Panel Recommends Firing Gay Fire Chief

[IAteYourMother]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: KarenMarie
PPl who think it is ok to 'make up' for what they think is the world's faults by promoting only a certain type of ppl (ppl of color, sexual orientation, religion) and being less than fair to the rest is the WORST kind of bigotry! and it does nothing for their cause but justify those who are against them.

I think it is OK to promote the people you are able to work best with (given candidates of roughly equal ability). I would probably promote a gay man or a woman over a heterosexual man (all things being equal) because I think I could work better with the gay man or woman than with the heterosexual man. This is what happens in most places of employment anyway. Job fit is always an important consideration, and part of job fit is whether the people managing you are going to like you or get along with you.

The mistake this woman made was working with her partner (or ex-partner). It might be OK when the relationship is fine, but if the relatiopnship ends badly, it is going to contaminate the work environment.

That's because you're a bigot.

the simple fact is that women and men are different in some ways, and gay men and straight men are also different in some ways. I find it is less of a hassle relating to gay males. I don't have to put on a butch act or do all the other things that straight men do in order to be respected. It's got nothing to do with bigotry on my part. It's more about a lack of patience with the macho schtick that so many heterosexual men adopt.

No, you're a bigot, and nobody else should be punished for a problem you have. Nobody I work with is at all like me. They're all 20+ years older than me. Some are women, some are black or latino, some are asian, some may be gay. I manage to work with all of them without issues.

I wonder why this supposed bigotry of mine is such a problem for you.

Practically every post you make in response to me contains an accusation of bigotry. Who exactly do you think I am bigoted towards? How does this bigotry manifest itself, do you think? Would it make you feel better if I announce to the world than I hold bigoted views?

In effect, you already have. HEes just pointing out the apparent contradiction in your posts, praising the progress in the gay movement's fight for equality while being bigoted toward others at the same time. Anyways, there is much more to a co-worker than being gay, and if you automatically assume that you'll work better with a gay person than a heterosexual, then you're ignoring the other million traits that make up a human being

 

[IAteYourMother]

aak, DP

 

[KarenMarie]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

I wonder why this supposed bigotry of mine is such a problem for you.

Practically every post you make in response to me contains an accusation of bigotry. Who exactly do you think I am bigoted towards? How does this bigotry manifest itself, do you think? Would it make you feel better if I announce to the world than I hold bigoted views?

No, it is not just a problem for Mugs... this is one of the very few things that he and I actually agree on. Although in my case I would not call for an all out admission of bigotry as I would that you have a definate, hard line, double standard.

I am in too good a mood to come right out and call you an all out bigot.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: KarenMarie
PPl who think it is ok to 'make up' for what they think is the world's faults by promoting only a certain type of ppl (ppl of color, sexual orientation, religion) and being less than fair to the rest is the WORST kind of bigotry! and it does nothing for their cause but justify those who are against them.

I think it is OK to promote the people you are able to work best with (given candidates of roughly equal ability). I would probably promote a gay man or a woman over a heterosexual man (all things being equal) because I think I could work better with the gay man or woman than with the heterosexual man. This is what happens in most places of employment anyway. Job fit is always an important consideration, and part of job fit is whether the people managing you are going to like you or get along with you.

The mistake this woman made was working with her partner (or ex-partner). It might be OK when the relationship is fine, but if the relatiopnship ends badly, it is going to contaminate the work environment.

That's because you're a bigot.

the simple fact is that women and men are different in some ways, and gay men and straight men are also different in some ways. I find it is less of a hassle relating to gay males. I don't have to put on a butch act or do all the other things that straight men do in order to be respected. It's got nothing to do with bigotry on my part. It's more about a lack of patience with the macho schtick that so many heterosexual men adopt.

No, you're a bigot, and nobody else should be punished for a problem you have. Nobody I work with is at all like me. They're all 20+ years older than me. Some are women, some are black or latino, some are asian, some may be gay. I manage to work with all of them without issues.

I wonder why this supposed bigotry of mine is such a problem for you.

Practically every post you make in response to me contains an accusation of bigotry. Who exactly do you think I am bigoted towards? How does this bigotry manifest itself, do you think? Would it make you feel better if I announce to the world than I hold bigoted views?

