007,10:26)]Quote[/b] (ka5piu @ May 12 2007,02:24)]Hello.
The only issue that is even remotely valid is one of restrooms.
I see nothing wrong with fully unisex restrooms.That is to say, first come first served, and they are all the same.
In this manner there is no issue.
But, the same issues were brought out when the push for handicapped access was starting.
I still disagree with designated handicap parking as a requirement on private property.
What hogwash. #Unisex bathrooms. #ROFLMAO. #I'll bet you won't find any urinals in a unisex bathroom. #The womens rights groups will demand men sit down just like women. #Women see men standing up and on top as threatening and a superior position. #It'll never happen.
K2WH
Maybe if men and women went to the same bathrooms, the janitors would have some incentive to keep it clean.
AS it is, the mens bathrooms are often a mess, and the womens are sparkling clean. #They even have a couch too! #(for what reason I can't imagine).
Good point. #Why do women get a couch?
K2WH
That's the feminazi's at work. These women are another bunch that we have to be careful of. Keep em tied down in the kitchen and keep em quiet. Otherwise they'll subvery every last bastion of freedom that was reserved for the white American male who founded America. Keep em in their place. Men fight. Women keep house.
What's your call station?
You're pretty brave hiding being a nom de plume.
Loser.
N5NPO
05-13-2007, 09:44 AM
I as a private citizen (entity) in control of a private company (entity) SHOULD be able to exercise the right to discriminate against or for, hiring anyone I want. If I want to hire ONLY gay male one eyed peg legged pittsburg pirate fans, that should be my right to hire them and them only. If I want to hire only people who are black with a jamaca sounding accent, that should also be my constitutional right.
The government is a public entity and should not be allowed to discriminate.
People in America discriminate all the time.
Example: When I need to buy ketchup, I discriminate against small bottles of higher priced name brand ketchup and buy the largest bottle I can find of most any brand. If we apply anti-discrimination laws to ketchup buying, you would go to a supermarket and if you wanted to buy ketchup you would have to buy the first container regardless of size, price, brand or shape of package that you came to.
The governement should not be able to force a private entity to discriminate or not discriminate based on any reason, be it moral, ethical or otherwise. It is the individual entity's right to decide for itself based on any and or all reasons to hire anyone based on whatever reason they deem fit.
n2ize
05-13-2007, 10:07 AM
Quote[/b] (N5NPO @ May 13 2007,02:44)]If I want to hire ONLY gay male one eyed peg legged pittsburg pirate fans, that should be my right to hire them and them only. If I want to hire only people who are black with a jamaca sounding accent, that should also be my constitutional right.
The government is a public entity and should not be allowed to discriminate.
People in America discriminate all the time.
Example: When I need to buy ketchup, I discriminate against small bottles of higher priced name brand ketchup and buy the largest bottle I can find of most any brand. If we apply anti-discrimination laws to ketchup buying, you would go to a supermarket and if you wanted to buy ketchup you would have to buy the first container regardless of size, price, brand or shape of package that you came to.
The governement should not be able to force a private entity to discriminate or not discriminate based on any reason, be it moral, ethical or otherwise. It is the individual entity's right to decide for itself based on any and or all reasons to hire anyone based on whatever reason they deem fit.
Quote[/b] ]
I as a private citizen (entity) in control of a private company (entity) SHOULD be able to exercise the right to discriminate against or for, hiring anyone I want.
No you SHOULD NOT. If you want to discriminate then run your business yourself and do all the work yourself. Once you start hiring people who will work for you and pay taxes out of the salary you pay them you are interacting and making use of public resources. At that point you have to abide by certain laws.
Case and point. If I want to race an unregistered motorcycle around on my property with no drivers license or insurance that is my business provided I remain on MY property. But once I put that motorcycle on a public street that all changes. Suddenly what I personally want to do is not the sole deciding factor. Now I want to use public resources to operate my motorcycle in a manner that now involves others. Now I have to abide by certain rules. Now I need a license, insurance and a registration.
If you want to have it your way all the way then don't involve the public or public resources.
N4AUD
05-13-2007, 10:09 AM
Quote[/b] (NC5P @ May 12 2007,19:15)]It is a known fact through many salary surveys that gays make considerably more income on average than straights. Thousands of openly gay people serve in high management and executive positions in private industry, government, and non-profit organizations. There is no doubt that at times some may find discrimination with some small employers or at lower levels. Still, they cannot show economically that they are in any way disadvantaged in similarity to blacks, hispanics, and other ethnic/racial groups. I am rather outraged that companies will be forced by law to ask on job applications one's sexual preference. It is none of their damned business. The only thing that matters is whether you can perform the tasks and get along with staff and customers. I worked at Intel for a few months and the gays there were blatenly obnoxious. They really had an "us against them" mentality, wearing rainbow flag badges and similar displays in their cubicles. They often tried to find out people's religious views but us smart ones just changed the subject. Those that admitted to "traditional" beliefs got in trouble with HR. In many jobs I have worked with openly gay people and in each case tried to get along with them and treat them like anybody else. That is all anybody should expect.
The real issue of this is not employement access but forcing people to change their attitudes and beliefs at the point of a cop's gun. It is yet another example of the highly polarized US political system. The two-party system has created a situation where people of reason have no chance of getting nominated to the general election. The Republican party is controlled by the far right and the Democratic party is controlled by radical leftists. Just look at the presidential campaign. The moderate candidates of reason get no press coverage. The front runners are extremists. They might as well have Michael Moore run against Fred Phelps, that's our american political system in a nutshell. I'm so disgusted I don't think I'll even vote in national elections anymore. I'll show up but I'll just check off the local races.
That's the best post I've read in this thread.
n2ize
05-13-2007, 10:13 AM
Quote[/b] (n6hcm @ May 12 2007,21:44)]Quote[/b] (n2ize @ May 12 2007,09:54)]It would be really nice to read the REAL context of the bill. Not the worldnetdaily version of the bill.
read it here (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.2015:)
as usual, the worldnetdaily clowns don't get it right--the bill doesn't require anyone to hire anyone ... it prohibits undue discrimination on specific grounds. #employers which hire folks on the basis of their relevant individual achievements and qualifications won't have a problem.
Thanks, it's nice to read the actual document and see the provisions in their proper context as opposed to the twisted and distorted worldnetdaily version. All too often I have noticed that there is a great discrepancy between the worldnetdaily, newsbusters, or townhall version of a document or article vs the actual document.
Makes a lot more sense to check out the real deal
Quote[/b] (n2ize @ May 13 2007,05:07)]Quote[/b] (N5NPO @ May 13 2007,02:44)]If I want to hire ONLY gay male one eyed peg legged pittsburg pirate fans, that should be my right to hire them and them only. If I want to hire only people who are black with a jamaca sounding accent, that should also be my constitutional right.
The government is a public entity and should not be allowed to discriminate.
People in America discriminate all the time.
Example: When I need to buy ketchup, I discriminate against small bottles of higher priced name brand ketchup and buy the largest bottle I can find of most any brand. If we apply anti-discrimination laws to ketchup buying, you would go to a supermarket and if you wanted to buy ketchup you would have to buy the first container regardless of size, price, brand or shape of package that you came to.
The governement should not be able to force a private entity to discriminate or not discriminate based on any reason, be it moral, ethical or otherwise. It is the individual entity's right to decide for itself based on any and or all reasons to hire anyone based on whatever reason they deem fit.
Quote[/b] ]
I as a private citizen (entity) in control of a private company (entity) SHOULD be able to exercise the right to discriminate against or for, hiring anyone I want.
No you SHOULD NOT. If you want to discriminate then run your business yourself and do all the work yourself. Once you start hiring people who will work for you and pay taxes out of the salary you pay them you are interacting and making use of public resources. At that point you have to abide by certain laws.
