GOP once again comes out against gay people

[Ravi]

This morning, after Senator Dean Heller announced he’d be the 60th vote for the Employment Non Discrimination Act, enabling it to break a GOP filibuster, House Speaker John Boehner promptly declared (http://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/enda-legislation-john-boehner-99308.html?hp=r4) he opposes the legislation, putting its passage in doubt. Senior House GOP aides say (http://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/enda-legislation-john-boehner-99308.html?hp=r4) the bill is unlikely to get a House vote.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/11/04/house-republicans-set-to-kill-enda/

[Alyosha]

Where's the part where they say: We've come out once again against gay people ?

I don't see that anywhere. I hope you aren't lying again.

[hanger4]

It seems if Ravi's finger tips are typing

she/he/it is lying.

[Codename Section]

I just see where they don't want to add sexual preference to the list of select groups who get special preferences for hiring, but I don't see where anyone came out against gays yet. Maybe they left the quote out of the article?

[Alyosha]

I just see where they don't want to add sexual preference to the list of select groups who get special preferences for hiring, but I don't see where anyone came out against gays yet. Maybe they left the quote out of the article?

I think we should just keep adding people to the Non-Discrimination Act until everyone is included then no one will be discriminated against.

[Captain Obvious]

Although the GOP is certainly going to represent the bigoted religious right on social issues, this one clearly is a bait thread demonizing the GOP prematurely.

Waste of time.

[Codename Section]

Why would someone know you are gay when you're in the hiring process for a job? They can't even ask those questions legally. I can tell who is black, latino (sometimes), asian, or female. Unless you want me to know you are gay, I do not know.

[Captain Obvious]

Why would someone know you are gay when you're in the hiring process for a job? They can't even ask those questions legally. I can tell who is black, latino (sometimes), asian, or female. Unless you want me to know you are gay, I do not know.

I can spot 90% of gay dudes from the space shuttle, so can you.

[GrassrootsConservative]

Although the GOP is certainly going to represent the bigoted religious right on social issues, this one clearly is a bait thread demonizing the GOP prematurely.

Waste of time.

Could have told you this based on who started the thread.

[Alyosha]

I can spot 90% of gay dudes from the space shuttle, so can you.

Do you think gay people show up in drag for job interviews, going: Ha-ay!

Come on now.

[Captain Obvious]

Do you think gay people show up in drag for job interviews, going: Ha-ay!

Come on now.

Gay-dar.

Seriously - gay dudes, the vast majority of them are pretty easy to spot. Even the least flaming of flamers has a little bit of a hairdresser lisp.

[Alyosha]

Gay-dar.

Seriously - gay dudes, the vast majority of them are pretty easy to spot. Even the least flaming of flamers has a little bit of a hairdresser lisp.

I don't think they go into job interviews like that. Most of my gay friends aren't "gay" until they 4 or 5 o'clock.

[Captain Obvious]

I don't think they go into job interviews like that. Most of my gay friends aren't "gay" until they 4 or 5 o'clock.

So all that is fake?

[Captain Obvious]

I don't think they go into job interviews like that. Most of my gay friends aren't "gay" until they 4 or 5 o'clock.

You're not like a fag-hag, btw?

[nathanbforrest45]

Do you think gay people show up in drag for job interviews, going: Ha-ay!

Come on now.


Yes, yes they do. Lesbians are hard to spot but gay males stick out like a sore dick.

[Captain Obvious]

Yes, yes they do. Lesbians are hard to spot but gay males stick out like a sore dick.

Hell, lesbians are easier - they all look like Pete Rose.

There are no Howard Stern lesbians - total fiction.

[Ravi]

I just see where they don't want to add sexual preference to the list of select groups who get special preferences for hiring, but I don't see where anyone came out against gays yet. Maybe they left the quote out of the article?This amounts to them giving everyone EXCEPT gays and transgendered people special privileges.

[nathanbforrest45]

However, unless the person prances in wearing lipstick and saying "this place is just so sweet, you don't know for sure. Most job applications I have seen don't have a sexual orientation box to check.