Perhaps it's because nearly every post you make has evidence of bigotry? :Q

You're bigoted toward heterosexuals. I don't think you need to announce it to the world, you wear it on your sleeve.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: KarenMarie

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: KarenMarie
PPl who think it is ok to 'make up' for what they think is the world's faults by promoting only a certain type of ppl (ppl of color, sexual orientation, religion) and being less than fair to the rest is the WORST kind of bigotry! and it does nothing for their cause but justify those who are against them.

I think it is OK to promote the people you are able to work best with (given candidates of roughly equal ability). I would probably promote a gay man or a woman over a heterosexual man (all things being equal) because I think I could work better with the gay man or woman than with the heterosexual man. This is what happens in most places of employment anyway. Job fit is always an important consideration, and part of job fit is whether the people managing you are going to like you or get along with you.

The mistake this woman made was working with her partner (or ex-partner). It might be OK when the relationship is fine, but if the relatiopnship ends badly, it is going to contaminate the work environment.

That's because you're a bigot.

the simple fact is that women and men are different in some ways, and gay men and straight men are also different in some ways. I find it is less of a hassle relating to gay males. I don't have to put on a butch act or do all the other things that straight men do in order to be respected. It's got nothing to do with bigotry on my part. It's more about a lack of patience with the macho schtick that so many heterosexual men adopt.

Well, straight men who are all masculine and stuff don't get relate to gays well.... so by your logic... all things being equal... they will only hire straight men, cause they get along better with them.

That is exactly what they do. Most workplaces are run like a boys' club.

Originally posted by: KarenMarie
that flies in the face of everything that the gay movement is saying. what they are shouting is that they are here to stay, like it or lump it, and anyone who doesnt like it needs to move over.

then you say that you would do the very thing that the gay movement bitches against.

i just dont get it.

I think gay people would like legal equality. I.e., gay marriage and the right to serve in the military. With that, the gay rights movement will essentially be over. I don't think many gay people expect to see the elimination of all discrimination against gay people. That is unrealistic. Also, people do have the right to hold bigoted or discriminatory viewpoints. There is discrimination and then there is discrimination. Choosing an underqualified individual over a fully qualified individual on account of factors like race, gender, religion, etc. is not desirable. Choosing someone you like out of two equally qualified candidates is another thing altogether, and is quite reasonable in my view.

 

[KarenMarie]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

I think gay people would like legal equality. I.e., gay marriage and the right to serve in the military. With that, the gay rights movement will essentially be over. I don't think many gay people expect to see the elimination of all discrimination against gay people. That is unrealistic. Also, people do have the right to hold bigoted or discriminatory viewpoints. There is discrimination and then there is discrimination. Choosing an underqualified individual over a fully qualified individual on account of factors like race, gender, religion, etc. is not desirable. Choosing someone you like out of two equally qualified candidates is another thing altogether, and is quite reasonable in my view.

You stated that all things being equal, you would hire a gay person over a straight one, just because that is who you would get along with... that is would be your preference. Yet, you would call it bigotry if a straight man did the exact same thing. You were the one who said... all things being equal... you never stated anything about lesser or unqualified. Stand by what you said.

Gay ppl can want equality forever... and as long as they forcefully scream bigotry to everyone who disagrees with them, they will not get it. And for those who will do the exact thing they are complaining about... well, shame on them.

 

[Brutuskend]

I seem to remember saying in a post some time back about how I felt uncomfortable being around some gays and then being called a bigot for my feelings, yet here YOU are saying pretty much the same thing about your feelings being around straight men....

I'm with KarenMarie one this one, I don't get it, nor do I see any difference between the two points of view. 😕

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: KarenMarie

Originally posted by: aidanjm

I think gay people would like legal equality. I.e., gay marriage and the right to serve in the military. With that, the gay rights movement will essentially be over. I don't think many gay people expect to see the elimination of all discrimination against gay people. That is unrealistic. Also, people do have the right to hold bigoted or discriminatory viewpoints. There is discrimination and then there is discrimination. Choosing an underqualified individual over a fully qualified individual on account of factors like race, gender, religion, etc. is not desirable. Choosing someone you like out of two equally qualified candidates is another thing altogether, and is quite reasonable in my view.

