| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"J Young" |
| Date: |
12 May 2007 08:04:04 PM |
| Object: |
Bill requires hiring 'gays,' cross-dressers |
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55654
Bill requires hiring 'gays,' cross-dressers
'Perceived sexual orientation or gender identity' protected
Following on the heels of an 'anti-discrimination' plan Christians
insist would virtually outlaw their religious beliefs comes another
proposal - introduced by openly homosexual U.S. Rep. Barney Frank -
that requires businesses to give special privileges to "gay" and
"transgendered" individuals.
Shari Rendall, director of legislation and public policy for Concerned
Women for America, the nation's largest women's public policy group,
said H.R. 2015, the "Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2007," would
be a disaster.
"This bill would unfairly extend special privileges based upon an
individual's changeable sexual behaviors, rather than focusing on
immutable, non-behavior characteristics such as skin color or gender.
Its passage would both overtly discriminate against and muzzle people
of faith. Former Secretary of State Collin Powell put it well when he
said, 'Skin color is a benign, non-behavioral characteristic. Sexual
orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral
characteristics. Comparison of the two is a convenient but invalid
argument,'" Rendall said.
The proposal, from Rep. Frank, D-Mass., follows H.R. 1592, the House-
approved plan that would add sexual orientation and gender identity to
a list of valid arguments for allegations of a "hate crime" and allow
the federal government to intervene when those occur, or even in order
to "prevent" one.
The White House has issued a statement saying the proposal is
"unnecessary and constitutionally questionable" and the president's
advisers would recommend a veto if it advances to his desk.
The new bill's goals are within the same agenda, critics say.
"According to proponents, this bill merely seeks to insulate people
who choose to engage in homosexual behaviors ("sexual orientation") or
who suffer from gender confusion ("gender identity") against
employment discrimination," said the CWFA station. "But regrettably
this legislation would effectively codify and encourage the very thing
it purports to prevent - workplace discrimination."
It would apply to any business with 15 or more employees and would
declare "it shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer ...
to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise
discriminate against any individual with respect to the compensation,
terms, conditions, or privileges of employment of the individual,
because of such individual's actual or perceived sexual orientation or
gender identity."
"This bill would force Christian, Jewish or Muslim business owners to
hire people who openly choose to engage in homosexual or cross-
dressing behaviors despite a sincerely held religious belief that
those behaviors are dangerous, sinful and not in keeping with basic
morality," added Matt Barber, policy director for cultural issues for
CWFA.
"ENDA would essentially force employers to check their First Amendment
protected rights to freedom of religion, speech and association at the
workplace door. It's absurd! For instance, female employees would have
to endure both systematic sexual harassment and a hostile work
environment by being forced to share bathroom facilities with male
employees who get their jollies from wearing a dress, high heels and
lipstick," Barber said.
"Over the years, the homosexual lobby has done a masterful job of co-
opting the language of the genuine civil rights movement in their push
for special rights. This bill represents the goose that laid the
golden egg for homosexual activist attorneys," he said.
Peter LaBarbera, of Americans for Truth, also suggested voters contact
Congress and urge members to reject ENDA "and the insanity of forcing
businesses across the nation to accommodate and subsidize gender
confusion in the name of 'civil rights.'
"Several giant corporations have already settled on pro-'transgender'
bathroom and dress policies - probably the same companies who would
subject their employees to biased, pro-homosexual 'diversity' lectures
- but can you imagine inflicting these 'transgender' regulations on
small and mid-level companies through federal law via ENDA?" LaBarbera
asked.
"What female employee wants to share the company restroom with a big-
boned man claiming to be 'transitioning' to 'womanhood?' Will
companies have to build 'transgender male' and 'transgender female'
restrooms?"
He said there are some unsatisfactory exemptions for religious-
oriented employers, but secular companies whose owners choose to run
their operations on biblical guidelines would have no option.
The law would require companies to allow workers to use the restroom
of the sex they "present."
"What about the privacy rights of [a transgender's] female co-workers?
Don't they have the right not to feel personally invaded as they go to
the restroom at their job?" he asked.