Tell me, suppose two men show up for a job interview. One beginnings by saying "I'm gay, who's your attorney and the other conducts himself in a professional manner which will you hire? Suppose they are both gay. Suppose the one claiming to be gay is not, he is just a rabble rouser while the other one is actually gay.
In the 30 plus years I have run my business I have hired a minimum of 6 gay males. I know they were gay because they told me so after they were hired. 5 out of the 6 were such drama queens I had to let them go. One would show up at business meetings with his 16 year old gay lover. That happened twice. My wife ended up firing him for showing up drunk. I would not knowingly hire a gay male but I wouldn't ask before hand.

[nathanbforrest45]

Hell, lesbians are easier - they all look like Pete Rose.

There are no Howard Stern lesbians - total fiction.


Not true, look at Portia De La Rosa and Jenna Wolfe. Who would have known if they had not published it.

[Ravi]

However, unless the person prances in wearing lipstick and saying "this place is just so sweet, you don't know for sure. Most job applications I have seen don't have a sexual orientation box to check.

Tell me, suppose two men show up for a job interview. One beginnings by saying "I'm gay, who's your attorney and the other conducts himself in a professional manner which will you hire? Suppose they are both gay. Suppose the one claiming to be gay is not, he is just a rabble rouser while the other one is actually gay.
In the 30 plus years I have run my business I have hired a minimum of 6 gay males. I know they were gay because they told me so after they were hired. 5 out of the 6 were such drama queens I had to let them go. One would show up at business meetings with his 16 year old gay lover. That happened twice. My wife ended up firing him for showing up drunk. I would not knowingly hire a gay male but I wouldn't ask before hand.

It's not just about a job interview. It's sort of like DADT for civilians. If an employer discovers an employee is gay then the employee can be fired.

[Captain Obvious]

Not true, look at Portia De La Rosa and Jenna Wolfe. Who would have known if they had not published it.

Howard Stern lesbians.

[Captain Obvious]

I could care less who you're fucking - if you're the better candidate, you're the one I want working for me.

[killianr1]

This amounts to them giving everyone EXCEPT gays and transgendered people special privileges.

As a gay professional who worked his way up in an industry which has very little to no association with the gay community, your statement above tells me you have no idea what the employment laws currently cover.

For instance, I could decided tomorrow to fire all my employees with blue eyes. That is totally legal because it is not protected under the law.

I have concerns that gays and transgendered could be discriminated against in hiring. However, I know that type of protection can often create more headaches than it resolves.

I do think that "equal protection under the law" is a more important goal for the gay community. The excuse that it offends the religious community is minimized, and in many areas it does prevent discrimination.

[jillian]

Where's the part where they say: We've come out once again against gay people ?

I don't see that anywhere. I hope you aren't lying again.

the part where they vote against them not being discriminated against.

would you be asking that question if it were directed against christians?

[Chris]

So, this Employment Non Discrimination Act, is it limiting government hiring practices? That would be fine. If it limits private business, then what business is it of government's who hires whom?

[Chris]

the part where they vote against them not being discriminated against.

would you be asking that question if it were directed against christians?



Apparently you're not against government intruding on personal lives.

[Ravi]

As a gay professional who worked his way up in an industry which has very little to no association with the gay community, your statement above tells me you have no idea what the employment laws currently cover.

For instance, I could decided tomorrow to fire all my employees with blue eyes. That is totally legal because it is not protected under the law.

I have concerns that gays and transgendered could be discriminated against in hiring. However, I know that type of protection can often create more headaches than it resolves.

I do think that "equal protection under the law" is a more important goal for the gay community. The excuse that it offends the religious community is minimized, and in many areas it does prevent discrimination.

There's not a lot of evidence that blue eyed people are being discriminated against in the workplace.

[jillian]

As a gay professional who worked his way up in an industry which has very little to no association with the gay community, your statement above tells me you have no idea what the employment laws currently cover.

For instance, I could decided tomorrow to fire all my employees with blue eyes. That is totally legal because it is not protected under the law.

