Gay-rights bill clears first hurdle in Senate

[Seawytch]

What you do within your room = stays in your room. Shouldn't matter in the work place.

I thought such laws were already in place?

It does quite significantly...if Mark posts on facebook "I had a great date with Steve today" and Mark's boss sees that facebook post...in 29 states it would be legal for Mark's boss to fire Mark. That's under no other issue other then Mark being gay.

Mark's boss should be able to fire him for whatever reason he wants, it is the boss's business after all.

But Mark's boss cannot fire him based on his race, religion, gender or origin. This would simply add sexual orientation to that list. Either get rid of ALL of these protections or add orientation to it.

 

[Iceman]

It does quite significantly...if Mark posts on facebook "I had a great date with Steve today" and Mark's boss sees that facebook post...in 29 states it would be legal for Mark's boss to fire Mark. That's under no other issue other then Mark being gay.

Mark's boss should be able to fire him for whatever reason he wants, it is the boss's business after all.

But Mark's boss cannot fire him based on his race, religion, gender or origin. This would simply add sexual orientation to that list. Either get rid of ALL of these protections or add orientation to it.

Then get rid of all protections. I don't support adding more.

 

[Political Junky]

What you do within your room = stays in your room. Shouldn't matter in the work place.

I thought such laws were already in place?

29 states can refuse to hire a gay person or even if they think one is gay.

 

[Seawytch]

Mark's boss should be able to fire him for whatever reason he wants, it is the boss's business after all.

But Mark's boss cannot fire him based on his race, religion, gender or origin. This would simply add sexual orientation to that list. Either get rid of ALL of these protections or add orientation to it.

Then get rid of all protections. I don't support adding more.

Go right ahead. Good luck with that.

 

[NLT]

They wont even take this bill up in the house, waste of time.

 

[Seawytch]

They wont even take this bill up in the house, waste of time.

Oh? Like the two score times trying to repeal the ACA?

This isn't a waste of time though...it adds another obstruction to the long list of obstructions for the out of touch GOP in the House.

 

[Zander]

yawn....

 

[Iceman]

But Mark's boss cannot fire him based on his race, religion, gender or origin. This would simply add sexual orientation to that list. Either get rid of ALL of these protections or add orientation to it.

Then get rid of all protections. I don't support adding more.

Go right ahead. Good luck with that.

It won't happen, but I will be satisfied in this bill fails. I believe in the right of free association so I will take it where I can get it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

They can't fire you because on your own private time you are a christian.

If you are bashing the company on your time off work because you don't likes its policies because of your Christian values, yup, you are toast.

But I never said any of those scenarios Jake.

I said you can't fire someone just because they are a christian outside of work.

You keep quoting me and adding narratives that have nothing to do with what I said.

I am merely filling in the blanks that you are leaving out so that it can have nuance and context.

Whether you are a Christian or an atheist is immaterial if you are bashing the company during your time off. The company can fire you.

The 1st Amendment does not protect you at work.

 

[Michelle420]

If you are bashing the company on your time off work because you don't likes its policies because of your Christian values, yup, you are toast.

But I never said any of those scenarios Jake.

I said you can't fire someone just because they are a christian outside of work.

You keep quoting me and adding narratives that have nothing to do with what I said.

I am merely filling in the blanks that you are leaving out so that it can have nuance and context.

Whether you are a Christian or an atheist is immaterial if you are bashing the company during your time off. The company can fire you.

The 1st Amendment does not protect you at work.

But my point was not about people bashing a company outside of work.

My point was that whether you're a Christian outside of work in your own privacy, has no bearing on your work, and you can't be fired just because someone finds out you have a religious belief you practice on your own time and they happen not to like it.

Same should apply to being gay, your private lifestyle is nobody's business and should be protected so nobody can fire you just because you are gay.

Your points about company bashing outside of work in no way applies to anything I said.

Just wondering why not just make those points on your own?

 

[Seawytch]

Then get rid of all protections. I don't support adding more.

Go right ahead. Good luck with that.

It won't happen, but I will be satisfied in this bill fails. I believe in the right of free association so I will take it where I can get it.

No it won't and since it won't, gays should be added to it. If I can't fire you for being Christian, you shouldn't be able to fire me for being gay.

 

[R.C. Christian]

That bill won't save the degenerates from an eternity in hell now will it? ROFLMAO!

 

[ScienceRocks]

That bill won't save the degenerates from an eternity in hell now will it? ROFLMAO!

What matters within politics is the here and now.

 

[Nosmo King]

I don't want it both ways..