"Of course, the larger goal here - shared by the 'gay' and
'transgender' lobbies - is to change your mind and heart regarding
gender-confused conduct. The law is merely a tool in their never-
ending quest to overturn America's Judeo-Christian norms regarding
family, sex and marriage," he said.
Former White House insider Chuck Colson, in his Breakpoint commentary,
called the earlier plan, H.R. 1592, a "Thought Crimes" plan.
"It's called the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. But
this bill is not about hate. It's not even about crime. It's about
outlawing peaceful speech - speech that asserts that homosexual
behavior is morally wrong," he said.
"Some say we need this law to prevent attacks on homosexuals. But we
already have laws against assaults on people and property," Colson
said. "Moreover, according to the FBI, crimes against homosexuals in
the United States have dropped dramatically in recent years. In 2005,
out of 863,000 cases of aggravated assault, just 177 cases were crimes
of bias against homosexuals..."
He noted, as WND earlier reported, in other locations, such as
England, Sweden, Canada, and even Philadelphia, where similar laws
have been approved, the "Thought Police" already have prosecuted
Christians.
One Philadelphia woman, Arlene Elshinnawy, 75, and grandmother of
three, was holding a sign: "Truth is hate to those who hate the
truth," before she was hauled off by police officers, according to
reports.
.
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill requires hiring 'gays,' cross-dressers |
13 May 2007 12:40:56 AM |
|
|
J Young <youngopinions@aol.com> writes:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55654
Bill requires hiring 'gays,' cross-dressers
'Perceived sexual orientation or gender identity' protected
Wasn't this crap posted a few weeks ago as well?
"This bill would force Christian, Jewish or Muslim business owners to
hire people who openly choose to engage in homosexual or cross-
dressing behaviors despite a sincerely held religious belief that
those behaviors are dangerous, sinful and not in keeping with basic
morality," added Matt Barber, policy director for cultural issues for
CWFA.
If that's what you people want, how about first repealing any laws
"forcing" business owners to hire Christians who think the world was
created in precisely 7 days. An atheist business owner may figure
that anyone who believes that is too stupid to hire for any position
no matter how menial.
And how about allowing Hindu business owners to fire anyone who
worships only one god, doesn't show any respect for the large number
of gods that Hindus worship or at least recognize.
After all, fair is fair if you don't want to be considered a group
of hypocrites. :-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill requires hiring 'gays,' cross-dressers |
13 May 2007 05:47:38 AM |
|
|
On May 13, 1:40 am, No One <n...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
J Young <youngopini...@aol.com> writes:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55654
Bill requires hiring 'gays,' cross-dressers
'Perceived sexual orientation or gender identity' protected
Wasn't this crap posted a few weeks ago as well?
"This bill would force Christian, Jewish or Muslim business owners to
hire people who openly choose to engage in homosexual or cross-
dressing behaviors despite a sincerely held religious belief that
those behaviors are dangerous, sinful and not in keeping with basic
morality," added Matt Barber, policy director for cultural issues for
CWFA.
If that's what you people want, how about first repealing any laws
"forcing" business owners to hire Christians who think the world was
created in precisely 7 days.
Anyone who knows and understands the bible, knows that when the bible
was written, a day referred to a 1,000 years.
An atheist business owner may figure
that anyone who believes that is too stupid to hire for any position
no matter how menial.
And if he/or she has 15 or more employees, and doesn't hire someone
based on that information alone...they will have a law suit on them
and lose.
And how about allowing Hindu business owners to fire anyone who
worships only one god, doesn't show any respect for the large number
of gods that Hindus worship or at least recognize.
After all, fair is fair if you don't want to be considered a group
of hypocrites. :-)
The point is this:
Under the Civil Rights act, any employee with 15 or more employees can
not discriminate. So the intention of this bill, is correct.
HOWEVER...they bring up a very good point.
If you were a woman, would you want to share a bathroom with a
transgendered person??
I know my wife wouldn't, it would make her very uncomfortable.
I'm pretty sure 99.9999 % of all other women would take issue to that
as well.
So this is a problem, and it needs to be addressed.
I agree with the intention of the bill, it's simply enforcing EEO.
