Gays can now be fired for being gay

[tallest1]

Despite President Bush's pledge that homosexuals "ought to have the same rights" 1 as all other people, his Administration this week ruled that homosexuals can now be fired from the federal workforce because of their sexual orientation.

According to the Federal Times, the president's appointee at the Office of Special Counsel ruled that federal employees will now "have no recourse if they are fired or demoted simply for being gay." 2 While the Bush Administration says it is legally prohibited from firing a person for their conduct, they have the legal right to fire or demote someone based on their sexual orientation. To carry out the directive, the White House has begun removing information from government websites about sexual orientation discrimination in the workplace. 3

Not only does the new directive contradict the president's own promise to treat homosexuals as equals under the law, but it also contradicts what the Administration told Congress. As noted in a bipartisan letter from four Senators to the Administration, "During the confirmation process [of the president's appointee], you assured us that you were committed to protecting federal employees against unlawful discrimination related to their sexual orientation." 4

Link, or here as a less biased source.

 

[dahunan]

I am fine with gays, bi-sexuals, and lesbians.. but employers should not be forced to hire transexuals and cross-dressers

 

[CrazyHelloDeli]

Originally posted by: dahunan
I am fine with gays, bi-sexuals, and lesbians.. but employers should not be forced to hire transexuals and cross-dressers

True dat.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: HelloDeli

Originally posted by: dahunan
I am fine with gays, bi-sexuals, and lesbians.. but employers should not be forced to hire transexuals and cross-dressers

True dat.

they have no right not to higher someone for being a transexual.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: tallest1

Despite President Bush's pledge that homosexuals "ought to have the same rights" 1 as all other people, his Administration this week ruled that homosexuals can now be fired from the federal workforce because of their sexual orientation.

According to the Federal Times, the president's appointee at the Office of Special Counsel ruled that federal employees will now "have no recourse if they are fired or demoted simply for being gay." 2 While the Bush Administration says it is legally prohibited from firing a person for their conduct, they have the legal right to fire or demote someone based on their sexual orientation. To carry out the directive, the White House has begun removing information from government websites about sexual orientation discrimination in the workplace. 3

Not only does the new directive contradict the president's own promise to treat homosexuals as equals under the law, but it also contradicts what the Administration told Congress. As noted in a bipartisan letter from four Senators to the Administration, "During the confirmation process [of the president's appointee], you assured us that you were committed to protecting federal employees against unlawful discrimination related to their sexual orientation." 4

Link, or here as a less biased source.

unless applied to all who openly have extra-marital sex this is an inequity, in justice, and generally not good for the nation.

of course i wouldn't believe it unless it was picked up by some media outlet with integrity.

 

[chess9]

"I am fine with gays, bi-sexuals, and lesbians.. but employers should not be forced to hire transexuals and cross-dressers."

What about people who wear inappropriate shoes? They are an abomination. I'd rather have a workforce full of cross-dressers than a woman wearing white shoes after Labor Day. Oh, the pain....

Anyway, we all know Bush is doing this for our own good, so why would you complain? See this as an opportunity for change! (there's your opening, run with it)

-Robert

 

[conjur]

"It is wrong to discriminate against any federal employee, or any employee, based on discrimination," Bloch said


Wow...what an intellect he possesses.

 

[Jhhnn]

One of my favorite bits-

Not only does the new directive contradict the president's own promise to treat homosexuals as equals under the law, but it also contradicts what the Administration told Congress. As noted in a bipartisan letter from four Senators to the Administration, "During the confirmation process [of the president's appointee], you assured us that you were committed to protecting federal employees against unlawful discrimination related to their sexual orientation." 4

And the Bushies contend they're doing just that, by redefining just what constitutes "unlawful discrimination".

Just another example of doublespeak, and pandering to their fundie base. War is Peace. Slavery is Freedom.

 

[PingSpike]

WTF?!

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: chess9
"I am fine with gays, bi-sexuals, and lesbians.. but employers should not be forced to hire transexuals and cross-dressers."

What about people who wear inappropriate shoes? They are an abomination. I'd rather have a workforce full of cross-dressers than a woman wearing white shoes after Labor Day. Oh, the pain....