You stated that all things being equal, you would hire a gay person over a straight one, just because that is who you would get along with... that is would be your preference. Yet, you would call it bigotry if a straight man did the exact same thing. You were the one who said... all things being equal... you never stated anything about lesser or unqualified. Stand by what you said.

Gay ppl can want equality forever... and as long as they forcefully scream bigotry to everyone who disagrees with them, they will not get it. And for those who will do the exact thing they are complaining about... well, shame on them.

KarenMarie for President

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: KarenMarie
PPl who think it is ok to 'make up' for what they think is the world's faults by promoting only a certain type of ppl (ppl of color, sexual orientation, religion) and being less than fair to the rest is the WORST kind of bigotry! and it does nothing for their cause but justify those who are against them.

I think it is OK to promote the people you are able to work best with (given candidates of roughly equal ability). I would probably promote a gay man or a woman over a heterosexual man (all things being equal) because I think I could work better with the gay man or woman than with the heterosexual man. This is what happens in most places of employment anyway. Job fit is always an important consideration, and part of job fit is whether the people managing you are going to like you or get along with you.

The mistake this woman made was working with her partner (or ex-partner). It might be OK when the relationship is fine, but if the relatiopnship ends badly, it is going to contaminate the work environment.

That's because you're a bigot.

the simple fact is that women and men are different in some ways, and gay men and straight men are also different in some ways. I find it is less of a hassle relating to gay males. I don't have to put on a butch act or do all the other things that straight men do in order to be respected. It's got nothing to do with bigotry on my part. It's more about a lack of patience with the macho schtick that so many heterosexual men adopt.

No, you're a bigot, and nobody else should be punished for a problem you have. Nobody I work with is at all like me. They're all 20+ years older than me. Some are women, some are black or latino, some are asian, some may be gay. I manage to work with all of them without issues.

I wonder why this supposed bigotry of mine is such a problem for you.

Practically every post you make in response to me contains an accusation of bigotry. Who exactly do you think I am bigoted towards? How does this bigotry manifest itself, do you think? Would it make you feel better if I announce to the world than I hold bigoted views?

Perhaps it's because nearly every post you make has evidence of bigotry? :Q

You're bigoted toward heterosexuals. I don't think you need to announce it to the world, you wear it on your sleeve.

I am not intolerant of heterosexual people in the sense that I am disgusted by them or want to limit their freedoms by passing draconian laws. In fact, I have no desire to interfere with your lifestyle in any way at all.

I think you are confusing my lack of tolerance for homophobia, for bigotry itself.

 

[KarenMarie]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

I am not intolerant of heterosexual people in the sense that I am disgusted by them or want to limit their freedoms by passing draconian laws. In fact, I have no desire to interfere with your lifestyle in any way at all.

I think you are confusing my lack of tolerance for homophobia, for bigotry itself.

That is a load of crap and you know it. You directly stated that you would bypass a straight person for a gay person because of your personal preferrence... you know you said that, it is posted for all to see right above in this thread.

How can you compare intolerance with disgust? Passing draconian laws... what in the world are you talking about??!!! this is a discussion about a person who allegedly used their sexual orientation and preferrences to discriminate and harrass other workers.

what in the world does that have to do with the strawman you are trying to pull into this discussion?

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: KarenMarie

Originally posted by: aidanjm

I think gay people would like legal equality. I.e., gay marriage and the right to serve in the military. With that, the gay rights movement will essentially be over. I don't think many gay people expect to see the elimination of all discrimination against gay people. That is unrealistic. Also, people do have the right to hold bigoted or discriminatory viewpoints. There is discrimination and then there is discrimination. Choosing an underqualified individual over a fully qualified individual on account of factors like race, gender, religion, etc. is not desirable. Choosing someone you like out of two equally qualified candidates is another thing altogether, and is quite reasonable in my view.

You stated that all things being equal, you would hire a gay person over a straight one, just because that is who you would get along with... that is would be your preference. Yet, you would call it bigotry if a straight man did the exact same thing.

um, no I wouldn't call it "bigotry". I have no problem with that kind of hiring decision. That is the way humans work. We get along with people who are similar to us. You are the one throwing around the term "bigotry" - not me.