While I certainly don't condone or support the actions of a homosexual
or transgendered, I can't discriminate. Where I work, I work in a
high position in administration..I have to understand EEO. I have
officers who I know are homosexual. I can't even think about it, and
I don't. All I care about is what they do at work, if they are
professional in their duties, and they get the job done.
Now, would I want a transgendered officer coming into a prison??
Oh boy...that would be a big problem. Not only for his/her safety,
but other officers as well.
However, VII Civil Rights Act...tells me I can't discriminate. Right
now, the language doesn't include transgender, at least as far as I
know. It's a matter of time before that will change.
When that happens, do I want to see a male officer coming to work in
makeup??
No.
Why?
It will probably get him killed and another officer injured.
So what can we do?
I understand the bill, I agree with the intention. But I also see BIG
problems ahead. The issue right now in this article is the
bathroom.
It's a VALID issue.
The way I see it, if they are a biological male, they use the mens
bathroom. If they are a biological female, they use the womens
bathroom. Unless they have a complete gender sex change, I certainly
wouldn't support putting others in a uncomfortable position...like
women having to share a bathroom with a man in a dress. That would be
completely wrong, and I would probably have the female workers quit.
Look at the BIG picture, and not just what J. Young is posting.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill requires hiring 'gays,' cross-dressers |
13 May 2007 12:23:06 PM |
|
|
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
On May 13, 1:40 am, No One <n...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
J Young <youngopini...@aol.com> writes:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55654
Bill requires hiring 'gays,' cross-dressers
'Perceived sexual orientation or gender identity' protected
Wasn't this crap posted a few weeks ago as well?
"This bill would force Christian, Jewish or Muslim business owners to
hire people who openly choose to engage in homosexual or cross-
dressing behaviors despite a sincerely held religious belief that
those behaviors are dangerous, sinful and not in keeping with basic
morality," added Matt Barber, policy director for cultural issues for
CWFA.
If that's what you people want, how about first repealing any laws
"forcing" business owners to hire Christians who think the world was
created in precisely 7 days.
Anyone who knows and understands the bible,
Knows that you are immoral and a liar, corrupted by your own hate.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill requires hiring 'gays,' cross-dressers |
13 May 2007 02:05:39 PM |
|
|
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> writes:
On May 13, 1:40 am, No One <n...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
J Young <youngopini...@aol.com> writes:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55654
Bill requires hiring 'gays,' cross-dressers
'Perceived sexual orientation or gender identity' protected
Wasn't this crap posted a few weeks ago as well?
"This bill would force Christian, Jewish or Muslim business owners to
hire people who openly choose to engage in homosexual or cross-
dressing behaviors despite a sincerely held religious belief that
those behaviors are dangerous, sinful and not in keeping with basic
morality," added Matt Barber, policy director for cultural issues for
CWFA.
If that's what you people want, how about first repealing any laws
"forcing" business owners to hire Christians who think the world was
created in precisely 7 days.
Anyone who knows and understands the bible, knows that when the bible
was written, a day referred to a 1,000 years.
Which (a) some fundamentalists don't know, (b) was not true and (c)
anyone who believed the world was created in 7000 years is also a
complete idiot.
An atheist business owner may figure
that anyone who believes that is too stupid to hire for any position
no matter how menial.
And if he/or she has 15 or more employees, and doesn't hire someone
based on that information alone...they will have a law suit on them
and lose.
Since you didn't understand the post, I was pointing out that the
arguments these "Christians" are using can just as easily be used to
demand the repeal of the civil rights protections that protect them.
I merely took their argument and replaced "gays" with "Christians" to
show what is wrong with their position via a reductio ad absurdum
argument.
The point is this:
Under the Civil Rights act, any employee with 15 or more employees can
not discriminate. So the intention of this bill, is correct.
HOWEVER...they bring up a very good point.
If you were a woman, would you want to share a bathroom with a
transgendered person??
Pre-op or post-op?
Now, would I want a transgendered officer coming into a prison??
Oh boy...that would be a big problem. Not only for his/her safety,
but other officers as well.