Anyway, we all know Bush is doing this for our own good, so why would you complain? See this as an opportunity for change! (there's your opening, run with it)

-Robert

People can be fired for wearing inappropriate shoes to work...

 

[TheGameIs21]

Why didn't you also quote this?

Bloch said he took the references to sexual orientation bias off the agency Web site because he was not clear about the office's policy and legal interpretation of the provision. He said he did not think it appropriate to leave the references on the site -- "to have my stamp of approval" -- while he reviews the matter.

The provision usually has been interpreted to mean that a worker's off-duty behavior cannot be used as a justification for dismissal, demotion or discipline unless it hampers job performance or interferes with the work of others.

How dare someone that is going to be held liable for something make sure that it is accurate and without room for lawsuits. What if the current writting of the Sexual Orientation documents legally stated that if you walked in on Jim and Bob going at it on Bob's desk you couldn't fire them because it is OK to be gay? I know that if Jim and Jane were caught, they'd be fired. This seems like he is simply taking steps to make sure that something he is in charge of is accurate and you are doing nothing but poorly trying to discredit Bush.

 

[chess9]

Daniel:

Well, PRAISE THE LORD for that bit of good news!

-Robert

 

[maluckey]

Any time that your conduct adversely affects the performance of other employees, you are likely to run into problems with your employer. If my lifestyle is to dress as a Circus Clown, because I feel it is my identity, then my employer has a right to refuse clownish behavior on the clock. What I do apart from the company is my own private business however.

As of 2004, there are no valid scientific studies to show that homosexuality is inherited. This means it is a lifestyle. Sure, maybe you didn't choose this lifestyle, but it is the one you have, and must be kept out of work if it affects the performance of others at your workplace. If your co-workers are OK with your behavior, then I see no reason to apply the stricter standards.
Until science proves you have no choice, you must respect those that do not share your views.

That being said, my college roommate was a lesbian, and though she didn't hate men, most of her friend did. Her friends were smart enough to know that some of them had behavior that could affect their friends relationship with me, and the sharing of a great apartment. They all behaved accordingly in the apartment, and around me. What they did elsewhere I didn't care to know, or even ask.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Originally posted by: tallest1

Despite President Bush's pledge that homosexuals "ought to have the same rights" 1 as all other people, his Administration this week ruled that homosexuals can now be fired from the federal workforce because of their sexual orientation.

According to the Federal Times, the president's appointee at the Office of Special Counsel ruled that federal employees will now "have no recourse if they are fired or demoted simply for being gay." 2 While the Bush Administration says it is legally prohibited from firing a person for their conduct, they have the legal right to fire or demote someone based on their sexual orientation. To carry out the directive, the White House has begun removing information from government websites about sexual orientation discrimination in the workplace. 3

Not only does the new directive contradict the president's own promise to treat homosexuals as equals under the law, but it also contradicts what the Administration told Congress. As noted in a bipartisan letter from four Senators to the Administration, "During the confirmation process [of the president's appointee], you assured us that you were committed to protecting federal employees against unlawful discrimination related to their sexual orientation." 4

Link, or here as a less biased source.

unless applied to all who openly have extra-marital sex this is an inequity, in justice, and generally not good for the nation.

of course i wouldn't believe it unless it was picked up by some media outlet with integrity.

It should be extended to those who have comitted adultry in their thoughts too or looked you know how at another man's wife or husband.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: maluckey
Any time that your conduct adversely affects the performance of other employees, you are likely to run into problems with your employer. If my lifestyle is to dress as a Circus Clown, because I feel it is my identity, then my employer has a right to refuse clownish behavior on the clock. What I do apart from the company is my own private business however.

As of 2004, there are no valid scientific studies to show that homosexuality is inherited. This means it is a lifestyle. Sure, maybe you didn't choose this lifestyle, but it is the one you have, and must be kept out of work if it affects the performance of others at your workplace. If your co-workers are OK with your behavior, then I see no reason to apply the stricter standards.
Until science proves you have no choice, you must respect those that do not share your views.

That being said, my college roommate was a lesbian, and though she didn't hate men, most of her friend did. Her friends were smart enough to know that some of them had behavior that could affect their friends relationship with me, and the sharing of a great apartment. They all behaved accordingly in the apartment, and around me. What they did elsewhere I didn't care to know, or even ask.

