VA state employees can be discriminated against

[zsdersw]

You're still not getting it. You want special rights, that's the entire gay agenda. Special protection, special rights. You should be able to hire/fire anybody, for ANY reason. This is America, no special class, no special protection, no "equal, but special".

You've never gotten it, so you have little room to be saying others aren't getting it.

Firing a flamer because of their disruptive attitude is the same as firing the chick that wears too much perfume. Same as the fat chick that stinks. Same as the smoker who smells. Same as the alcoholic that smells. Your behavior is disruptive and you need to be fired if your behavior causes disruption.

No special rights. Employment is not a right.

Firing people for disruptions are one matter, firing people for reasons that have nothing to do with their job performance and everything to do with personal prejudices is another. The former is reasonable in all entities, the latter is not reasonable in public entities. The government is obligated to give all of its citizens equal opportunity, not just straight white Christian men. And, by the way, you don't have to be gay to be a victim of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

 

[spidey07]

You're still not getting it. You can and should be fired for any reason. You are not special. If I don't like the way you look I should be able to fire you. If I don't like the way you act, I can fire you. You are not special.

 

[zsdersw]

You're still not getting it.

You never got it.

You can and should be fired for any reason. You are not special. If I don't like the way you look I should be able to fire you. If I don't like the way you act, I can fire you. You are not special.

Not if you work for the government or an entity supported with taxpayer money.

 

[HumblePie]

You never got it.



Not if you work for the government or an entity supported with taxpayer money.

Gah zsdersw. He isn't stating government work, although spidey is such a homophobe that if he could remove it for that even he would I think.

The simple fact is for private employment there really should be no special cases. There WAS a need for certain laws at one point in time where a McDonalds wouldn't hire a black kid to flip burgers for example. Those times are gone and changed. We don't need to be forcing McDonalds to fill a gay quota now. It's not the same. Unlike the color of your skin, the accent of your voice, your gender, or any other easily identifiable trait that right off the bat may promote discrimination from the right party, being gay does not have anything easily identifiable unless you are basically a "flamer" as people put it. Being a flamer though is a personal choice just like getting the wrong tattoo will bar you from some employment, having the wrong haircut or dying your hair the wrong way will as well. Most work environments strive for a professional appearance and demeanor from their employees.

I know places that fire people based off political stances. Work for Chevron for example and you better not say anything bad about Chavez near any of the Venezuelans that can hear you or you will be fired. My last job had a very spidey right-wing person at the helm of the company and if you were known to be a active left winger.. you were fired.

What I'm trying to say is being gay may be a trait that isn't changeable for most people, but expressing your traits in a work place is not acceptable if that place doesn't want those kinds of expressions from their employees. Unlike being a hispanic, or a woman, or in a wheel chair that prevents the person from exactly being able to hide those traits is impossible. Being gay means still being able to use your discretion and not be retarded to flaunt your gayness around others that don't want it around them.

Again, I have no problem with the bill if it targets specifically public sector jobs and the wording includes effects that being gay outside of the workplace is not something they can be fired for. That is a good bill and one I support. Incentiving gays to make asses of themselves to flaunt their gayness in the work place so they can sue when they get fired from a PRIVATELY owned work place is not a good bill.

 

[zsdersw]

Gah zsdersw. He isn't stating government work,

That's precisely what this thread is about. I've already stated that private organizations can hire/fire whomever they want for any reason.

Unlike the color of your skin, the accent of your voice, your gender, or any other easily identifiable trait that right off the bat may promote discrimination from the right party, being gay does not have anything easily identifiable unless you are basically a "flamer" as people put it. Being a flamer though is a personal choice just like getting the wrong tattoo will bar you from some employment, having the wrong haircut or dying your hair the wrong way will as well. Most work environments strive for a professional appearance and demeanor from their employees.

A very naive view of homosexuality you have. Many gay men naturally sound and act feminine, and some straight men sound and act that way too. It's not like they're choosing to be a "flamer".