Pre-op or post-op? Have you ever met a post-op transgendered individual?
You can't tell unless they tell you.
When that happens, do I want to see a male officer coming to work in
makeup??
Probably the same thing that would happen if a person working in a
clean room came to work doused in perfume. You do know, don't you,
that such legislation has various exemptions when there is a
legitimate need. For instance, a movie studio is not required
to hire a black actor to play Robert E. Lee in a civil-war movie, but
would not be able to use race as a basis for hiring a director or
cameraman.
So all the special cases are already handled in the existing civil-rights
legislation. That's what makes it easy for this one - they are simply
extending the list of protected catagories.
Look at the BIG picture, and not just what J. Young is posting.
Rather, you should know what you are talking about before posting.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Doc Smartass" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill requires hiring 'gays,' cross-dressers |
12 May 2007 09:03:42 PM |
|
|
J Young <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in news:1179018244.801088.273160
@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
Subject: Bill requires hiring 'gays,' cross-dressers
Only trying to make you conservatives happy. You seem to prefer them to
women these days.
Sheesh. What a bunch of whiny fucks.
--
Doc Smartass, BAAWA Knight of Heckling
aa # 1939
Help Prevent Projectile Stupidity
Duct-Tape a Fundie's Mouth Shut Today!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Parsifal" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill requires hiring 'gays,' cross-dressers |
13 May 2007 12:48:40 AM |
|
|
On 13 Mai, 03:04, J Young <youngopini...@aol.com> wrote:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55654
Please, come with credible sources.
Thank you.
Besides, you shouldn't ***** about this recommandation: that's your
only chance to be integrated in the society.
.
|
|
|
| User: "bob&carole" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill requires hiring 'gays,' cross-dressers |
13 May 2007 01:02:15 AM |
|
|
On May 13, 1:48?am, Parsifal <jeanpascalvac...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 13 Mai, 03:04, J Young <youngopini...@aol.com> wrote:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55654
Please, come with credible sources.
Get out of your closet, butt boy..........
.
|
|
|
| User: "Parsifal" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill requires hiring 'gays,' cross-dressers |
13 May 2007 02:34:37 AM |
|
|
On 13 Mai, 08:02, bob&carole <bobandcarol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On May 13, 1:48?am, Parsifal <jeanpascalvac...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 13 Mai, 03:04, J Young <youngopini...@aol.com> wrote:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55654
Please, come with credible sources.
Get out of your closet, butt boy..........
I'm not the one obsessed with homosexuality, gaybob. I'm not the one
who finds a way to SYSTEMATICALLY include allusions to homosexuality
in each of my postings (as confirmed by your profile...).
You are.
The only reason you joined this thread is because you saw the word
"gays" in its subject line.
Why don't YOU get out of the closet, bobandcover?
.
|
|
|
| User: "bobandcarole" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill requires hiring 'gays,' cross-dressers |
13 May 2007 02:51:27 AM |
|
|
On May 13, 3:34?am, Parsifal <jeanpascalvac...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 13 Mai, 08:02, bob&carole <bobandcarol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On May 13, 1:48?am, Parsifal <jeanpascalvac...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 13 Mai, 03:04, J Young <youngopini...@aol.com> wrote:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55654
Please, come with credible sources.
Get out of your closet, butt boy..........
I'm not the one obsessed with homosexuality, gaybob. I'm not the one
who finds a way to SYSTEMATICALLY include allusions to homosexuality
in each of my postings (as confirmed by your profile...).
You are.
The only reason you joined this thread is because you saw the word
"gays" in its subject line.
Proof???
Why don't YOU get out of the closet, bobandcover?
You're the one that consistantly kisses the homos asses
.
|
|
|
| User: "Parsifal" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill requires hiring 'gays,' cross-dressers |
13 May 2007 04:05:15 AM |
|
|
On 13 Mai, 09:51, bobandcarole <bobandcarol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On May 13, 3:34?am, Parsifal <jeanpascalvac...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 13 Mai, 08:02, bob&carole <bobandcarol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On May 13, 1:48?am, Parsifal <jeanpascalvac...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 13 Mai, 03:04, J Young <youngopini...@aol.com> wrote:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55654
Please, come with credible sources.