Well said.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: maluckey
Any time that your conduct adversely affects the performance of other employees, you are likely to run into problems with your employer. If my lifestyle is to dress as a Circus Clown, because I feel it is my identity, then my employer has a right to refuse clownish behavior on the clock. What I do apart from the company is my own private business however.

As of 2004, there are no valid scientific studies to show that homosexuality is inherited. This means it is a lifestyle. Sure, maybe you didn't choose this lifestyle, but it is the one you have, and must be kept out of work if it affects the performance of others at your workplace. If your co-workers are OK with your behavior, then I see no reason to apply the stricter standards.
Until science proves you have no choice, you must respect those that do not share your views.

That being said, my college roommate was a lesbian, and though she didn't hate men, most of her friend did. Her friends were smart enough to know that some of them had behavior that could affect their friends relationship with me, and the sharing of a great apartment. They all behaved accordingly in the apartment, and around me. What they did elsewhere I didn't care to know, or even ask.

Well said.

Horse manure if it was well said. It is logically fallacious. As of 2004, there are no valid scientific studies to show that homosexuality is or isn't inherited and that means we don't know the exact reason why some people are born gay. We are not at the end of a full understanding of genetics or the development of the human brain. What we can trust is true, since nobody who is straight will willingly start loving the same sex to prove it's choice, is that homosexuality is not a choice. All the prejudice against gays is based on the notion that these otherwise saintly individuals choose a path of evil and can be condemned for it. The truth behind that prejudice has died as has the notion that man was created 6000 years ago and tons of other garbage from the past enshrined in worshiped, but obviously false, ancient texts.

Now given that homosexuality is not very likely a choice, and given that it is not evil, no gay person has any moral or legal obligation not to express who he is simply because others are offended. This would be like saying I can't hire black people because all my employees who are vital to the success of my company hate and are offended by blacks. If you are a bigot your fate is a life of disgust with things all around you. Bigotry is the irrational connection of the faculty of disgust with some external factor, broccoli or gays. We do not have to cater to the insanity of bigots. They can seek psychiatric counseling as they should since they suffer a mental disease. The problem with bigots is that they want to pretend that it's you who are sick and not them, because they can see their mental illness only in others and never in themselves. Bigotry is a form of denial of one own internal feeling of worthlessness. Catering to that mental illness is like handing out welfare to blacks. We should have national health insurance for them to seek treatment, but we can't engage in behaviors that coddle their mental illness. To do so would produce generations of mentally handicapped people who can't function properly in the world.

 

[Xionide]

Ah sh!t here we go. I am putting 5 dollars down that this will reach 5 pages. Any takers?

 

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: maluckey
Any time that your conduct adversely affects the performance of other employees, you are likely to run into problems with your employer. If my lifestyle is to dress as a Circus Clown, because I feel it is my identity, then my employer has a right to refuse clownish behavior on the clock. What I do apart from the company is my own private business however.

As of 2004, there are no valid scientific studies to show that homosexuality is inherited. This means it is a lifestyle. Sure, maybe you didn't choose this lifestyle, but it is the one you have, and must be kept out of work if it affects the performance of others at your workplace. If your co-workers are OK with your behavior, then I see no reason to apply the stricter standards.
Until science proves you have no choice, you must respect those that do not share your views.

That being said, my college roommate was a lesbian, and though she didn't hate men, most of her friend did. Her friends were smart enough to know that some of them had behavior that could affect their friends relationship with me, and the sharing of a great apartment. They all behaved accordingly in the apartment, and around me. What they did elsewhere I didn't care to know, or even ask.

Well said.

Horse manure if it was well said. It is logically fallacious. As of 2004, there are no valid scientific studies to show that homosexuality is or isn't inherited and that means we don't know the exact reason why some people are born gay. We are not at the end of a full understanding of genetics or the development of the human brain. What we can trust is true, since nobody who is straight will willingly start loving the same sex to prove it's choice, is that homosexuality is not a choice. All the prejudice against gays is based on the notion that these otherwise saintly individuals choose a path of evil and can be condemned for it. The truth behind that prejudice has died as has the notion that man was created 6000 years ago and tons of other garbage from the past enshrined in worshiped, but obviously false, ancient texts.