Case and point. If I want to race an unregistered motorcycle around on my property with no drivers license or insurance that is my business provided I remain on MY property. But once I put that motorcycle on a public street that all changes. Suddenly what I personally want to do is not the sole deciding factor. Now I want to use public resources to operate my motorcycle in a manner that now involves others. Now I have to abide by certain rules. Now I need a license, insurance and a registration.
If you want to have it your way all the way then don't involve the public or public resources.
What "public" resources? Name one.
Because the employees are required to pay income tax the employer is required to hire people whose behavior he disagrees with? Care to share some of what you've been smoking?
The libby's in the bunch don't seem to have a problem with the government and companies banning smoking at work and at home, a risky behavior, because increased health care costs affect us all. Why can't the same be said of homosexual behavior which is risky behavior, HIV/AIDS, etc...?
kg4kww
05-13-2007, 04:34 PM
This world sadly is going to the Q's.
KF0RT
05-13-2007, 04:59 PM
Quote[/b] (kg4kww @ May 13 2007,10:34)]This world sadly is going to the Q's.
How WAS the sermon at Westboro this morning, Greg?
73, Rob
Quote[/b] (ka5piu @ May 12 2007,14:24)]Hello.
The only issue that is even remotely valid is one of restrooms.
I see nothing wrong with fully unisex restrooms.That is to say, first come first served, and they are all the same.
In this manner there is no issue.
But, the same issues were brought out when the push for handicapped access was starting.
I still disagree with designated handicap parking as a requirement on private property.
If you were handicapped, you might think Differently !!
I only have 30% of Lung capacity. It is IMPOSSIBLE for me to walk very far. The handicap parking spots are a GOD send for people with handicaps. I wish I didn't have this handicap, but it's heriditary and I had no choice in the matter. I try to make the best of it nonetheless.
Gordon
N6WK
k6bbc
05-13-2007, 05:10 PM
Quote[/b] (kg4kww @ May 13 2007,09:34)]This world sadly is going to the Q's.
Stop spewing your hate - it's Mother's Day.
Quote[/b] (CapeClover @ May 13 2007,04:54)]Quote[/b] (NC5P @ May 12 2007,16:15)]It is a known fact through many salary surveys that gays make considerably more income on average than straights. Thousands of openly gay people serve in high management and executive positions in private industry, government, and non-profit organizations. There is no doubt that at times some may find discrimination with some small employers or at lower levels. Still, they cannot show economically that they are in any way disadvantaged in similarity to blacks, hispanics, and other ethnic/racial groups. I am rather outraged that companies will be forced by law to ask on job applications one's sexual preference. It is none of their damned business. The only thing that matters is whether you can perform the tasks and get along with staff and customers. I worked at Intel for a few months and the gays there were blatenly obnoxious. They really had an "us against them" mentality, wearing rainbow flag badges and similar displays in their cubicles. They often tried to find out people's religious views but us smart ones just changed the subject. Those that admitted to "traditional" beliefs got in trouble with HR. In many jobs I have worked with openly gay people and in each case tried to get along with them and treat them like anybody else. That is all anybody should expect.
The real issue of this is not employement access but forcing people to change their attitudes and beliefs at the point of a cop's gun. It is yet another example of the highly polarized US political system. The two-party system has created a situation where people of reason have no chance of getting nominated to the general election. The Republican party is controlled by the far right and the Democratic party is controlled by radical leftists. Just look at the presidential campaign. The moderate candidates of reason get no press coverage. The front runners are extremists. They might as well have Michael Moore run against Fred Phelps, that's our american political system in a nutshell. I'm so disgusted I don't think I'll even vote in national elections anymore. I'll show up but I'll just check off the local races.
What you witnessed was the agenda of the fags. They are an obnoxious lot. An attempt to riddle your co-workers with guilt while painting themselves with an aura of superiority. This is why the gays are blatantly disgusting. They are trying to subvert the nation with their immoral agenda. Then they want us to accept them as if they are on a par with decent people. My advace to my conservative brethren. Keep your guard up. Don't let the LIB/DUM/FAGS/QUEERS subvery our great nation.
Wow,
What a Horrible display of HATE speech.
You must be proud of yourself!
Do you have a call sign Mr. Insecure?
Gordon
N6WK
Quote[/b] (N6WK @ May 13 2007,13:17)]Quote[/b] (CapeClover @ May 13 2007,04:54)]Quote[/b] (NC5P @ May 12 2007,16:15)]It is a known fact through many salary surveys that gays make considerably more income on average than straights. Thousands of openly gay people serve in high management and executive positions in private industry, government, and non-profit organizations. There is no doubt that at times some may find discrimination with some small employers or at lower levels. Still, they cannot show economically that they are in any way disadvantaged in similarity to blacks, hispanics, and other ethnic/racial groups. I am rather outraged that companies will be forced by law to ask on job applications one's sexual preference. It is none of their damned business. The only thing that matters is whether you can perform the tasks and get along with staff and customers. I worked at Intel for a few months and the gays there were blatenly obnoxious. They really had an "us against them" mentality, wearing rainbow flag badges and similar displays in their cubicles. They often tried to find out people's religious views but us smart ones just changed the subject. Those that admitted to "traditional" beliefs got in trouble with HR. In many jobs I have worked with openly gay people and in each case tried to get along with them and treat them like anybody else. That is all anybody should expect.
The real issue of this is not employement access but forcing people to change their attitudes and beliefs at the point of a cop's gun. It is yet another example of the highly polarized US political system. The two-party system has created a situation where people of reason have no chance of getting nominated to the general election. The Republican party is controlled by the far right and the Democratic party is controlled by radical leftists. Just look at the presidential campaign. The moderate candidates of reason get no press coverage. The front runners are extremists. They might as well have Michael Moore run against Fred Phelps, that's our american political system in a nutshell. I'm so disgusted I don't think I'll even vote in national elections anymore. I'll show up but I'll just check off the local races.
What you witnessed was the agenda of the fags. They are an obnoxious lot. An attempt to riddle your co-workers with guilt while painting themselves with an aura of superiority. This is why the gays are blatantly disgusting. They are trying to subvert the nation with their immoral agenda. Then they want us to accept them as if they are on a par with decent people. My advace to my conservative brethren. Keep your guard up. Don't let the LIB/DUM/FAGS/QUEERS subvery our great nation.
Wow,
What a Horrible display of HATE speech.
You must be proud of yourself!
Do you have a call sign Mr. Insecure?
Gordon
N6WK
No, he's the token CB'er here. Hides behind his handle spouts the same stuff that got him banned in the first place. Amazing that this display of an*l retention hasn't been banned again, but 59 posts don't lie.
W1OU was never this bad on his worst day, but some people here have very thin skins and they get listened to.
Quote[/b] (n2nh @ May 13 2007,18:20)]No, he's the token CB'er here. Hides behind his handle spouts the same stuff that got him banned in the first place. Amazing that this display of an*l retention hasn't been banned again, but 59 posts don't lie.
W1OU was never this bad on his worst day, but some people here have very thin skins and they get listened to.
I'm willing to bet he isn't going to be around long with That sort of disgusting display of ignorance and hate.
Gordon
N6WK
Quote[/b] (KC4RAN @ May 13 2007,01:40)]And let's say you run a Christian bible-oriented store and someone comes in whom you suspect to be homosexual. Today, the employer can probably choose not to hire that person, regardless of the most stellar resume.
OMG! A DEMOCRAT!
Federal law forbids (http://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/employment-employer/employment-employer-discrimination/employment-employer-discrimination-overview-basics.html)certain forms of employment discrimination. And mere "suspicion" gets one onto thin ice rather quickly. What proof is there?