Get out of your closet, butt boy..........
I'm not the one obsessed with homosexuality, gaybob. I'm not the one
who finds a way to SYSTEMATICALLY include allusions to homosexuality
in each of my postings (as confirmed by your profile...).
You are.
The only reason you joined this thread is because you saw the word
"gays" in its subject line.
Proof???
When do you start a thread that doesn't deal with homosexuality? When
do you participate in a thread that doesn't deal with homosexuality?
Never.
Why don't YOU get out of the closet, bobandcover?
You're the one that consistantly kisses the homos asses-
You're the one who constantly fantasize about them.
Get out of the closet. Now.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kelsey Bjarnason" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill requires hiring 'gays,' cross-dressers |
13 May 2007 03:24:42 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 13 May 2007 00:51:27 -0700, bobandcarole wrote:
On May 13, 3:34?am, Parsifal <jeanpascalvac...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 13 Mai, 08:02, bob&carole <bobandcarol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On May 13, 1:48?am, Parsifal <jeanpascalvac...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 13 Mai, 03:04, J Young <youngopini...@aol.com> wrote:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55654
Please, come with credible sources.
Get out of your closet, butt boy..........
I'm not the one obsessed with homosexuality, gaybob. I'm not the one
who finds a way to SYSTEMATICALLY include allusions to homosexuality
in each of my postings (as confirmed by your profile...).
You are.
The only reason you joined this thread is because you saw the word
"gays" in its subject line.
Proof???
The fact that every time someone says "gay" or "homosexual" you turn up
suggests you have a most unhealthy fascination with the subject. The gays
simply enjoy their sexuality as do the hets; you, by contrast, obsess
over something you claim not to be interested in in the first place.
Very, very strange.
--
Divide by zero error - protection violation 0666 - truth
entered brain. Truthfilter circle 0 fault. Creationist halted.
Please call the ICR. - C. J. Henshaw
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jaguar" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill requires hiring 'gays,' cross-dressers |
13 May 2007 08:28:23 AM |
|
|
bobandcarole wrote:
On May 13, 3:34?am, Parsifal ?jeanpascalvac...@gmail.com? wrote:
? On 13 Mai, 08:02, bob?carole ?bobandcarol...@hotmail.com? wrote:
?
? ? On May 13, 1:48?am, Parsifal ?jeanpascalvac...@gmail.com? wrote:
?
? ? ? On 13 Mai, 03:04, J Young ?youngopini...@aol.com? wrote:
?...
?
? You are.
? The only reason you joined this thread is because you saw the word
? "gays" in its subject line.
Proof???
? Why don't YOU get out of the closet, bobandcover?
You're the one that consistantly kisses the homos asses
You seem to be quite attentive to those "asses" yourself, bobandcarole.
I assume that the two gendered name is a reference to some kind of gender
identity or expression issues?
--
Felice Schragenheim "Jaguar"
One of the Lesbian Immortals
"I'd be satisfied with one single moment, so perfect, it would last a
lifetime. For example, this one. This one here is great. I don't want
forever. I want now. Now! Now! Now! I want loads of 'nows' and I want them
til I turn old and grey" -"Jaguar"
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "bob&carole." |
|
| Title: Re: Bill requires hiring 'gays,' cross-dressers |
13 May 2007 12:43:19 PM |
|
|
On May 13, 3:34?am, Parsifal <jeanpascalvac...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 13 Mai, 08:02, bob&carole <bobandcarol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On May 13, 1:48?am, Parsifal <jeanpascalvac...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 13 Mai, 03:04, J Young <youngopini...@aol.com> wrote:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55654
Please, come with credible sources.
Get out of your closet, butt boy..........
I'm not the one obsessed with homosexuality, gaybob. I'm not the one
who finds a way to SYSTEMATICALLY include allusions to homosexuality
in each of my postings (as confirmed by your profile...).
You are.
The only reason you joined this thread is because you saw the word
"gays" in its subject line.
Why don't YOU get out of the closet, bobandcover?