I have concerns that gays and transgendered could be discriminated against in hiring. However, I know that type of protection can often create more headaches than it resolves.

I do think that "equal protection under the law" is a more important goal for the gay community. The excuse that it offends the religious community is minimized, and in many areas it does prevent discrimination.

while you are theoretically correct that you could fire any employee with blue eyes tomorrow and that it would not be illegal, it is unlikely that you would intentionally discriminate against people with blue eyes. Most anti-discrimination laws exist because there are certain "suspect classes" of people who have a long history of being discriminated against.

you can like that or not... or minimize it or not... but that's fact. and claiming that anti-discrimination laws somehow give these suspect classes rights others don't have seems to ignore the fact that the opposite is, in fact true.

[Codename Section]

the part where they vote against them not being discriminated against.

would you be asking that question if it were directed against christians?

Christians aren't granted "equal protections", jillian now are they?


And yes, she would feel the same way. Check out your Hobby Lobby thread.

[Chris]

There's not a lot of evidence that blue eyed people are being discriminated against in the workplace.


while you are theoretically correct that you could fire any employee with blue eyes tomorrow and that it would not be illegal, it is unlikely that you would intentionally discriminate against people with blue eyes. Most anti-discrimination laws exist because there are certain "suspect classes" of people who have a long history of being discriminated against.

you can like that or not... or minimize it or not... but that's fact. and claiming that anti-discrimination laws somehow give these suspect classes rights others don't have seems to ignore the fact that the opposite is, in fact true.



I think you two deliberately miss the point. But, hey, you two are dead set against government intruding upon privacy, right?

[Codename Section]

You're not like a fag-hag, btw?


((nods))

[Codename Section]

This amounts to them giving everyone EXCEPT gays and transgendered people special privileges.

Hold up, I get special privileges? Wat?

[Codename Section]

It's not just about a job interview. It's sort of like DADT for civilians. If an employer discovers an employee is gay then the employee can be fired.

Can he also go into the brig or get discharged from his job in such a way that he loses his rights?

[killianr1]

There's not a lot of evidence that blue eyed people are being discriminated against in the workplace.

Can you provide statistics on that?

It was just an example, it could have just as well been blonde hair, or brown hair or freckles.

[jillian]

Christians aren't granted "equal protections", @jillian (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=719) now are they?


And yes, she would feel the same way. Check out your Hobby Lobby thread.

of course they are, they have the same rights as non-christians to follow their own religion. are they entitled to make their own religion the favored one despite the first amendment prohibition against that?

[Codename Section]

of course they are, they have the same rights as non-christians to follow their own religion. are they entitled to make their own religion the favored one despite the first amendment prohibition against that?

We're talking about jobs, dude. You asked if she would have problems if Christians were excluded from the Non Discrimination Act and I'm telling you that a) they aren't included and b) she wouldn't care.

[junie]

You're not like a fag-hag, btw?



lol ever see that movie 'the crying game' ? :wink:

[Ravi]

Christians aren't granted "equal protections", @jillian (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=719) now are they?


And yes, she would feel the same way. Check out your Hobby Lobby thread.Christians are granted equal protection. You can't fire someone for being Christian.

[Ravi]

Can you provide statistics on that?

It was just an example, it could have just as well been blonde hair, or brown hair or freckles.

No, there are not statistics on it. Because it doesn't happen.

[Codename Section]

Christians are granted equal protection. You can't fire someone for being Christian.

Sure you can. You just tell them that they suck at their job. Just like you would anyone else you wanted to fire. They'd have to take you to court and prove otherwise and everyone will waste lots of money.

[Ravi]

Sure you can. You just tell them that they suck at their job. Just like you would anyone else you wanted to fire. They'd have to take you to court and prove otherwise and everyone will waste lots of money.
You can fire anyone for sucking at their job. But you can't fire them because of their religion, race, or gender. You can fire someone for being gay or transgendered.

That's where the inequality comes in.

[Chris]

You can fire anyone for sucking at their job. But you can't fire them because of their religion, race, or gender. You can fire someone for being gay or transgendered.

That's where the inequality comes in.