Cortland
KA5S
KD5SHW
05-13-2007, 06:03 PM
Quote[/b] (N6WK @ May 13 2007,12:17)]Quote[/b] (CapeClover @ May 13 2007,04:54)]
What you witnessed was the agenda of the fags. They are an obnoxious lot. An attempt to riddle your co-workers with guilt while painting themselves with an aura of superiority. This is why the gays are blatantly disgusting. They are trying to subvert the nation with their immoral agenda. Then they want us to accept them as if they are on a par with decent people. My advace to my conservative brethren. Keep your guard up. Don't let the LIB/DUM/FAGS/QUEERS subvery our great nation.
Wow,
What a Horrible display of HATE speech.
You must be proud of yourself!
Do you have a call sign Mr. Insecure?
Gordon
N6WK
You just got trolled. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
ka5piu
05-13-2007, 06:23 PM
Quote[/b] (ka5s @ May 13 2007,11:01)]Quote[/b] (KC4RAN @ May 13 2007,01:40)]And let's say you run a Christian bible-oriented store and someone comes in whom you suspect to be homosexual. Today, the employer can probably choose not to hire that person, regardless of the most stellar resume.
OMG! A DEMOCRAT!
Federal law forbids (http://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/employment-employer/employment-employer-discrimination/employment-employer-discrimination-overview-basics.html)certain forms of employment discrimination. #And mere "suspicion" gets one onto thin ice rather quickly. #What proof is there? #
Cortland
KA5S
Hello.
The trouble is that the employer does not need to spell out why he hired one and not the other.
In fact, credit scores were all but a secret right up to just a few years ago.
Small employers are the worst when it somes to business to business communications, things that have nothing whatsoever to do with your work gets into conversations.
Now that I work out of a law office doing consulting that has stopped, but not before I got some really juicy calls recorded.
Even the PI's stay away when they find out where I work.
Has this been bad for business? not hardly! business is booming.
It is the fear that one may run afoul of the <span style='color:red'>CURRENT</span> laws that has put this on a purely business relations.
I am not saying that we do not need new laws.
What I am saying is lets try enforcement of the laws we hav now.
KC4RAN
05-13-2007, 06:34 PM
Quote[/b] (ka5s @ May 13 2007,11:01)]Quote[/b] (KC4RAN @ May 13 2007,01:40)]And let's say you run a Christian bible-oriented store and someone comes in whom you suspect to be homosexual. Today, the employer can probably choose not to hire that person, regardless of the most stellar resume.
OMG! A DEMOCRAT!
Federal law forbids (http://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/employment-employer/employment-employer-discrimination/employment-employer-discrimination-overview-basics.html)certain forms of employment discrimination. #And mere "suspicion" gets one onto thin ice rather quickly. #What proof is there? #
Cortland
KA5S
You need to read your own link.
Quote[/b] ]
Race, National Origin, Gender, and Religion
The best known of employment anti-discrimination laws, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, prohibits an employer with fifteen or more employees from discriminating on the basis of race, national origin, gender, or religion. Under Title VII, it is illegal for an employer to take any of the following actions against an employee based upon his or her race, national origin, gender, or religion:
Refuse to hire;
Discipline;
Fire;
Deny training;
Fail to promote;
Pay less or demote; or
Harass.
In addition, it is illegal for an employer to adopt a policy or practice that has a "disparate impact" on a protected class, such as by adopting hiring criteria that tend to screen out women or minority group members, or by instituting a required test for promotion on which a particular class tends to score badly. Such a policy or test, like a specific policy that only men or women can have certain jobs, is legal only if it can be deemed a "bona fide occupational qualification." An example is a strength test that tends to screen out women, but is a necessary test for fire fighters who must be able to carry victims down tall ladders.
And there is no 'test' for suspicion in this circumstance. There doesn't have to be, as it would not fall under the above-quoted protected categories. Knowledge of the bible might be a job requirement, and I would have to guess that it would be against company policy to make disparaging remarks about Christianity.
See that's what certain people don't get. "Discrimination" is not illegal... "certain types of discrimination" are. People make hiring decisions based on all kinds of things... attitude, looks, body shape, all different things that *some* people think is unfair.
Well, unfair or not, it is currently that business owner's right to hire based on whatever criteria he/she wants to, except those which are prohibited by law.
n2ize
05-13-2007, 06:55 PM
Quote[/b] (KC4RAN @ May 13 2007,11:34)]Quote[/b] (ka5s @ May 13 2007,11:01)]Quote[/b] (KC4RAN @ May 13 2007,01:40)]And let's say you run a Christian bible-oriented store and someone comes in whom you suspect to be homosexual. Today, the employer can probably choose not to hire that person, regardless of the most stellar resume.
OMG! A DEMOCRAT!
Federal law forbids (http://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/employment-employer/employment-employer-discrimination/employment-employer-discrimination-overview-basics.html)certain forms of employment discrimination. #And mere "suspicion" gets one onto thin ice rather quickly. #What proof is there? #
Cortland
KA5S
You need to read your own link.
Quote[/b] ]
Race, National Origin, Gender, and Religion
The best known of employment anti-discrimination laws, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, prohibits an employer with fifteen or more employees from discriminating on the basis of race, national origin, gender, or religion. Under Title VII, it is illegal for an employer to take any of the following actions against an employee based upon his or her race, national origin, gender, or religion:
Refuse to hire;
Discipline;
Fire;
Deny training;
Fail to promote;
Pay less or demote; or
Harass.
In addition, it is illegal for an employer to adopt a policy or practice that has a "disparate impact" on a protected class, such as by adopting hiring criteria that tend to screen out women or minority group members, or by instituting a required test for promotion on which a particular class tends to score badly. Such a policy or test, like a specific policy that only men or women can have certain jobs, is legal only if it can be deemed a "bona fide occupational qualification." An example is a strength test that tends to screen out women, but is a necessary test for fire fighters who must be able to carry victims down tall ladders.
And there is no 'test' for suspicion in this circumstance. There doesn't have to be, as it would not fall under the above-quoted protected categories. Knowledge of the bible might be a job requirement, and I would have to guess that it would be against company policy to make disparaging remarks about Christianity.
See that's what certain people don't get. "Discrimination" is not illegal... "certain types of discrimination" are. People make hiring decisions based on all kinds of things... attitude, looks, body shape, all different things that *some* people think is unfair.
Well, unfair or not, it is currently that business owner's right to hire based on whatever criteria he/she wants to, except those which are prohibited by law.
And sexual orientation is one additional area that people want #protected from discrimination. What difference does it make to an employer if a guy digs guys or digs dames ?Or what difference if a dame digs other dames or if she digs guys ? Therefore sexual orientation is something that should be protected from discrimination.
ka5piu
05-13-2007, 07:05 PM
Quote[/b] (N6WK @ May 13 2007,10:05)]Quote[/b] (ka5piu @ May 12 2007,14:24)]Hello.
The only issue that is even remotely valid is one of restrooms.
I see nothing wrong with fully unisex restrooms.That is to say, first come first served, and they are all the same.
In this manner there is no issue.
But, the same issues were brought out when the push for handicapped access was starting.
I still disagree with designated handicap parking as a requirement on private property.
If you were handicapped, you might think Differently !!
I only have 30% of Lung capacity. It is IMPOSSIBLE #for me to walk very far. The handicap parking spots are a GOD send for people with handicaps. #I wish I didn't have this handicap, but it's heriditary and I had no choice in the matter. I try to make the best of it nonetheless.
Gordon
N6WK
Hello.
In Texas we have a state law that says that if a gas station has BOTH self and full serve pumps the handicapped get full serve for self serve prices.
As there were fewer than 20% of all gas stations remaining that were like this, and almost all were independent, the costs were just too much.
Now, there is the boutique station, everything is full service, and the rest of the pack.
Handicapped parking at the mall?
North Star mall built a parking garage that complies with all of the legal requirements of the ADA, but is very handicapped unfriendly.
This was no accident, the handicapped are not normally good consumers and having wheelchairs and scooters milling about is not the "in" thing.
There is nothing sexy about it, and sex sells.