Originally posted by: KarenMarie
you were the one who said... all things being equal... you never stated anything about lesser or unqualified. Stand by what you said.

How about you make the effort to understand what I said. Instead of trying to trap me in your misinterpretation of what I said.

What I said was, all things being equal (and by that I mean the two candidates are euqally able to do the job) I would choose the person I got along best with. It's not that hard to understand, I would have thought.

Originally posted by: KarenMarie
Gay ppl can want equality forever... and as long as they forcefully scream bigotry to everyone who disagrees with them, they will not get it. And for those who will do the exact thing they are complaining about... well, shame on them.

You are the person choosing to throw the word "bigotry" about. It's interesting how hypersensitive you are to even the slightest hint or possibility of discrimination against heterosexuals, and yet you are so very cavalier about the real, actual discrimination in law against gay people that currently exists. As a consequence it is very hard for me to take any of your comments on this topic seriously.

 

[sandorski]

If the allegations are true, she deserves to be fired. There's always the possibility they are false, which would also be unacceptable. Let Justice prevail whichever way the Truth lies.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: KarenMarie

Originally posted by: aidanjm

I am not intolerant of heterosexual people in the sense that I am disgusted by them or want to limit their freedoms by passing draconian laws. In fact, I have no desire to interfere with your lifestyle in any way at all.

I think you are confusing my lack of tolerance for homophobia, for bigotry itself.

That is a load of crap and you know it. You directly stated that you would bypass a straight person for a gay person because of your personal preferrence... you know you said that, it is posted for all to see right above in this thread.

No, it is not "a load of crap".

How is prefering to work with someone I can easily relate to (over someone I have little in common with or do not get along with) "bigotry"..? It isn't bigotry, it's just human nature.

Originally posted by: KarenMarie
How can you compare intolerance with disgust?

Intolerance and disgust are part of the same package. Much of the intolerance directed against gay people stems from or is linked with the disgust people feel towards homosexual sexual activities.

Originally posted by: KarenMarie
Passing draconian laws... what in the world are you talking about??!!!

I am talking about laws banning same-sex couples from forming civil unions. Such laws were placed on ballots throughout the USA over the past 5 years. Most heterosexual people voted in favor of those laws; and those laws have direct, negative impacts on the lives of lesabian and gay people.

Originally posted by: KarenMarie
this is a discussion about a person who allegedly used their sexual orientation and preferrences to discriminate and harrass other workers.

what in the world does that have to do with the strawman you are trying to pull into this discussion?

Bigotry against gay people actually exists (and has harmful consequences). Do I have an equivalent intolerance towards heterosexual people? Let's see. People who are bigoted towards gays support laws draconian laws that strip gay people of rights and freedoms and have a negative impact on the lives of gays and lesbians. They don't want their kids given gay sex ed or taught that gays exist let alone that homosexuality is a perfectly normal and healthy variant of human sexuality. They don't want gays in their church. They think gays will go to hell. Etc. Do I hold similar views (directed towards heterosexuals)..? Am I intolerant of or disgusted by the heterosexual lifestyle? Do I think heterosexuals are intrinsically inferior to homosexuals, and should therefore be denied rights? The answer is no to all of these. Therefore I don't see how I can be considered bigoted towards heterosexuals. Basically you are being incredibly hypersensitive and you should get over yourself, imo.

 

[KarenMarie]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: KarenMarie

You stated that all things being equal, you would hire a gay person over a straight one, just because that is who you would get along with... that is would be your preference. Yet, you would call it bigotry if a straight man did the exact same thing.

um, no I wouldn't call it "bigotry". I have no problem with that kind of hiring decision. That is the way humans work. We get along with people who are similar to us. You are the one throwing around the term "bigotry" - not me.

Originally posted by: KarenMarie
you were the one who said... all things being equal... you never stated anything about lesser or unqualified. Stand by what you said.

How about you make the effort to understand what I said. Instead of trying to trap me in your misinterpretation of what I said.

What I said was, all things being equal (and by that I mean the two candidates are euqally able to do the job) I would choose the person I got along best with. It's not that hard to understand, I would have thought.