No, that's where government intrusion on privacy comes is, with you cheering it on.

[killianr1]

There's not a lot of evidence that blue eyed people are being discriminated against in the workplace.

How do you know that. I could be firing every blue eyed employee I find.

The point is unless it is specifically protected under the law, you can fire anyone for any reason. That includes being Christian. That is not protected under the law.

Believe me I know, I was directly involved with three discrimination cases. I won all three.

[Alyosha]

You can fire anyone for sucking at their job. But you can't fire them because of their religion, race, or gender. You can fire someone for being gay or transgendered.

That's where the inequality comes in.

Can you fire them because they like to fuck mules? Can you fire someone because they are into BDSM? How about can you fire someone based on the fact that they are polyamorous?

I don't think there should be any laws about who to fire or not to fire because they are paper tigers. It is a feel good measure. Proving you were fired because of ______________ is extremely difficult. When people know the law is in effect they will be less likely to show their cards about what kind of bigoted asshole they really are.

You guys live in fantasy disco land if you believe these laws stop discrimination. They just drive it so far underground that good people have no ability to call out the bigots, racists, misogynists, etc.

With these types of laws, the gay or lesbian person who is turned down for promotions or released for lack of funding will never know that they signed up with a homophobe. They will have just missed an opportunity to work elsewhere from someone who wants them, their labor, etc and isn't hateful.

But I guess you guys think that this stuff is easy to prove in court. Okay.

[junie]

You can fire anyone for sucking at their job. But you can't fire them because of their religion, race, or gender. You can fire someone for being gay or transgendered.

That's where the inequality comes in.


but that's just discrimination of the 'frivolous' kind, rav...





However, on this topic, there are a handful of House Republicans who happen to agree with the RNC autopsy (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/09/30/john-boehner-doesnt-have-to-let-the-tea-party-paralyze-whole-government/) into what went wrong in 2012, which prescribed that the GOP should project a more tolerant aura on gay rights.

One such House Republican is Rep. Charlie Dent, who comes from a moderate Pennsylvania district — and is one of around five House Republicans to come out for ENDA so far.


“I believe the Speaker should allow a vote on this bill,” Dent told me in an interview today.

“I believe that the American public wants to make sure people are not discriminated against, based on race, religion, or sexual orientation.”


Dent, who also broke (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/09/30/john-boehner-doesnt-have-to-let-the-tea-party-paralyze-whole-government/) with the House GOP shutdown strategy, said he thought around three dozen Republicans in the House would support ENDA. He referred back to the previous House vote on a version of ENDA, in 2007, which passed (https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/110-2007/h1057) with 35 Republicans in support (it died (http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/lgbt/news/2011/07/19/10006/a-history-of-the-employment-non-discrimination-act/) in the Senate).



“I suspect there would be a similar number now,” Dent said, though he conceded he hadn’t done a head count.



Boehner’s office is justifying his opposition by claiming ENDA “will increase frivolous litigation and cost American jobs.” However, as Sam Stein points out (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/04/john-boehner-enda_n_4212250.html?ir=Gay+Voices&ref=topbar):

Top business leaders have begun pushing for (http://www.macrumors.com/2013/11/04/apple-ceo-tim-cook-writes-op-ed-in-support-of-u-s-employment-nondiscrimination-act/) the bill’s passage.

And in July 2013, the Government Accountability Office issued a report concluding (http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-700R) that in states with LGBT workplace protections, “there were relatively few employment discrimination complaints based on sexual orientation and gender identity filed.”

[Alyosha]

but that's just discrimination of the 'frivolous' kind, rav...





However, on this topic, there are a handful of House Republicans who happen to agree with the RNC autopsy (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/09/30/john-boehner-doesnt-have-to-let-the-tea-party-paralyze-whole-government/) into what went wrong in 2012, which prescribed that the GOP should project a more tolerant aura on gay rights.

One such House Republican is Rep. Charlie Dent, who comes from a moderate Pennsylvania district — and is one of around five House Republicans to come out for ENDA so far.


“I believe the Speaker should allow a vote on this bill,” Dent told me in an interview today.