 

[HumblePie]

That's precisely what this thread is about. I've already stated that private organizations can hire/fire whomever they want for any reason.



A very naive view of homosexuality you have. Many gay men naturally sound and act feminine, and some straight men sound and act that way too. It's not like they're choosing to be a "flamer".

The sound of your voice is one thing, but actions are another. Acting feminine as a male is just that, ACTIONS. They are not something you are born into but learned behavioral patterns. Patterns can be changed. Having a slightly higher pitched voiced that you can't control, trust me I know all about this one, is not what I was referring to when I was talking about acting gay. Crap like adding a lisp to the way you talk when you naturally don't have a lisp, or overly touching people of the same sex, or using vernacular that most straight people of the same sex would not use such as a male saying, "Hun" or "Darling" or "Fabulous!" or something like that is a learned pattern. There is no natural inclination for anyone to do that regardless of what your opinion on it is.

I know and am friends with a few gay people that act perfectly normal in public but in their private lives let loose in what way they want to express themselves. I'm all for that. Just because I know a guy that likes to sing like Madonna, wear big wigs, talk with a lisp and a softer voice (when he can), and wear high heels doesn't mean he does that when he goes to work. He knows what is acceptable behavior in his work place, has no problem with that as everyone there is expected to conform to that working environment, and then goes buck wild when he's off work.

 

[zsdersw]

The sound of your voice is one thing, but actions are another. Acting feminine as a male is just that, ACTIONS. They are not something you are born into but learned behavioral patterns. Patterns can be changed. Having a slightly higher pitched voiced that you can't control, trust me I know all about this one, is not what I was referring to when I was talking about acting gay. Crap like adding a lisp to the way you talk when you naturally don't have a lisp, or overly touching people of the same sex, or using vernacular that most straight people of the same sex would not use such as a male saying, "Hun" or "Darling" or "Fabulous!" or something like that is a learned pattern. There is no natural inclination for anyone to do that regardless of what your opinion on it is.

Your original assertion was that being gay doesn't have any obvious evidence unless you're a flamer. Clearly that's not true, because some gay people naturally have lisps, higher voices, a naturally more feminine stride, or are assumed to be gay if they dress fashionably (within the parameters of any workplace dress code), and are well-groomed.

I don't disagree with you on what kinds of actions are choices, but what does that have to do with public-sector discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation?

 

[Lithium381]

Once you start protecting a behavior you open up all kinds of crap like fat being a protected class, alcoholism being a protected class, smokers being a protected class, pedophiles being a protected class, etc.

being white, or male, or both, however, is not a protected class

 

[Phokus]

Are you idiots seriously arguing with spidey? See my sig, he hates gay people with a passion and thinks they shouldn't be allowed to hold public office. There's an obvious reason why he thinks it should be a-o-k to discriminate against gays: Because he's a homophobe (among other things). It's shitheads like him who use the free market ideology as a basis for discrimination that we need the civil rights act (and it should probably be expanded to sexual orientation).

 

[comptr6]

Where in the constitution does it say gays can't be discriminated against?

 

[cubby1223]

I can't wait for "lazy" to become a protected class!!!!!!!!!

No public institution should have the ability to look down upon my laziness.

Laziness is a trait just like gender or race.

The law doesn't declare me lazy, I declare it. I don't declare to the government that I sleep in late or that I don't pay close attention to things... I only declare my laziness.

I cannot help that I was disadvantaged with a faulty brain. Why should the energetic workaholics always get the best perks in life?

 

[zsdersw]

I can't wait for "lazy" to become a protected class!!!!!!!!!

No public institution should have the ability to look down upon my laziness.

Laziness is a trait just like gender or race.

The law doesn't declare me lazy, I declare it. I don't declare to the government that I sleep in late or that I don't pay close attention to things... I only declare my laziness.

I cannot help that I was disadvantaged with a faulty brain. Why should the energetic workaholics always get the best perks in life?

Shaka when the walls fell.