Originally posted by: KarenMarie
Gay ppl can want equality forever... and as long as they forcefully scream bigotry to everyone who disagrees with them, they will not get it. And for those who will do the exact thing they are complaining about... well, shame on them.

You are the person choosing to throw the word "bigotry" about. It's interesting how hypersensitive you are to even the slightest hint or possibility of discrimination against heterosexuals, and yet you are so very cavalier about the real, actual discrimination in law against gay people that currently exists. As a consequence it is very hard for me to take any of your comments on this topic seriously.

************************

There is absolutely NO misunderstanding what you said.

Originally posted by: aidanjm
I think it is OK to promote the people you are able to work best with (given candidates of roughly equal ability). I would probably promote a gay man or a woman over a heterosexual man (all things being equal) because I think I could work better with the gay man or woman than with the heterosexual man. This is what happens in most places of employment anyway. Job fit is always an important consideration, and part of job fit is whether the people managing you are going to like you or get along with you.

The mistake this woman made was working with her partner (or ex-partner). It might be OK when the relationship is fine, but if the relatiopnship ends badly, it is going to contaminate the work environment.

Originally posted by: aidanjm

the simple fact is that women and men are different in some ways, and gay men and straight men are also different in some ways. I find it is less of a hassle relating to gay males. I don't have to put on a butch act or do all the other things that straight men do in order to be respected. It's got nothing to do with bigotry on my part. It's more about a lack of patience with the macho schtick that so many heterosexual men adopt.

that was YOUR statement. I did not make it for you, nor did I twist your words. You said that you would hire a gay person over a straight one because it is less of a hassle... because you do not have to pretend to be butch or try to be respected. You would prefere to hire a gay over a straight because that is your preference.

and when you were called on it... lets face it, if a straight person reversed it, the gay would be shouting from the friggen rafters over it... you tried to twist it around and make it into something it wasnt... like gay marriage and serving in the military and ppl passing laws...

whatever you want to say, whatever you want to claim, whatever you want to twist this into... your words are yours, they are very clear and all the twisting and turning of them will not make them into anything else.

and this is a losing battle, because you continue to try to hide the fact that you have a double standard in this issue. and i am done with trying to make you face your own words... your own clear statement... as you will continue to twist it into whatever you think will make it ok.

and for the record... i really couldnt give a flying fig leaf whether you take what i say seriously or not... after all, it is not like you are coming from a level playing field, is it?

I am sure that every/any one reading this thread sees this is a done issue and why.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Brutuskend
I seem to remember saying in a post some time back about how I felt uncomfortable being around some gays and then being called a bigot for my feelings, yet here YOU are saying pretty much the same thing about your feelings being around straight men....

I'm with KarenMarie one this one, I don't get it, nor do I see any difference between the two points of view. 😕

I wouldn't say I'm uncomfortable with heterosexual men, I just find many of them (but not all of them) aren't worth connecting with due to their emotional unavailability and their obvious discomfort at any kind of close connection with another male. Life is too short, basically.

As for you being called a bigot, that would probably have been in response to some of the ludicrous generalisations you tend to make about gay men (i.e., they are all sexual predators.) I doubt it was me calling you a bigot, tho.

 

[Ronstang]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Brutuskend
I seem to remember saying in a post some time back about how I felt uncomfortable being around some gays and then being called a bigot for my feelings, yet here YOU are saying pretty much the same thing about your feelings being around straight men....

I'm with KarenMarie one this one, I don't get it, nor do I see any difference between the two points of view. 😕

I wouldn't say I'm uncomfortable with heterosexual men, I just find many of them (but not all of them) aren't worth connecting with due to their emotional unavailability and their obvious discomfort at any kind of close connection with another male. Life is too short, basically.

As for you being called I bigot, that would probably have been in response to some of the ludicrous generalisations you tend to make about gay men (i.e., they are all sexual predators.) I doubt it was me calling you a bigot, tho.

What are you talking about? I have quite a few very close male friends. The only difference between us normal guys and you is that we don't want to play with our friends' privates.

 

[Howard]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: KarenMarie
PPl who think it is ok to 'make up' for what they think is the world's faults by promoting only a certain type of ppl (ppl of color, sexual orientation, religion) and being less than fair to the rest is the WORST kind of bigotry! and it does nothing for their cause but justify those who are against them.