The top 5 restaurants in both Houston and San Antonio are very handicapped unfriendly, a little hole in the wall here or there that has been there for ages with complex walkways and rustic doors that is fully a part of the charm.
To force a change would be like demanding a wheelchair path to Mt Everest.
So, yes, new construction, where one has a clean slate, by all means, build it with handicapped access in mind, wal-marts come to mind, but not everything can, or even should, be totally handicapped accessible.
Some things are better left alone.
KC4RAN
05-13-2007, 07:06 PM
Quote[/b] (n2ize @ May 13 2007,11:55)]And sexual orientation is one additional area that people want #protected from discrimination. What difference does it make to an employer if a guy digs guys or digs dames ?Or what difference if a dame digs other dames or if she digs guys ? Therefore sexual orientation is something that should be protected from discrimination.
Sexual orientation is not 'immutable'. So far, that has been one of the driving decision points for federal discrimination law.
Linky (http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/fs-race.html)
Quote[/b] ]
Discrimination on the basis of an immutable characteristic associated with race, such as skin color, hair texture, or certain facial features violates Title VII, even though not all members of the race share the same characteristic.
OK IZE, let's assume this goes through. Do you think we need protection for other issues? Like weight? Attractiveness? Intelligence? Ability/inability to communicate effectively?
Come on, we have to be compassionate about all this, we have to make it fair, right?
n2ize
05-13-2007, 07:34 PM
Quote[/b] (KC4RAN @ May 13 2007,12:06)]Quote[/b] (n2ize @ May 13 2007,11:55)]And sexual orientation is one additional area that people want #protected from discrimination. What difference does it make to an employer if a guy digs guys or digs dames ?Or what difference if a dame digs other dames or if she digs guys ? Therefore sexual orientation is something that should be protected from discrimination.
Sexual orientation is not 'immutable'. So far, that has been one of the driving decision points for federal discrimination law.
Linky (http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/fs-race.html)
Quote[/b] ]
Discrimination on the basis of an immutable characteristic associated with race, such as skin color, hair texture, or certain facial features violates Title VII, even though not all members of the race share the same characteristic.
Come on, we have to be compassionate about all this, we have to make it fair, right?
Okay, you are saying that sexual orientation is "not immutable". To my knowlege "immutable" means "not subject to change or variation". Since you are negating "immutable" then are you arguing that sexual orientation is changeable (mutable) ? In other words a person who is gay becomes straight, a person who is straight becomes gay... the orientation is mutable and can therefore be managed by the individual.
If that is your argument I don't buy it. While sexual orientation does;;t manifest itself in the physical sense, like having dark skin, being short, etc. it manifests itself in a behavioral sense that is not not immutable or, not mutable.
Try this experiment. For one month change your sexual orientation to gay. Go ahead, try it. I don;t mean simply going through the motions I mean truly mutate yourself into being gay where you honestly and without forcing yourself, dig guys over gals. Then, after a week or month mutate your orientation back to being straight where you honestly and with no effort dig girls. That will give you an idea of the mutability or immutability of sexual orientation. Notice I am not talking about simply changing your behavior. I am talking about truly making yourself gay to the point where your inner self, your inner drive tells you that guys are intimately more desireable than girls. Somehow I don't think you can do it. I know I sure as heck can't do it.
Since a person does not (in my opinion, the opinion of many researchers and others) have the ability to control their sexual orientation then why should they be discriminated against for simply following the allure of what is perfectly natural to them.
Quote[/b] ]
OK IZE, let's assume this goes through. Do you think we need protection for other issues? Like weight? Attractiveness? Intelligence? Ability/inability to communicate effectively?
If a person can do the job they were hired to do then they should be protected from any form of outright discrimination. If a person is overweight and the job requires a great deal of climbing then in such a case an overwieght person may not be suited for the job. But otherweise a person should not be discriminated against simply because they are fat. If I decide to turn down male applicants for a job and only hire attractive females because I like being around good looking dames all day then that would be discriminatory. I am turning down otherwise qualified people in order to suit my own personal desires.
Unfortunaltely many of these discriminations do exist. And it is often hard to prove there was discrimination in all except the most blatant or obvious situations. Nonethless when these discriminatory practices manifest themselves as obvious then the law should take it's course.
Quote[/b] (ka5piu @ May 13 2007,20:05)]Quote[/b] (N6WK @ May 13 2007,10:05)]Quote[/b] (ka5piu @ May 12 2007,14:24)]Hello.
The only issue that is even remotely valid is one of restrooms.
I see nothing wrong with fully unisex restrooms.That is to say, first come first served, and they are all the same.
In this manner there is no issue.
But, the same issues were brought out when the push for handicapped access was starting.
I still disagree with designated handicap parking as a requirement on private property.
If you were handicapped, you might think Differently !!
I only have 30% of Lung capacity. It is IMPOSSIBLE for me to walk very far. The handicap parking spots are a GOD send for people with handicaps. I wish I didn't have this handicap, but it's heriditary and I had no choice in the matter. I try to make the best of it nonetheless.
Gordon
N6WK
Hello.
In Texas we have a state law that says that if a gas station has BOTH self and full serve pumps the handicapped get full serve for self serve prices.
As there were fewer than 20% of all gas stations remaining that were like this, and almost all were independent, the costs were just too much.
Now, there is the boutique station, everything is full service, and the rest of the pack.
Handicapped parking at the mall?
North Star mall built a parking garage that complies with all of the legal requirements of the ADA, but is very handicapped unfriendly.
This was no accident, the handicapped are not normally good consumers and having wheelchairs and scooters milling about is not the "in" thing.
There is nothing sexy about it, and sex sells.
The top 5 restaurants in both Houston and San Antonio are very handicapped unfriendly, a little hole in the wall here or there that has been there for ages with complex walkways and rustic doors that is fully a part of the charm.
To force a change would be like demanding a wheelchair path to Mt Everest.
So, yes, new construction, where one has a clean slate, by all means, build it with handicapped access in mind, wal-marts come to mind, but not everything can, or even should, be totally handicapped accessible.
Some things are better left alone.
If you ever become Handicapped, You will think differently.
I personally support the Laws that Mandate the Handicap parking, which is what I commented on from your first post.
Even a "Hole in the wall" has to have a parking lot, so Why shouldn't they be required to have some Handicap parking spots??
The handicapped are people just like you, so They deserve every right that you have. Please, tell me why you deserve a non- handicap parking spot right up front at your favorite store?
Gordon
N6WK
KC4RAN
05-13-2007, 08:04 PM
Quote[/b] (n2ize @ May 13 2007,12:34)]
Quote[/b] ]
Okay, you are saying that sexual orientation is "not immutable". To my knowlege "immutable" means "not subject to change or variation". Since you are negating "immutable" then are you arguing that sexual orientation is changeable (mutable) ? In other words a person who is gay becomes straight, a person who is straight becomes gay... the orientation is mutable and can therefore be managed by the individual.
If that is your argument I don't buy it. While sexual orientation does;;t manifest itself in the physical sense, like having dark skin, being short, etc. it manifests itself in a behavioral sense that is not not immutable or, not mutable.
Try this experiment. For one month change your sexual orientation to gay. Go ahead, try it. I don;t mean simply going through the motions I mean truly mutate yourself into being gay where you honestly and without forcing yourself, dig guys over gals. Then, after a week or month mutate your orientation back to being straight where you honestly and with no effort dig girls. That will give you an idea of the mutability or immutability of sexual orientation. Notice I am not talking about simply changing your behavior. I am talking about truly making yourself gay to the point where your inner self, your inner drive tells you that guys are intimately more desireable than girls. Somehow I don't think you can do it. I know I sure as heck can't do it.
Since a person does not (in my opinion, the opinion of many researchers and others) have the ability to control their sexual orientation then why should they be discriminated against for simply following the allure of what is perfectly natural to them.