Now given that homosexuality is not very likely a choice, and given that it is not evil, no gay person has any moral or legal obligation not to express who he is simply because others are offended. This would be like saying I can't hire black people because all my employees who are vital to the success of my company hate and are offended by blacks. If you are a bigot your fate is a life of disgust with things all around you. Bigotry is the irrational connection of the faculty of disgust with some external factor, broccoli or gays. We do not have to cater to the insanity of bigots. They can seek psychiatric counseling as they should since they suffer a mental disease. The problem with bigots is that they want to pretend that it's you who are sick and not them, because they can see their mental illness only in others and never in themselves. Bigotry is a form of denial of one own internal feeling of worthlessness. Catering to that mental illness is like handing out welfare to blacks. We should have national health insurance for them to seek treatment, but we can't engage in behaviors that coddle their mental illness. To do so would produce generations of mentally handicapped people who can't function properly in the world.

We do not have to cater to the insanity of homosexuals. They can seek psychiatric counseling as they should since they suffer a mental disease. The problem with homosexuals is that they want to pretend that it's you who are sick and not them, because they can see their mental illness only in others and never in themselves. Homosexuality is a form of denial of one own internal feeling of worthlessness. Catering to that mental illness is like handing out welfare to blacks. We should have national health insurance for them to seek treatment, but we can't engage in behaviors that coddle their mental illness. To do so would produce generations of mentally handicapped people who can't function properly in the world.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

What we can trust is true, since nobody who is straight will willingly start loving the same sex to prove it's choice, is that homosexuality is not a choice.

You can't draw that conclusion. The only thing that is true is that we don't know EITHER WAY.

Now, people cannot be fired simply for being gay. However, they can be fired if their lifestyle affects their productivity, or the productivity of the company as a whole. It is no different for a straight person. If I came to work once a week plastered because of a wild night of group sex and partying, and I am irritable all day long, I can be fired. So, the question here isn't whether or not gays or not are being treated any differently that heterosexuals, but whether or not homosexuals should be able to use their sexuality to gain an unfair advantage in the workplace.

 

[TheBDB]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

What we can trust is true, since nobody who is straight will willingly start loving the same sex to prove it's choice, is that homosexuality is not a choice.

You can't draw that conclusion. The only thing that is true is that we don't know EITHER WAY.

Now, people cannot be fired simply for being gay. However, they can be fired if their lifestyle affects their productivity, or the productivity of the company as a whole. It is no different for a straight person. If I came to work once a week plastered because of a wild night of group sex and partying, and I am irritable all day long, I can be fired. So, the question here isn't whether or not gays or not are being treated any differently that heterosexuals, but whether or not homosexuals should be able to use their sexuality to gain an unfair advantage in the workplace.

Did you not read the OP?

now "have no recourse if they are fired or demoted simply for being gay."

No one here would disagree that if a homosexual was being disruptive he should be fired, just the same as a straight person.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

What we can trust is true, since nobody who is straight will willingly start loving the same sex to prove it's choice, is that homosexuality is not a choice.

You can't draw that conclusion. The only thing that is true is that we don't know EITHER WAY.

Now, people cannot be fired simply for being gay. However, they can be fired if their lifestyle affects their productivity, or the productivity of the company as a whole. It is no different for a straight person. If I came to work once a week plastered because of a wild night of group sex and partying, and I am irritable all day long, I can be fired. So, the question here isn't whether or not gays or not are being treated any differently that heterosexuals, but whether or not homosexuals should be able to use their sexuality to gain an unfair advantage in the workplace.

That's amazing. Use their homosexuality to gain an unfair advantage in the workplace? You mean like a black coming in drunk and claiming it's ok to be drunk if you're black? When protections are extended to the unprotected exactly like they are to the protected already, why do the protected allways feel it's unfair. You think protection is like pie and if somebodt gits some you'll get less. Try to use your head and see the issue objectively. We're not talking about protecting people who are homosexual but effective at their jobs from being discriminated solely because somehow they are known to be gay but their behavior comports in every other way like other people in the work place.
===============

NUTSO! I disagree with your post but must admit that it is written at a higher caliber than I've seen from you before. Are you taking brain suppliments?