“I believe that the American public wants to make sure people are not discriminated against, based on race, religion, or sexual orientation.”


Dent, who also broke (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/09/30/john-boehner-doesnt-have-to-let-the-tea-party-paralyze-whole-government/) with the House GOP shutdown strategy, said he thought around three dozen Republicans in the House would support ENDA. He referred back to the previous House vote on a version of ENDA, in 2007, which passed (https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/110-2007/h1057) with 35 Republicans in support (it died (http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/lgbt/news/2011/07/19/10006/a-history-of-the-employment-non-discrimination-act/) in the Senate).



“I suspect there would be a similar number now,” Dent said, though he conceded he hadn’t done a head count.



Boehner’s office is justifying his opposition by claiming ENDA “will increase frivolous litigation and cost American jobs.” However, as Sam Stein points out (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/04/john-boehner-enda_n_4212250.html?ir=Gay+Voices&ref=topbar):

Top business leaders have begun pushing for (http://www.macrumors.com/2013/11/04/apple-ceo-tim-cook-writes-op-ed-in-support-of-u-s-employment-nondiscrimination-act/) the bill’s passage.

And in July 2013, the Government Accountability Office issued a report concluding (http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-700R) that in states with LGBT workplace protections, “there were relatively few employment discrimination complaints based on sexual orientation and gender identity filed.”


You didn't cite that wall of crazy font. Are those your words or are you plagiarizing?

[Alyosha]

.

How do you know that. I could be firing every blue eyed employee I find.

The point is unless it is specifically protected under the law, you can fire anyone for any reason. That includes being Christian. That is not protected under the law.

Believe me I know, I was directly involved with three discrimination cases. I won all three.


Certain people should know this as they, too, work in the law. Civil suits are a bitch. Hundreds of hours and you still have no real promise of results.

I'd rather know what employer doesn't like women or gays or blacks and never go to work for those mutherfuckers, never allow them to make a dime off my labor, but...that's just me.

I hate rewarding assholes at the expense of nice people.

[junie]

You didn't cite that wall of crazy font. Are those your words or are you plagiarizing?



oh my, does this mean you didn't bother to read the OP article.........? typical.

[junie]

Where's the part where they say: We've come out once again against gay people ?

I don't see that anywhere. I hope you aren't lying again.



:laughing4: post number two... he didn't even read the article!

[Alyosha]

oh my, does this mean you didn't bother to read the OP article.........? typical.

No, it means that I'm helping you keep inline with those things Ravi deems appropriate. You should post the link or say "from the OP".

Just helpin' a sistuh out so you can keep it tight with your girlfriend.

[Alyosha]

:laughing4: post number two... he didn't even read the article!

She read the article, compared it to the thread title, and noted that Ravi was once more full of shit.

It's like shooting fish in a partisan barrel with you guys.

[junie]

:blahblah: who cares about discrimination when you're having so much FUN playing e-games...........

[Alyosha]

:blahblah: who cares about discrimination when you're having so much FUN playing e-games...........

I care about discrimination. I have stated why I believe that your solution will not fix anything or have any net value besides making you feel better. It will also drive discrimination into the closet and hurt gays and lesbians in the long run.

Unlike you I like to think about unintended consequences of political action before allowing my emotions to drive me towards expensive and nonsensical legislation.

[Ravi]

No, that's where government intrusion on privacy comes is, with you cheering it on.

So the government should grant the same protection for all or none. But you only see it as intrusion when the law is changed to give someone, not yourself, equal protection. In other words, you should have just typed out, "equal rights for me, but not for thee." Delicious.

[Ravi]

.

How do you know that. I could be firing every blue eyed employee I find.

The point is unless it is specifically protected under the law, you can fire anyone for any reason. That includes being Christian. That is not protected under the law.

Believe me I know, I was directly involved with three discrimination cases. I won all three.
:rolleyes: There is a law on the books that states that you cannot fire someone for race, religion, or gender.

You might be fooling the rest of the peanut gallery, and yourself, but you aren't fooling me.