Then this goes back to a question I posed to you in threads past, that you ignored. If sexual orientation is not subject to change, then I guess we have a bunch of lying people in this country, lying about their sexual orientation. Do you know anyone that at one time in their life was heterosexual, then homosexual? How about vice-versa? I'm sure all of us can bring up at least one or two public examples, if not a few personal examples.
So either they lied before they changed, or they're lying after... if it's immutable. Which is it? Since you know they're lying at some point, how do you tell if they're not lying, and thus eligible for protection under the law?
Quote[/b] ]
Quote[/b] ]
OK IZE, let's assume this goes through. Do you think we need protection for other issues? Like weight? Attractiveness? Intelligence? Ability/inability to communicate effectively?
If a person can do the job they were hired to do then they should be protected from any form of outright discrimination. If a person is overweight and the job requires a great deal of climbing then in such a case an overwieght person may not be suited for the job. But otherweise a person should not be discriminated against simply because they are fat. If I decide to turn down male applicants for a job and only hire attractive females because I like being around good looking dames all day then that would be discriminatory. I am turning down otherwise qualified people in order to suit my own personal desires.
Unfortunaltely many of these discriminations do exist. And it is often hard to prove there was discrimination in all except the most blatant or obvious situations. Nonethless when these discriminatory practices manifest themselves as obvious then the law should take it's course.
Do you think Hooters would do the business it does if they hired women with 15% more body fat? Do you think your local restaurant would do as much business if the hostess looked and acted like Rosanne?
Whether you like it or not, business owners make discriminatory decisions every day. They discriminate with who they choose to market their business to. They discriminate when it comes time to choose an advertising company. They discriminate when they hire, and when they fire.
Discrimination, by simple definition, is the act of making a decision. Illegal discrimination is making decisions based on criteria that have been forbidden by the lawmaking bodies.
Whether you want to admit it or not, how a person exhibits their sexual preference changes. How can you write a law that sets up a protected class based on a moving target? What next? Do we now force business owners to hire x% homosexual workers, based on the population, like we do with race? Do we force them to hire x% transsexual? And will it cut both ways, or will it only be one-way just like all the other quotas?
This is a stupid bill, and it should (and probably will) die a quick death in some committee.
n2ize
05-13-2007, 08:55 PM
Quote[/b] (KC4RAN @ May 13 2007,13:04)]Quote[/b] (n2ize @ May 13 2007,12:34)]
Quote[/b] ]
Okay, you are saying that sexual orientation is "not immutable". To my knowlege "immutable" means "not subject to change or variation". Since you are negating "immutable" then are you arguing that sexual orientation is changeable (mutable) ? In other words a person who is gay becomes straight, a person who is straight becomes gay... the orientation is mutable and can therefore be managed by the individual.
If that is your argument I don't buy it. While sexual orientation does;;t manifest itself in the physical sense, like having dark skin, being short, etc. it manifests itself in a behavioral sense that is not not immutable or, not mutable.
Try this experiment. For one month change your sexual orientation to gay. Go ahead, try it. I don;t mean simply going through the motions I mean truly mutate yourself into being gay where you honestly and without forcing yourself, dig guys over gals. Then, after a week or month mutate your orientation back to being straight where you honestly and with no effort dig girls. That will give you an idea of the mutability or immutability of sexual orientation. Notice I am not talking about simply changing your behavior. I am talking about truly making yourself gay to the point where your inner self, your inner drive tells you that guys are intimately more desireable than girls. #Somehow I don't think you can do it. I know I sure as heck can't do it.
Since a person does not (in my opinion, the opinion of many researchers and others) have the ability to control their sexual orientation then why should they be discriminated against for simply following the allure of what is perfectly natural to them.
So either they lied before they changed, or they're lying after... if it's immutable. Which is it? Since you know they're lying at some point, how do you tell if they're not lying, and thus eligible for protection under the law?
Quote[/b] ]
Quote[/b] ]
OK IZE, let's assume this goes through. Do you think we need protection for other issues? Like weight? Attractiveness? Intelligence? Ability/inability to communicate effectively?
If a person can do the job they were hired to do then they should be protected from any form of outright discrimination. If a person is overweight and the job requires a great deal of climbing then in such a case an overwieght person may not be suited for the job. #But otherweise a person should not be discriminated against simply because they are fat. If I decide to turn down male applicants for a job and only hire attractive females because I like being around good looking dames all day then that would be discriminatory. I am turning down otherwise qualified people in order to suit my own personal desires.
Unfortunaltely many of these discriminations do exist. And it is often hard to prove there was discrimination in all except the most blatant or obvious situations. Nonethless when these discriminatory practices manifest themselves as obvious then the law should take it's course.
Discrimination, by simple definition, is the act of making a decision. Illegal discrimination is making decisions based on criteria that have been forbidden by the lawmaking bodies.
This is a stupid bill, and it should (and probably will) die a quick death in some committee.
Quote[/b] ]
Then this goes back to a question I posed to you in threads past, that you ignored. If sexual orientation is not subject to change, then I guess we have a bunch of lying people in this country, lying about their sexual orientation. Do you know anyone that at one time in their life was heterosexual, then homosexual? How about vice-versa? I'm sure all of us can bring up at least one or two public examples, if not a few personal examples.
Virtually any gay person I have ever spoken to in my life said that they were always that way. Some people may try and repress it and deny it out of fear of negative repercussions, embarrasment, etc. But I have never spoken to a gay person who was straight and then changed. Why would anyone want to change ? Why would a straight person want to lie and say they are gay knowing it may bring them discrimination and hatred ?
Consider your own sexual orientation. I know that in my case I was indifferent towards guys or girls as a young child. At that age I had no interest in intimacy type relations. Then, sometime in my early adolescent years I suddenly started noticing that I really dug dames. Actually I remember watching an old 1940's movie on TV with Rita Hayworth and I found myself looking at the TV screen and saying, "damned, I like what I see". Same deal when I saw Julie Newmar playing "Catwoman" on Batman. I never put any thought to it, I just dug girls. That feeling has stuck with me since and there ain't a darned tootin thing that I know of that I can do that will ever change that. Likewise any gay person i knew had it happen the same way except they went the "other way" and started digging guys instead of girls. I don;t know where you get this lying deal from. I never lied to anyone and told them I am gay when i am not.
Quote[/b] ]
Whether you want to admit it or not, how a person exhibits their sexual preference changes. How can you write a law that sets up a protected class based on a moving target? What next? Do we now force business owners to hire x% homosexual workers, based on the population, like we do with race? Do we force them to hire x% transsexual? And will it cut both ways, or will it only be one-way just like all the other quotas?
Again, noboidy choses to become gay and nobody can change their sexual orientation. If you think they can then take up my challenge and make yourself gay in the pure sense of preferring guys to girls.
The issue at hand has nothing to do with lying. it has to do with protecting employees from discriminatory action if and when the employer determines or assumes a person is gay. If a person is forced to lie and say that he/she is straight when he/she is really gay in order to keep their job then that is discriminatory and the person is being discriminated against and thus should be protected by law. If an employee says nothing about his or her orientation yet somehow it gets leaked to the boss that the employee is gay and the employer terminates the person for that reason then that is discriminatory and should not be tolerated. #There are countless examples and none of them have anything to do with lying. When an employer by whatever means determines that an employee (or potential
employee) is not heterosexual and dismisses that person on that premis then we are dealing with discriminatory job practices and that should be protected under law. A person "is what they is" and shouldn't be punished for it.
Quote[/b] ]
Do you think Hooters would do the business it does if they hired women with 15% more body fat? Do you think your local restaurant would do as much business if the hostess looked and acted like Rosanne?
No but there is no reason why there cannot be a protections on the books for the dame who is fired when ther boss funds out she is a lesbian.
Quote[/b] ]
Whether you like it or not, business owners make discriminatory decisions every day. They discriminate with who they choose to market their business to. They discriminate when it comes time to choose an advertising company. They discriminate when they hire, and when they fire.