Get out of the closet NOW...boy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Parsifal" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill requires hiring 'gays,' cross-dressers |
13 May 2007 03:54:12 PM |
|
|
On 13 Mai, 19:43, "bob&carole." <bobandcarole...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On May 13, 3:34?am, Parsifal <jeanpascalvac...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 13 Mai, 08:02, bob&carole <bobandcarol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On May 13, 1:48?am, Parsifal <jeanpascalvac...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 13 Mai, 03:04, J Young <youngopini...@aol.com> wrote:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55654
Please, come with credible sources.
Get out of your closet, butt boy..........
I'm not the one obsessed with homosexuality, gaybob. I'm not the one
who finds a way to SYSTEMATICALLY include allusions to homosexuality
in each of my postings (as confirmed by your profile...).
You are.
The only reason you joined this thread is because you saw the word
"gays" in its subject line.
Why don't YOU get out of the closet, bobandcover?
Get out of the closet NOW...boy
I'm not the one obsessed with homosexuality. You are.
Let's compare our respective profiles, shall we?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill requires hiring 'gays,' cross-dressers |
13 May 2007 05:24:37 AM |
|
|
On May 12, 9:04 pm, J Young <youngopini...@aol.com> wrote:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55654
Bill requires hiring 'gays,' cross-dressers
'Perceived sexual orientation or gender identity' protected
Following on the heels of an 'anti-discrimination' plan Christians
insist would virtually outlaw their religious beliefs comes another
proposal - introduced by openly homosexual U.S. Rep. Barney Frank -
that requires businesses to give special privileges to "gay" and
"transgendered" individuals.
Shari Rendall, director of legislation and public policy for Concerned
Women for America, the nation's largest women's public policy group,
said H.R. 2015, the "Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2007," would
be a disaster.
"This bill would unfairly extend special privileges based upon an
individual's changeable sexual behaviors, rather than focusing on
immutable, non-behavior characteristics such as skin color or gender.
Its passage would both overtly discriminate against and muzzle people
of faith. Former Secretary of State Collin Powell put it well when he
said, 'Skin color is a benign, non-behavioral characteristic. Sexual
orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral
characteristics. Comparison of the two is a convenient but invalid
argument,'" Rendall said.
The proposal, from Rep. Frank, D-Mass., follows H.R. 1592, the House-
approved plan that would add sexual orientation and gender identity to
a list of valid arguments for allegations of a "hate crime" and allow
the federal government to intervene when those occur, or even in order
to "prevent" one.
The White House has issued a statement saying the proposal is
"unnecessary and constitutionally questionable" and the president's
advisers would recommend a veto if it advances to his desk.
The new bill's goals are within the same agenda, critics say.
"According to proponents, this bill merely seeks to insulate people
who choose to engage in homosexual behaviors ("sexual orientation") or
who suffer from gender confusion ("gender identity") against
employment discrimination," said the CWFA station. "But regrettably
this legislation would effectively codify and encourage the very thing
it purports to prevent - workplace discrimination."
It would apply to any business with 15 or more employees and would
declare "it shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer ...
to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise
discriminate against any individual with respect to the compensation,
terms, conditions, or privileges of employment of the individual,
because of such individual's actual or perceived sexual orientation or
gender identity."
"This bill would force Christian, Jewish or Muslim business owners to
hire people who openly choose to engage in homosexual or cross-
dressing behaviors despite a sincerely held religious belief that
those behaviors are dangerous, sinful and not in keeping with basic
morality," added Matt Barber, policy director for cultural issues for
CWFA.
"ENDA would essentially force employers to check their First Amendment
protected rights to freedom of religion, speech and association at the
workplace door. It's absurd! For instance, female employees would have
to endure both systematic sexual harassment and a hostile work
environment by being forced to share bathroom facilities with male
employees who get their jollies from wearing a dress, high heels and
lipstick," Barber said.
"Over the years, the homosexual lobby has done a masterful job of co-
opting the language of the genuine civil rights movement in their push
for special rights. This bill represents the goose that laid the
golden egg for homosexual activist attorneys," he said.