[Ravi]

Can you fire them because they like to fuck mules? Can you fire someone because they are into BDSM? How about can you fire someone based on the fact that they are polyamorous?

I don't think there should be any laws about who to fire or not to fire because they are paper tigers. It is a feel good measure. Proving you were fired because of ______________ is extremely difficult. When people know the law is in effect they will be less likely to show their cards about what kind of bigoted asshole they really are.

You guys live in fantasy disco land if you believe these laws stop discrimination. They just drive it so far underground that good people have no ability to call out the bigots, racists, misogynists, etc.

With these types of laws, the gay or lesbian person who is turned down for promotions or released for lack of funding will never know that they signed up with a homophobe. They will have just missed an opportunity to work elsewhere from someone who wants them, their labor, etc and isn't hateful.

But I guess you guys think that this stuff is easy to prove in court. Okay.
Fucking mules is illegal, so yeah. You have an odd fantasy life.

[Chris]

You didn't cite that wall of crazy font. Are those your words or are you plagiarizing?



She's just repasting the OP. She's good at that. Expect to see it pasted 25 more times.

[Alyosha]

So the government should grant the same protection for all or none. But you only see it as intrusion when the law is changed to give someone, not yourself, equal protection. In other words, you should have just typed out, "equal rights for me, but not for thee." Delicious.

Yes.

As to the rest it's just your evil, speculative mind-reading again where everyone who doesn't agree with you has nefarious motives.

[Ravi]

but that's just discrimination of the 'frivolous' kind, rav...





However, on this topic, there are a handful of House Republicans who happen to agree with the RNC autopsy (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/09/30/john-boehner-doesnt-have-to-let-the-tea-party-paralyze-whole-government/) into what went wrong in 2012, which prescribed that the GOP should project a more tolerant aura on gay rights.

One such House Republican is Rep. Charlie Dent, who comes from a moderate Pennsylvania district — and is one of around five House Republicans to come out for ENDA so far.


“I believe the Speaker should allow a vote on this bill,” Dent told me in an interview today.

“I believe that the American public wants to make sure people are not discriminated against, based on race, religion, or sexual orientation.”


Dent, who also broke (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/09/30/john-boehner-doesnt-have-to-let-the-tea-party-paralyze-whole-government/) with the House GOP shutdown strategy, said he thought around three dozen Republicans in the House would support ENDA. He referred back to the previous House vote on a version of ENDA, in 2007, which passed (https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/110-2007/h1057) with 35 Republicans in support (it died (http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/lgbt/news/2011/07/19/10006/a-history-of-the-employment-non-discrimination-act/) in the Senate).



“I suspect there would be a similar number now,” Dent said, though he conceded he hadn’t done a head count.



Boehner’s office is justifying his opposition by claiming ENDA “will increase frivolous litigation and cost American jobs.” However, as Sam Stein points out (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/04/john-boehner-enda_n_4212250.html?ir=Gay+Voices&ref=topbar):

Top business leaders have begun pushing for (http://www.macrumors.com/2013/11/04/apple-ceo-tim-cook-writes-op-ed-in-support-of-u-s-employment-nondiscrimination-act/) the bill’s passage.

And in July 2013, the Government Accountability Office issued a report concluding (http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-700R) that in states with LGBT workplace protections, “there were relatively few employment discrimination complaints based on sexual orientation and gender identity filed.”

It's good to know that at least a handful of Republicans are actually conservatives.

[Alyosha]

Fucking mules is illegal, so yeah. You have an odd fantasy life.

Seriously you can do better. Are just tired or what?

[GrassrootsConservative]

What, exactly, is the point of this thread again?

Nobody has "come out" against gay people.

[Chris]

So the government should grant the same protection for all or none. But you only see it as intrusion when the law is changed to give someone, not yourself, equal protection. In other words, you should have just typed out, "equal rights for me, but not for thee." Delicious.



Yes, we all have the right to freely associate with whom we choose.


I would type that if I were hypocritical like you who wants to take the right of free association away from others.

[Alyosha]

What, exactly, is the point of this thread again?