There are different degrees of discrimination. Any time we distinguish one thing from another we are acting in a discriminatory manner. Some kinds of discriminations are justifiable. Chosing one advertiser over another advertiser is a justifiable discriminatory practice in the sense that it is based on feasibility, i.e. cost, reputation, quality, return on investment, etc. #These types of dicrimination fall upon justifiable grounds. #Simply discriminating against someone simply because they are gay, black, jewish, etc. is most often unjustifiable and based on personal bias or hatred and not justifiable business practice.
As thinking human beings with minds part of the process is to be able to utilize discretionary thought. Thus we can distinguish between certain types of behavior that are justifiable and acceptable versus unjustifiable and unnaceptable. if we did not have the capacity for discretionary thought and analysis we would live in a black and white world where one thing just implies another regardless of circumstance. In such a world we would make decisions to the effect that if it is okay to do a certain thing in one situation then it is okay in all situations. If I can discriminate what color I want to paint my house then I can discriminate against skin color on the job. One implies the other. Fortunately the capacity for discretionary thought takes up beyond the world of black and white and into the many shades of grey.
KC4RAN
05-13-2007, 09:18 PM
Man you keep evading the question.
HOW DO YOU DETERMINE, FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT, WHAT SOMEONE'S SEXUAL PREFERENCE IS!?!?
This question, and everything that comes later, is the very basis for why this is stupid. Is someone eligible to sue someone that turned them down for a job, simply because they say they're homosexual?
And as for why someone would say they're homosexual? Well, if there's a scholarship only for homosexuals, or if there are a certain percentage of jobs set aside for homosexuals, why wouldn't I check that box on the application? I don't have to prove it, I don't have to do anything, and if the employer discloses it, I'll sue the snot out of them! Isn't that how it's supposed to work?
You completely ignored the part where I pointed out, rightly so, that there are now employment quotas for most if not all of those protected categories. You have to employ a certain percentage of certain minorities in many areas or face legal action. If this bill passes, homosexuals will have a good position to demand their piece of the quota percentage pie.
ka5piu
05-13-2007, 09:35 PM
Quote[/b] (N6WK @ May 13 2007,12:51)]I personally support the Laws that Mandate the Handicap parking, which is what I commented on from your first post.
Even a "Hole in the wall" has to have a parking lot, so Why shouldn't they be required to have #some Handicap parking spots??
#The handicapped are people just like you, so They deserve every right that you have. Please, tell me why you deserve a non- handicap parking spot right up front at your favorite store?
Gordon
N6WK
Hello.
INCORRECT! each and every "hole in the wall" that I am thinking of has NO parking.
A hole in the wall is some downtown joint that has been there for ages.
You park 3 blocks away if you are lucky and walk, or have somebody drop you off, Shilos or Panchos.
Handicapped parking at El Mercado? what would be the point, the nearby friendly streetside parking, complete with meter is where it is at, the city does allow free parking at some street corners for the handicapped but even that is hard to find.
Fiesta de San Antonio we had a handicapped van towed that parked in front of one of our buildings, I guess the signs that say no parking do not apply to the handicapped?
Quite simply put, there are some places that the handicapped simply can not go.
Southwest airlines has a reputation for not being handicapped friendly.
The trouble is that this is a value airline, seats that fit the average oriental just fine.
Somebody who is overweight simply will not fit in the seat(s).
'But I can not take another airline, xxx is too expensive' they will say.
So, there was legislation underfoot that would have required all airlines to have special handicapped access on all flights, at an average ticket increase of $18 for everybody, this did not fly.
Most charter flights will not take a wheelchair bound person.
Canoe and rafting rides are another example, just does not work.
And, the reason I bring up handicapped parking is that I sometimes do local delivery with a big truck.
The hole in the wall places have a hard enough time getting a big truck NEAR the place to offload, having somebody park 3 feet from the entrance is a problem for everybody.
I do know first hand of one person who is now somewhat handicapped.
He went riding on a motorbike with no helmet and dropped it going 30.
He runs a landscape company and had to rethink everything.
Although he can walk he is not very good at it and a bike is out of the question.
He had to get a new skid steer tractor with all hand controls and he has real trouble with it, the older one with foot pedals he could no longer operate.
He can no longer SCUBA dive or BASE jump.
Flying (pilot) is also out of the question.
All this 'cus a helmet looks "geeky"
I still have the helmet from when some lady on a cellphone ran into my bike doing 30.
I think geek is just fine.
Just when you thought it could not get any more pathetic, with the radical gay agenda,....Bareback Mountain, the rape of the Marlboro Man, shown in school.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news....D=55675 (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55675)
Quote[/b] (ka5piu @ May 13 2007,22:35)]Quote[/b] (N6WK @ May 13 2007,12:51)]I personally support the Laws that Mandate the Handicap parking, which is what I commented on from your first post.
Even a "Hole in the wall" has to have a parking lot, so Why shouldn't they be required to have some Handicap parking spots??
The handicapped are people just like you, so They deserve every right that you have. Please, tell me why you deserve a non- handicap parking spot right up front at your favorite store?
Gordon
N6WK
Hello.
INCORRECT! each and every "hole in the wall" that I am thinking of has NO parking.
A hole in the wall is some downtown joint that has been there for ages.
You park 3 blocks away if you are lucky and walk, or have somebody drop you off, Shilos or Panchos.
Handicapped parking at El Mercado? what would be the point, the nearby friendly streetside parking, complete with meter is where it is at, the city does allow free parking at some street corners for the handicapped but even that is hard to find.
Fiesta de San Antonio we had a handicapped van towed that parked in front of one of our buildings, I guess the signs that say no parking do not apply to the handicapped?
Quite simply put, there are some places that the handicapped simply can not go.
Southwest airlines has a reputation for not being handicapped friendly.
The trouble is that this is a value airline, seats that fit the average oriental just fine.
Somebody who is overweight simply will not fit in the seat(s).
'But I can not take another airline, xxx is too expensive' they will say.
So, there was legislation underfoot that would have required all airlines to have special handicapped access on all flights, at an average ticket increase of $18 for everybody, this did not fly.
Most charter flights will not take a wheelchair bound person.
Canoe and rafting rides are another example, just does not work.
And, the reason I bring up handicapped parking is that I sometimes do local delivery with a big truck.
The hole in the wall places have a hard enough time getting a big truck NEAR the place to offload, having somebody park 3 feet from the entrance is a problem for everybody.
I do know first hand of one person who is now somewhat handicapped.
He went riding on a motorbike with no helmet and dropped it going 30.
He runs a landscape company and had to rethink everything.
Although he can walk he is not very good at it and a bike is out of the question.
He had to get a new skid steer tractor with all hand controls and he has real trouble with it, the older one with foot pedals he could no longer operate.
He can no longer SCUBA dive or BASE jump.
Flying (pilot) is also out of the question.
All this 'cus a helmet looks "geeky"
I still have the helmet from when some lady on a cellphone ran into my bike doing 30.
I think geek is just fine.
OK,
I think I get your point. To You, Handicapped people are NOT as good as you and in your Eyes, "Can NOT" do the things you can do. Well. I am Not Overweight. I am 5 foot 7 and weigh 153 lbs. I climb and work on my towers with an oxygen hose attached. I am 58 years old. Tell me about you! How old are you? What is your height? what is your honest weight?
Yes, there are things I can NOT do because of the limitations, but going to some restaurant should NOT be one of them.
Every city should require handicap parking within a reasonable distance to any public Place. I have noticed that most people that want to park "RIGHT UP FRONT" are not Handi capped, but in fact big FAT people that could actually use the excercise to WALK to the restaurant where they can PIG out.
Trust me, The handicapped world is pushing hard to get laws that Force airlines and other idiots to accept that we are people too and deserve the same rights as those that are lucky enough to still not be handicapped. I can still fly any airlines I want. The difference between you and I is, I have to pay EXTRA to have the airlines supply me with Oxygen and you do NOT have to pay for the free oxygen you suck up.