I think, as stated in the previous post, that a catholic church or whatever other religious organization should not be forced to hire someone who does not help their image, or is blatantly against their views

thats neat but we are talking about businesses and you cant discriminate. Tough shit. Your religious practice is a choice and nothing more, and thats protected.

I believe the FREEDOM should be protected.. not a forced protection nor forced acceptance.. whether it be for sexual choice, religious choice, or any other behavioral choice

Your entire argument rests on the slender reed you present: homosexuality is a "choice". In fact, sexual orientation is an immutable aspect of one's personality. As immutable as race, gender, eye color, height and whether you're left handed or right handed.

This has been proven over and over, but you seem unable to accept that basic fact.

Discrimination based on such immutable aspects is not only morally wrong, but illegal here in the Land of the Free.

Once the facts of immutability are understood and accepted, what possible reason could any American have to oppose this bill?

 

[R.C. Christian]

That bill won't save the degenerates from an eternity in hell now will it? ROFLMAO!

What matters within politics is the here and now.

Why so you can plaster your voter ranks with more degenerates?

 

[DiamondDave]

thats neat but we are talking about businesses and you cant discriminate. Tough shit. Your religious practice is a choice and nothing more, and thats protected.

I believe the FREEDOM should be protected.. not a forced protection nor forced acceptance.. whether it be for sexual choice, religious choice, or any other behavioral choice

Your entire argument rests on the slender reed you present: homosexuality is a "choice". In fact, sexual orientation is an immutable aspect of one's personality. As immutable as race, gender, eye color, height and whether you're left handed or right handed.

This has been proven over and over, but you seem unable to accept that basic fact.

Discrimination based on such immutable aspects is not only morally wrong, but illegal here in the Land of the Free.

Once the facts of immutability are understood and accepted, what possible reason could any American have to oppose this bill?

It is either genetic (which has not been shown in the least), it is a physical abnormality (where other abnormalities and chemical imbalances are treated ), it is a learned behavior, or it is a choice...

It can be related to religious CHOICE, but not to race or other GENETIC aspects of a person

We discriminate on choices ALL THE TIME, and rightfully so.. we choose not to have our kids around degenerates, we choose not to associate with those who are opposed to our particular behaviors and choices.. what is WRONG is to prevent people from EXERCISING their choice.. it is also wrong to keep people from exercising their freedom of discretion and discriminating taste

Labeling acceptance of choices as rights protected by law is ludicrous... no matter what the choice is

 

[Avatar4321]

Where does the Constitution give Congress the power to pass this law?

 

[Iceman]

Go right ahead. Good luck with that.

It won't happen, but I will be satisfied in this bill fails. I believe in the right of free association so I will take it where I can get it.

No it won't and since it won't, gays should be added to it. If I can't fire you for being Christian, you shouldn't be able to fire me for being gay.

Well, I guess you oppose free association, I don't. So we will have to agree to disagree.

So Homosexuality is now a religion?

 

[Nyvin]

Where does the Constitution give Congress the power to pass this law?

the 14th amendment

 

[Nosmo King]

I believe the FREEDOM should be protected.. not a forced protection nor forced acceptance.. whether it be for sexual choice, religious choice, or any other behavioral choice

Your entire argument rests on the slender reed you present: homosexuality is a "choice". In fact, sexual orientation is an immutable aspect of one's personality. As immutable as race, gender, eye color, height and whether you're left handed or right handed.

This has been proven over and over, but you seem unable to accept that basic fact.

Discrimination based on such immutable aspects is not only morally wrong, but illegal here in the Land of the Free.

Once the facts of immutability are understood and accepted, what possible reason could any American have to oppose this bill?

It is either genetic (which has not been shown in the least), it is a physical abnormality (where other abnormalities and chemical imbalances are treated ), it is a learned behavior, or it is a choice...

It can be related to religious CHOICE, but not to race or other GENETIC aspects of a person

We discriminate on choices ALL THE TIME, and rightfully so.. we choose not to have our kids around degenerates, we choose not to associate with those who are opposed to our particular behaviors and choices.. what is WRONG is to prevent people from EXERCISING their choice.. it is also wrong to keep people from exercising their freedom of discretion and discriminating taste

Labeling accceptance of choices as rights protected by law is ludicrous... no matter what the choice is

Chemical imbalances, huh? That relates to emotional and psychological conditions. Abnormalities? Are you implying a defect in one's brain chemistry? What is the sum total of defects, as you understand them? Do you equate homosexuality to psychotic or sociopathic behaviors? Is it your position that homosexuality is a treatable, reversible condition and not an immutable condition of human sexuality? Do you believe that the academic study of human sexuality is a worthwhile course of study? Or do you find such academic excerises a waste of scholarship?