Of course your primary thesis is defective. Homosexuality is not a mental illness and hasn't been since objective scientists got involved in the issue.

 

[Fern]

Geez, seems like a lot of overreaction here. The guy (Bloch) said he remove it (the notice) so that could he could review it. Such an ordinary step doesn't magically make it legal for the federal government to fire someone based soley on their sexual orientation. Why not wait and see his decision after his reveiw before jumping to dramatic conclusions.

Quote from The Federal Diary: Bloch said he took the references to sexual orientation bias off the agency Web site because he was not clear about the office's policy and legal interpretation of the provision. He said he did not think it appropriate to leave the references on the site -- "to have my stamp of approval" -- while he reviews the matter.



He's also qouted as saying he took this administartive step w/o White House knowledge. It's premature to talk of Bush going back on his promises etc. Geez, the guy said Bush did'nt know.

Quote from The Federal Diary: "Bloch said he did not clear his decision to alter the agency's Web site with the White House, which is caught up in a political debate on same-sex marriage. "

 

[classy]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

What we can trust is true, since nobody who is straight will willingly start loving the same sex to prove it's choice, is that homosexuality is not a choice.

You can't draw that conclusion. The only thing that is true is that we don't know EITHER WAY.

Now, people cannot be fired simply for being gay. However, they can be fired if their lifestyle affects their productivity, or the productivity of the company as a whole. It is no different for a straight person. If I came to work once a week plastered because of a wild night of group sex and partying, and I am irritable all day long, I can be fired. So, the question here isn't whether or not gays or not are being treated any differently that heterosexuals, but whether or not homosexuals should be able to use their sexuality to gain an unfair advantage in the workplace.

That's amazing. Use their homosexuality to gain an unfair advantage in the workplace? You mean like a black coming in drunk and claiming it's ok to be drunk if you're black? When protections are extended to the unprotected exactly like they are to the protected already, why do the protected allways feel it's unfair. You think protection is like pie and if somebodt gits some you'll get less. Try to you your head and see the issue objectively. We're not talking about protecting people who are homosexual but effective at their jobs from being discriminated solely because somehow they are known to be gay but their behavior comports in every other way like other people in the work place.
===============

NUTSO! I disagree with your post but must admit that it is written at a higher caliber than I've seen from you before. Are you taking brain suppliments?

Of course your primary thesis is defective. Homosexuality is not a mental illness and hasn't been since objective scientists got involved in the issue.

Why do you always have to use black people as your point of reference in so many things? Is your desire for folks to accept your being homosexual driving you that hard?

 

[BlueWeasel]

Originally posted by: Xionide
Ah sh!t here we go. I am putting 5 dollars down that this will reach 5 pages. Any takers?

What's the time limit? ie, what would keep you from bumping it every few days to keep the thread "alive"?

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Originally posted by: tallest1

Despite President Bush's pledge that homosexuals "ought to have the same rights" 1 as all other people, his Administration this week ruled that homosexuals can now be fired from the federal workforce because of their sexual orientation.

According to the Federal Times, the president's appointee at the Office of Special Counsel ruled that federal employees will now "have no recourse if they are fired or demoted simply for being gay." 2 While the Bush Administration says it is legally prohibited from firing a person for their conduct, they have the legal right to fire or demote someone based on their sexual orientation. To carry out the directive, the White House has begun removing information from government websites about sexual orientation discrimination in the workplace. 3

Not only does the new directive contradict the president's own promise to treat homosexuals as equals under the law, but it also contradicts what the Administration told Congress. As noted in a bipartisan letter from four Senators to the Administration, "During the confirmation process [of the president's appointee], you assured us that you were committed to protecting federal employees against unlawful discrimination related to their sexual orientation." 4

Link, or here as a less biased source.

unless applied to all who openly have extra-marital sex this is an inequity, in justice, and generally not good for the nation.

of course i wouldn't believe it unless it was picked up by some media outlet with integrity.

It should be extended to those who have comitted adultry in their thoughts too or looked you know how at another man's wife or husband.

If they openly admit to it i see no problem with that;

although personally I'd say it should be limited to those not trying to keep from doing any of these things.