Oh if you could only walk in my shoes for a day, you would not be so Smug as you are my friend ! If fact, I'll bet if you were in my shoes, you couldn't do half the things I can.
Gordon
N6WK
n2ize
05-13-2007, 10:56 PM
Quote[/b] (K3XR @ May 13 2007,14:39)]Just when you thought it could not get any more pathetic, with the radical gay agenda,....Bareback Mountain, the rape of the Marlboro Man, shown in school.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news....D=55675 (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55675)
This post is so foolish it barely deserves a response. First of all what is the "radical gay agenda" other than something you created in your mind out of fear.
Second, even if there was such a thing as a "radical gay agenda" what does it have to do with the showing of this particular film in a classroom.
The film was rated R and the teacher had no business shoung it to underage kids. the teacher is a fool. But it would make no difference if the film depicted gays, straights, or extreme violence. The fact remains that it was innapropriate to show an R rated film in a classroom of 12 year olds.
k6bbc
05-13-2007, 10:59 PM
Quote[/b] (K3XR @ May 13 2007,14:39)]Just when you thought it could not get any more pathetic, with the radical gay agenda,....Bareback Mountain, the rape of the Marlboro Man, shown in school.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news....D=55675 (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55675)
Another hateful post - shame on you.
bbc
n2ize
05-13-2007, 11:13 PM
Quote[/b] (KC4RAN @ May 13 2007,14:18)]Man you keep evading the question.
HOW DO YOU DETERMINE, FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT, WHAT SOMEONE'S SEXUAL PREFERENCE IS!?!?
This question, and everything that comes later, is the very basis for why this is stupid. Is someone eligible to sue someone that turned them down for a job, simply because they say they're homosexual?
And as for why someone would say they're homosexual? Well, if there's a scholarship only for homosexuals, or if there are a certain percentage of jobs set aside for homosexuals, why wouldn't I check that box on the application? I don't have to prove it, I don't have to do anything, and if the employer discloses it, I'll sue the snot out of them! Isn't that how it's supposed to work?
You completely ignored the part where I pointed out, rightly so, that there are now employment quotas for most if not all of those protected categories. You have to employ a certain percentage of certain minorities in many areas or face legal action. If this bill passes, homosexuals will have a good position to demand their piece of the quota percentage pie.
No need to prove any such thing in court. All that needs to be proven in court is that "sexual orientation" was the rationale for dismissal, harassment, etc. It doesn't matter if the person is gay or not.
n2ize
05-13-2007, 11:21 PM
Quote[/b] (KC4RAN @ May 13 2007,14:18)]Man you keep evading the question.
HOW DO YOU DETERMINE, FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT, WHAT SOMEONE'S SEXUAL PREFERENCE IS!?!?
This question, and everything that comes later, is the very basis for why this is stupid. Is someone eligible to sue someone that turned them down for a job, simply because they say they're homosexual?
And as for why someone would say they're homosexual? Well, if there's a scholarship only for homosexuals, or if there are a certain percentage of jobs set aside for homosexuals, why wouldn't I check that box on the application? I don't have to prove it, I don't have to do anything, and if the employer discloses it, I'll sue the snot out of them! Isn't that how it's supposed to work?
Quote[/b] ]
You completely ignored the part where I pointed out, rightly so, that there are now employment quotas for most if not all of those protected categories. You have to employ a certain percentage of certain minorities in many areas or face legal action. If this bill passes, homosexuals will have a good position to demand their piece of the quota percentage pie.
Did you read the actual bill ? The bill (a relatively short read) makes it clear that quotas and/or preferential treatment are in no way established as part of the bill.
KC4RAN
05-13-2007, 11:23 PM
Quote[/b] ]
Did you read the actual bill ? The bill (a relatively short read) makes it clear that quotas and/or preferential treatment are in no way established as part of the bill.
No way, setting up homosexuality as a protected class under Federal Anti Discrimination Law is in no way creating a preferential treatment situation. I can see that now, how foolish of me.
And no, quotas won't be a part of *this* bill. However, the lawsuits that follow that claim well-established precedence for hiring and employment practices as it relates to discrimination law will set up the quotas rather easily. A young pup just out of law school could slam dunk that one.
All that will be left is some way for the plaintiff to establish some justifiable percentage of the population, and that percentage will have to be demonstrably homosexual, lest the business owner face further lawsuits and/or penalties from the federal government.
Some people don't look 2 years down the road, it seems.
n2ize
05-13-2007, 11:43 PM
Quote[/b] (KC4RAN @ May 13 2007,16:23)]
Quote[/b] ]
No way, setting up homosexuality as a protected class under Federal Anti Discrimination Law is in no way creating a preferential treatment situation. I can see that now, how foolish of me.
It's certainly is not creating a preferential treatment situation any more than an anti discrimination laws preventing discrimination against race, color, creed, create preferential treatment. it's not a radical bill at all and only includes sexual orientation (a reality that exists in the world weather you like it or not).
Futhermore nowhere in the bill does it even mention "gay", "lesbian", "bisexual", etc. It affords equal protection whether a person is gay, or straight. If your gay boss decides to discriminate against you because you are not gay this bill condemns that discrimination. And vice versa.
In essence this bill does absolutely nothing other than add sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of items that an employer cannot discriminate against.
Frankly I don't see what is so terrible about that. I see nothing wrong with dissalowing an employer from treating you like garbage simply because of your race, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, or gender.
Quote[/b] ]
And no, quotas won't be a part of *this* bill. However, the lawsuits that follow that claim well-established precedence for hiring and employment practices as it relates to discrimination law will set up the quotas rather easily. A young pup just out of law school could slam dunk that one.
This is a strawman. it;s no different than "if we eliminate code the ham bands will be destroyed". It is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. The bill clearly states that it establishes no quota's or preferential treatments.
Quote[/b] ]
Some people don't look 2 years down the road, it seems.
Some people seem to feel that allowing an employer to treat someone like garbage because of race, religion sexual orientation, gender, etc. should go on forever.
KC4RAN
05-13-2007, 11:47 PM
Strawman? Whatever. I'll be watching this bill, and I'll make sure my representatives and senators know that I think they should squash this in committee and never let it see the light of day.
Immutable.
Quote[/b] (n2ize @ May 13 2007,19:43)]Some people seem to feel that allowing an employer to treat someone like garbage because of race, religion sexual orientation, gender, etc. should go on forever.
It's just that some of us believe it an immutable right to treat people like dirt for whatever reasons we think fit; the old slurs -- Jews can't fight, Blacks can't fly, women can't compete, and Gay's can't work with others -- die when tested by the light of day. Some of us seem not to want that to happen.
It was this attitude, that and the "old time religion," that got my Grandfather blacklisted for being Jewish. There's a lot of good things in conservatism, but this sort of thinking isn't one of them.
Cortland
KA5S
w7lpn
05-14-2007, 12:07 AM
While working for the state of Idaho I saw groups of Lesbians promoting each other up the state ladder quickly, while by-passing other "Straight" applicants. These Lesbians would bait someone into commenting, to trap him in an otherwise unspoken belief to get him to affirm his private moral objections to their practices, in a work setting to accuse him of sexism, bigotry, homophobia, whatever, to gain support in running him off the job.:angry: Man Hating Witches
k6bbc
05-14-2007, 12:16 AM
Quote[/b] (w7lpn @ May 13 2007,17:07)]While working for the state of Idaho I saw groups of Lesbians promoting each other up the state ladder quickly, while by-passing other "Straight" applicants. These Lesbians would bait someone into commenting, to trap him in an otherwise unspoken belief to get him to affirm his private moral objections to their practices, in a work setting to accuse him of sexism, bigotry, homophobia, whatever, to gain support in running him off the job.:angry: Man Hating Witches
LOL – the first word in his signature is God! Ha! Another God loving hater. It’s just so damn appropriate.
bbc
W5IEI
05-14-2007, 12:19 AM
You guys just don't seem to get it do you?