I think it is OK to promote the people you are able to work best with (given candidates of roughly equal ability). I would probably promote a gay man or a woman over a heterosexual man (all things being equal) because I think I could work better with the gay man or woman than with the heterosexual man. This is what happens in most places of employment anyway. Job fit is always an important consideration, and part of job fit is whether the people managing you are going to like you or get along with you.

The mistake this woman made was working with her partner (or ex-partner). It might be OK when the relationship is fine, but if the relatiopnship ends badly, it is going to contaminate the work environment.

That's because you're a bigot.

I don't have to put on a butch act or do all the other things that straight men do in order to be respected.

Don't speak as if you know what you're talking about. :|

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: KarenMarie
There is absolutely NO misunderstanding what you said.

Originally posted by: aidanjm
I think it is OK to promote the people you are able to work best with (given candidates of roughly equal ability). I would probably promote a gay man or a woman over a heterosexual man (all things being equal) because I think I could work better with the gay man or woman than with the heterosexual man. This is what happens in most places of employment anyway. Job fit is always an important consideration, and part of job fit is whether the people managing you are going to like you or get along with you.

The mistake this woman made was working with her partner (or ex-partner). It might be OK when the relationship is fine, but if the relatiopnship ends badly, it is going to contaminate the work environment.

Originally posted by: aidanjm

the simple fact is that women and men are different in some ways, and gay men and straight men are also different in some ways. I find it is less of a hassle relating to gay males. I don't have to put on a butch act or do all the other things that straight men do in order to be respected. It's got nothing to do with bigotry on my part. It's more about a lack of patience with the macho schtick that so many heterosexual men adopt.

that was YOUR statement. I did not make it for you, nor did I twist your words. You said that you would hire a gay person over a straight one because it is less of a hassle... because you do not have to pretend to be butch or try to be respected. You would prefere to hire a gay over a straight because that is your preference.

Yes, that it my statement. Note that it is a qualified statement. ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL - i.e., assuming two candidates of equal qualification/ ability/ whatever - I would choose a gay guy over a hterosexual man on the grounds I will have a better personal connection with the gay man than the heterosexual man.

Originally posted by: KarenMarie
and when you were called on it... lets face it, if a straight person reversed it, the gay would be shouting from the friggen rafters over it... you tried to twist it around and make it into something it wasnt... like gay marriage and serving in the military and ppl passing laws...

Actually, it is YOU that is twisting my words around. Here are the first words I said on this issue:

"I think it is OK to promote the people you are able to work best with (given candidates of roughly equal ability). I would probably promote a gay man or a woman over a heterosexual man (all things being equal) because I think I could work better with the gay man or woman than with the heterosexual man. This is what happens in most places of employment anyway. Job fit is always an important consideration, and part of job fit is whether the people managing you are going to like you or get along with you."

I am not twisting around anything. I would prefer to work with a gay man (who I get along with) than a heterosexual man that I don't get along with. If the gay man and heterosexual man are equally qualified, I'd choose the gay man. Is that clear enough for you?

And NO - I would not complain if the situation were the reverse (i.e., a straight person choosing a straight person over a gay person, assuming each candidate is equally qualified.) You made a dumb assumption about what I believe based on your foolish stereotypes of gay people, and now you are getting your knickers in a twist because I don't believe what you think I do

Originally posted by: KarenMarie
whatever you want to say, whatever you want to claim, whatever you want to twist this into... your words are yours, they are very clear and all the twisting and turning of them will not make them into anything else.

Yes. Here are my words again.

"I think it is OK to promote the people you are able to work best with (given candidates of roughly equal ability). I would probably promote a gay man or a woman over a heterosexual man (all things being equal) because I think I could work better with the gay man or woman than with the heterosexual man. This is what happens in most places of employment anyway. Job fit is always an important consideration, and part of job fit is whether the people managing you are going to like you or get along with you."

Clear enough? Note the qualification: "given candidates of rougly equal ability". Note that I am not saying it is OK to choose an unqualified candidate over a qualified candidate on account of factors like sexual orientation, race, gender, religion, etc. So do please stop trying to twist MY words to give the impression I have said something I have not.