Nobody has "come out" against gay people.

Exactly. It is a lie. Again.

[keymanjim]

So the government should grant the same protection for all or none. But you only see it as intrusion when the law is changed to give someone, not yourself, equal protection. In other words, you should have just typed out, "equal rights for me, but not for thee." Delicious.
But, where is the employer's protection. What is protecting us from some substandard fag saying the their being a fag is what got them fired?

[Ravi]

No, it means that I'm helping you keep inline with those things Ravi deems appropriate. You should post the link or say "from the OP".

Just helpin' a sistuh out so you can keep it tight with your girlfriend.
You seem jealous. Weirding me out.

[Chris]

What, exactly, is the point of this thread again?

Nobody has "come out" against gay people.



It's another hypocritical attempt to point out hypocrisy.

[Alyosha]

But, where is the employer's protection. What is protecting us from some substandard fag saying the their being a fag is what got them fired?

I cannot condone the "fag" comment, but I will use it as a talking point that under the law he will hire gays and they will never know he calls them fags on forums because gays will be robbed the ability to know who they are working for and find a position elsewhere.

[GrassrootsConservative]

Exactly. It is a lie. Again.

Not to mention it breaks the same lie they've been trying for the last 10 years or so.

I thought the GOP was already "against gays" or something because of the social stance on marriage some religious people hold that really has nothing to do with politics?

What a fucking confused bunch of stooges Liberals are. Was the GOP "against gays" before or not? They need to make up their tiny little minds.

[Ravi]

Yes.

As to the rest it's just your evil, speculative mind-reading again where everyone who doesn't agree with you has nefarious motives.Evil? My, my, such nastiness. I was just pointing out his hypocrisy.

[keymanjim]

I cannot condone the "fag" comment, but I will use it as a talking point that under the law he will hire gays and they will never know he calls them fags on forums because gays will be robbed the ability to know who they are working for and find a position elsewhere.
"Fag" is okay. "Faggot" is not.

[Ravi]

Yes, we all have the right to freely associate with whom we choose.


I would type that if I were hypocritical like you who wants to take the right of free association away from others.The next time I see you start a thread whining about that will be the first time.

[Chris]

But, where is the employer's protection. What is protecting us from some substandard fag saying the their being a fag is what got them fired?

Exactly.

[Ravi]

But, where is the employer's protection. What is protecting us from some substandard fag saying the their being a fag is what got them fired?
I suppose they could tape you calling them fags. That would probably help prove their case.

[Chris]

The next time I see you start a thread whining about that will be the first time.


You seem to have missed that equal right. Stop whining and you might hear.

[Ravi]

Not to mention it breaks the same lie they've been trying for the last 10 years or so.

I thought the GOP was already "against gays" or something because of the social stance on marriage some religious people hold that really has nothing to do with politics?

What a fucking confused bunch of stooges Liberals are. Was the GOP "against gays" before or not? They need to make up their tiny little minds.
Did you miss the once again in the thread title?

[GrassrootsConservative]

I suppose they could tape you calling them fags. That would probably help prove their case.

Calling a duck a duck is wrong in the eyes of Liberals.

[Alyosha]

Evil? My, my, such nastiness. I was just pointing out his hypocrisy.

http://data1.whicdn.com/images/13063434/whatever-dude-whatever_large.jpg

[Ravi]

Calling a duck a duck is wrong in the eyes of Liberals.
Thanks for proving my point.

[Alyosha]

"Fag" is okay. "Faggot" is not.

I don't use either term.

[keymanjim]

I suppose they could tape you calling them fags. That would probably help prove their case.
Not the point. What happens when a fag gets fired for being a bad employee and they take it to court saying that they were fired for being gay? Win or lose, the employer is still out legal fees.

[GrassrootsConservative]

Did you miss the once again in the thread title?

Did you miss the "comes out" in the thread title? If it's again, it's not coming out.

For example, Elton John cannot "come out" any more than he has about being gay.

Do you get the point now?

[GrassrootsConservative]

Thanks for proving my point.

What point is that?

Do you even know?