In bbc's industry,queers are mandatory!
Without them,he's on the street.
AE6IP
05-14-2007, 12:28 AM
Some comments on this thread:
1) Running a business is never a private act. It always involves a legal relationship between the business and its customers and suppliers. It has always been the role of government to regulate those relationships, and the employer/employee relationship is just one of them. So there's nothing out of line about Frank wanting to fine-tune the regulations.
2) The bill is well thought out. It addresses all of the claims made in the shrill article that started this, as well as all of the concerns raised here by people opposing it. In particular, it exempts religions and calls out that it can not be used as a legal justification for quotas.
3) The fundamental principle at work here is one of fairness in employment. An employer should have the right to discriminate in hiring and staffing based on aspects that affect the business performance. An employer should not have the right to discriminate in hiring and staffing based on any other aspect of the potential employee. Frank's bill carefully calls out aspects of human sexuality which should not be allowed to be used to discriminate for or against potential employees. It's actually well thought out and carefully scoped, as such things go.
k6bbc
05-14-2007, 12:43 AM
Quote[/b] (W5IEI @ May 13 2007,17:19)]You guys just don't seem to get it do you?
In bbc's industry,queers are mandatory!
Without them,he's on the street.
Ah come on, we know you only watch Bravo.
bbc
KC4RAN
05-14-2007, 01:03 AM
Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ May 13 2007,17:28)]
Quote[/b] ]
2) The bill is well thought out. It addresses all of the claims made in the shrill article that started this, as well as all of the concerns raised here by people opposing it. In particular, it exempts religions and calls out that it can not be used as a legal justification for quotas.
Just like your SSN isn't a public identification method, right? It was laid out in plain English in the Social Security Act.
Courts tend not to care what the bill says it should or should not be "used for"... that's what the courts are for.
Quote[/b] ]
3) The fundamental principle at work here is one of fairness in employment. An employer should have the right to discriminate in hiring and staffing based on aspects that affect the business performance. An employer should not have the right to discriminate in hiring and staffing based on any other aspect of the potential employee. Frank's bill carefully calls out aspects of human sexuality which should not be allowed to be used to discriminate for or against potential employees. It's actually well thought out and carefully scoped, as such things go.
And if it can be shown that the customer base does not want to deal with a homosexual staff (remember, the bill does not outlaw personal beliefs of your customer base), and thus the business suffers... *then* is it OK?
Let's go ahead and legislate fairness. I'm sure it won't cause any problems or make anyone think it's 'fairness' run amok. See how that works out for you. And since no one ever changes back and forth with their sexual preference according to N2IZE, everything should be *just fine*...
Fair or not, restaurant patrons tend to want pretty female hostesses, Hooters customers want good looking well proportioned women, people in general want to be able to understand what the employee is saying, customers of Christian bookstores tend not to want to deal with someone they believe is a homosexual (due to personal beliefs), women going to female health clinics tend not to want to deal with someone with a bible on their desk and two WWJD bracelets on, the employees at a tat/pierce shop and most Fortune 50 companies tend to physically look very different... and the list goes on and on and on. And before someone says again that it doesn't create any special privileges, let's make sure that it's applied both ways the same. I'm sure the staff at Stillman College and the NAACP headquarters and LULAC and the Mormon Church administrative offices and the National Organization for Women all reflect the national cross section with regards to percentages employed of men/women, hetero/homosexuals, religion, race... I'm sure they all look about the same as the national average, right?
You can't make laws and think that will change people's personal prejudices and opinions. You can't make a law that has financial and legal impact for someone without a clear measure of if the law is applicable in the situation, what the measure of success or failure is. People on one side complain about "legislated morality", and the other side complains about "legislated fairness".
Quote[/b] (n2ize @ May 13 2007,18:13)]Quote[/b] (KC4RAN @ May 13 2007,14:18)]Man you keep evading the question.
HOW DO YOU DETERMINE, FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT, WHAT SOMEONE'S SEXUAL PREFERENCE IS!?!?
This question, and everything that comes later, is the very basis for why this is stupid. Is someone eligible to sue someone that turned them down for a job, simply because they say they're homosexual?
And as for why someone would say they're homosexual? Well, if there's a scholarship only for homosexuals, or if there are a certain percentage of jobs set aside for homosexuals, why wouldn't I check that box on the application? I don't have to prove it, I don't have to do anything, and if the employer discloses it, I'll sue the snot out of them! Isn't that how it's supposed to work?
You completely ignored the part where I pointed out, rightly so, that there are now employment quotas for most if not all of those protected categories. You have to employ a certain percentage of certain minorities in many areas or face legal action. If this bill passes, homosexuals will have a good position to demand their piece of the quota percentage pie.
No need to prove any such thing in court. All that needs to be proven in court is that "sexual orientation" was the rationale for dismissal, harassment, etc. It doesn't matter if the person is gay or not.
We're not talking about dismissal, we're talking about hiring practices. Answer the question.
AE6IP
05-14-2007, 01:22 AM
Quote[/b] (KC4RAN @ May 13 2007,17:03)]Let's go ahead and legislate fairness. I'm sure it won't cause any problems or make anyone think it's 'fairness' run amok.
Fairness is the basis of plenty of existing legislation that hasn't suffered from the consequences you fear.
Quote[/b] ]See how that works out for you. And since no one ever changes back and forth with their sexual preference according to N2IZE, everything should be *just fine*...
You really should read the bill an argue about it, rather than these strawmen you keep bringing up.
Quote[/b] ]Fair or not, restaurant patrons tend to want pretty female hostesses, Hooters customers want good looking well proportioned women, people in general want to be able to understand what the employee is saying, customers of Christian bookstores tend not to want to deal with someone they believe is a homosexual (due to personal beliefs),...
Frank's legislation covers this. You really should read it
Quote[/b] ]You can't make laws and think that will change people's personal prejudices and opinions.
Barney Frank has written no law attempting to do that in this case.
Quote[/b] ]You can't make a law that has financial and legal impact for someone without a clear measure of if the law is applicable in the situation, what the measure of success or failure is.
Frank wrote a piece of legislation that, indeed, addresses this concern.
Quote[/b] ]People on one side complain about "legislated morality", and the other side complains about "legislated fairness".
Well, you've got a different definition of 'fairness' than I was using, and you're arguing about things that aren't present in the legislation you're complaining about. Perhaps you'd like to read Mr Frank's proposal and comment on it, instead?
N5NPO
05-14-2007, 01:27 AM
Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ May 13 2007,17:28)]Some comments on this thread:
1) Running a business is never a private act. It always involves a legal relationship between the business and its customers and suppliers. #It has always been the role of government to regulate those relationships, and the employer/employee relationship is just one of them. So there's nothing out of line about Frank wanting to fine-tune the regulations.
2) The bill is well thought out. It addresses all of the claims made in the shrill article that started this, as well as all of the concerns raised here by people opposing it. In particular, it exempts religions and calls out that it can not be used as a legal justification for quotas.
3) The fundamental principle at work here is one of fairness in employment. An employer should have the right to discriminate in hiring and staffing based on aspects that affect the business performance. #An employer should not have the right to discriminate in hiring and staffing based on any other aspect of the potential employee. Frank's bill carefully calls out aspects of human sexuality which should not be allowed to be used to discriminate for or against potential employees. It's actually well thought out and carefully scoped, as such things go.
Why is running a private bussiness never private? When and how did the government get into controlling/regulating bussiness so much. It is as if government ownes the rights to produce income and engage in commerce and you can only participate if you follow the politicians rules. I do not think this is exactly what our founders had in mind.
About the new bill...
Don't we have enough laws on the books now as it is? How many more rules, laws and regulations do we need? The U.S. tax code is a good example of the rules and reulations run amuck by politicians