Originally posted by: KarenMarie
and this is a losing battle, because you continue to try to hide the fact that you have a double standard in this issue. and i am done with trying to make you face your own words... your own clear statement... as you will continue to twist it into whatever you think will make it ok.

You think I have a double standard because you don't take the time to bother reading what I actually think. I am just another stereotypical f@g to you, you assume you know what I think. If your assumptions don't match with my actual opinions, then I am "hypocritical" or have "double standards".

Originally posted by: KarenMarie
and for the record... i really couldnt give a flying fig leaf whether you take what i say seriously or not... after all, it is not like you are coming from a level playing field, is it?

I am sure that every/any one reading this thread sees this is a done issue and why.

The fault lies with you. Try reading what I actually say, and lose the dumb assumptions.

 

[Howard]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: KarenMarie
There is absolutely NO misunderstanding what you said.

Originally posted by: aidanjm
I think it is OK to promote the people you are able to work best with (given candidates of roughly equal ability). I would probably promote a gay man or a woman over a heterosexual man (all things being equal) because I think I could work better with the gay man or woman than with the heterosexual man. This is what happens in most places of employment anyway. Job fit is always an important consideration, and part of job fit is whether the people managing you are going to like you or get along with you.

The mistake this woman made was working with her partner (or ex-partner). It might be OK when the relationship is fine, but if the relatiopnship ends badly, it is going to contaminate the work environment.

Originally posted by: aidanjm

the simple fact is that women and men are different in some ways, and gay men and straight men are also different in some ways. I find it is less of a hassle relating to gay males. I don't have to put on a butch act or do all the other things that straight men do in order to be respected. It's got nothing to do with bigotry on my part. It's more about a lack of patience with the macho schtick that so many heterosexual men adopt.

that was YOUR statement. I did not make it for you, nor did I twist your words. You said that you would hire a gay person over a straight one because it is less of a hassle... because you do not have to pretend to be butch or try to be respected. You would prefere to hire a gay over a straight because that is your preference.

Yes, that it my statement. Note that it is a qualified statement. ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL - i.e., assuming two candidates of equal qualification/ ability/ whatever - I would choose a gay guy over a hterosexual man on the grounds I will have a better personal connection with the gay man than the heterosexual man.

You know, there's nothing wrong with selecting the person who you feel would be the most productive, and since cooperation is a part of that, picking somebody who you think would get along better is not a wrong decision (that small problem about sexual orientation discrimination? 11th commandment).

However, there is a reason why you feel like you will have a "better personal connection", as you say, with a gay person than a straight person. What would you say that reason is?

 

[Vegitto]

Originally posted by: Pepsei
regardless of her sexual orientation.... if the allegations are true.... she should be fired.

 

[AaronB]

Originally posted by: Ronstang


What are you talking about? I have quite a few very close male friends. The only difference between us normal guys and you is that we don't want to play with our friends' privates.

PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT!

....


You owe me a keyboard a$$hole! :|

 

[AnthroAndStargate]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Anyhow, there should be no "deal" or "settlement" of any kind. If any of the allegations are true, she should be booted out the door with nothing, and never be allowed to hold a position of authority again. I don't think her sexual preference should be considered at all, it sounds like she's scum and should be held accountable.

Originally posted by: aidanjm
In other news, gay marriage is now fully legal in Spain and South Africa. Over 8000 same sex couples have married in Massachucetts, over 12,000 in Canada. The march of progress never stops. 🙂

That's "progress"? Not in my book, sounds like the further spread of sickness.

I am glad you are a neffer and dont hold any real position of power. kthx for your medical analysis, now the homos wont be able to git ur children!

 

[mercanucaribe]

This was an episode of Rescue Me.

 

[Genx87]

What is there to discuss? Because she is gay does she deserve to break the rules and discriminate and give out special favors?

She has been nothing but a thorn in the side of the city nearly since the day she showed up. The liberals running that town tried their hardest to turn a blind eye but eventually even they couldnt take it anymore.

 

[K1052]

Sounds like they have cause, backed by at least one investigation.

If further examination proves the claims vaild then she should be dismissed.