[keymanjim]

Calling a duck a duck is wrong in the eyes of Liberals.
But, when the duck starts acting like a peacock, that's when the liberals think they need protection.

[Chris]

What point is that?

Do you even know?



She's wearing it, how could you miss it!!



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhYc91Qtjl0

[Alyosha]

Did you miss the once again in the thread title?

No, or the fact that it was a lie.

The GOP did not, Boner said he wasn't going to put it up

Lemme put it to you in a way that you can understand. K? If I started a thread titled:

"The Democratic Party once again advocate killing children"

I would expect that the Democratic Party advocated killing children instead of reading about Obama droning again.

[GrassrootsConservative]

But, when the duck starts acting like a peacock, that's when the liberals think they need protection.

Indeed. Militant gays stomping around trying to get attention are a Liberal's best friend, aside from the stupid voter base who supports them.

[Ravi]

Did you miss the "comes out" in the thread title? If it's again, it's not coming out.

For example, Elton John cannot "come out" any more than he has about being gay.

Do you get the point now?

I didn't realize that English was your second language.

[Ravi]

What point is that?

Do you even know?
Yeah. Republicans don't like gays and like to call them fags.

[GrassrootsConservative]

Yeah. Republicans don't like gays and like to call them fags.

Oh no. A word. Lets all run and hide in fear from that word.

Do gays die from words now? I'm sorry, I was unaware.

[GrassrootsConservative]

I didn't realize that English was your second language.

Where was my English not correct? Point it out directly to me. I'll wait. My posts are immaculate.

[Alyosha]

Indeed. Militant gays stomping around trying to get attention are a Liberal's best friend, aside from the stupid voter base who supports them.

Gays who were ignored by everyone else have to take friends where they can get them.

[roadmaster]

Oh no. A word. Lets all run and hide in fear from that word.

Do gays die from words now? I'm sorry, I was unaware. The left has nothing better to talk about. Forget many homeless, no jobs and people loosing their insurance.

[GrassrootsConservative]

Gays who were ignored by everyone else have to take friends where they can get them.

I have a gay friend I work with. There's no "discrimination" against him, he's just as big a part of the team as everyone else is. Great guy.

Nobody cares if gays are gay, except a Liberal if there happens to be some perceived "discrimination" that they think they can make a quick partisan supporter like themselves out of it.

I can see why Ravi has finally stopped talking about this. It's making her look more foolish than she normally does.

[Green Arrow]

I'm bi, and I don't support these laws. Sorry. It bothers me not a whit if some bigot doesn't want to hire me because I am attracted to and have dated (and would date if I wasn't already married) other men before. As far as I'm concerned, if that's his attitude toward someone like me, why would Ieven want to work for him? I don't want to help a bigoted asshole make money.

Same goes for laws saying you, as a business, have to allow everyone to patronize your business. If I'm black, why would I want to give money to a white business that doesn't want my business? Why would I want to support someone that hates me just because of who or what I am? Fuck that shit.

Just be you, and fuck anyone who doesn't like it.

[Codename Section]

I'm bi, and I don't support these laws. Sorry. It bothers me not a whit if some bigot doesn't want to hire me because I am attracted to and have dated (and would date if I wasn't already married) other men before. As far as I'm concerned, if that's his attitude toward someone like me, why would Ieven want to work for him? I don't want to help a bigoted asshole make money.

Same goes for laws saying you, as a business, have to allow everyone to patronize your business. If I'm black, why would I want to give money to a white business that doesn't want my business? Why would I want to support someone that hates me just because of who or what I am? Fuck that shit.

Just be you, and fuck anyone who doesn't like it.

Well said, devil pup.

[Dr. Who]

Gay-dar.

Seriously - gay dudes, the vast majority of them are pretty easy to spot. Even the least flaming of flamers has a little bit of a hairdresser lisp.Believe it or not there are butch gay men and you wouldn't know that they are gay unless they told you. You know that J. Edgar Hoover was gay, right? Acting gay is a bit of an affectation. In the past and certainly in places where it's not accepted you might be very surprised.