Peter LaBarbera, of Americans for Truth, also suggested voters contact
Congress and urge members to reject ENDA "and the insanity of forcing
businesses across the nation to accommodate and subsidize gender
confusion in the name of 'civil rights.'
"Several giant corporations have already settled on pro-'transgender'
bathroom and dress policies - probably the same companies who would
subject their employees to biased, pro-homosexual 'diversity' lectures
- but can you imagine inflicting these 'transgender' regulations on
small and mid-level companies through federal law via ENDA?" LaBarbera
asked.
"What female employee wants to share the company restroom with a big-
boned man claiming to be 'transitioning' to 'womanhood?' Will
companies have to build 'transgender male' and 'transgender female'
restrooms?"
He said there are some unsatisfactory exemptions for religious-
oriented employers, but secular companies whose owners choose to run
their operations on biblical guidelines would have no option.
The law would require companies to allow workers to use the restroom
of the sex they "present."
"What about the privacy rights of [a transgender's] female co-workers?
Don't they have the right not to feel personally invaded as they go to
the restroom at their job?" he asked.
"Of course, the larger goal here - shared by the 'gay' and
'transgender' lobbies - is to change your mind and heart regarding
gender-confused conduct. The law is merely a tool in their never-
ending quest to overturn America's Judeo-Christian norms regarding
family, sex and marriage," he said.
Former White House insider Chuck Colson, in his Breakpoint commentary,
called the earlier plan, H.R. 1592, a "Thought Crimes" plan.
"It's called the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. But
this bill is not about hate. It's not even about crime. It's about
outlawing peaceful speech - speech that asserts that homosexual
behavior is morally wrong," he said.
"Some say we need this law to prevent attacks on homosexuals. But we
already have laws against assaults on people and property," Colson
said. "Moreover, according to the FBI, crimes against homosexuals in
the United States have dropped dramatically in recent years. In 2005,
out of 863,000 cases of aggravated assault, just 177 cases were crimes
of bias against homosexuals..."
He noted, as WND earlier reported, in other locations, such as
England, Sweden, Canada, and even Philadelphia, where similar laws
have been approved, the "Thought Police" already have prosecuted
Christians.
One Philadelphia woman, Arlene Elshinnawy, 75, and grandmother of
three, was holding a sign: "Truth is hate to those who hate the
truth," before she was hauled off by police officers, according to
reports.
Under federal law, any business with 15 or more employees must abide
by the civil rights acts, and they are not supposed to discriminate.
I may not "agree" with what homosexuals and/or transgenders do behind
closed doors; however, if they are not bringing it to work and are
doing their job..frankly it's none of our business, and regardless if
the business is a "christian" based business or what have you...if
they have 15 or more employees, they must abide by the law...period.
They can't discriminate.
Some legitimate questions are raised, and it needs to be addressed.
The question about bathrooms...it's a good question. How do you
address that problem? If you have a transgendered person going to
work, women are probably going to be HIGHLY upset if that person uses
the females restroom and is a biological male. The only solution
is... they must use the mens bathroom. It's a good question, and a
concern.
BUT...
The company is still help to federal laws. They can not, and should
NOT...fire, hire, discipline, transfer, demote..anyone based on their
sexual and/or gender issue preference.
Sorry J. Young, but this bill is a good bill. Good questions are
brought up...issues need to be addressed...but these companies are not
allowed to just go around the law.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kelsey Bjarnason" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill requires hiring 'gays,' cross-dressers |
13 May 2007 03:27:40 PM |
|
|
[snips]
On Sun, 13 May 2007 03:24:37 -0700, osprey wrote:
Some legitimate questions are raised, and it needs to be addressed.
The question about bathrooms...it's a good question. How do you
address that problem? If you have a transgendered person going to
work, women are probably going to be HIGHLY upset if that person uses
the females restroom and is a biological male. The only solution
is... they must use the mens bathroom. It's a good question, and a
concern.
More and more places - not a lot, statistically, but a growing number -
solve the issue by going to unisex bathrooms. You want to pee? Right
through there. Jane or John - or Pat - makes no difference.
Keeps the whole discrimination issue out of it entirely - we don't care
what gender you are, and neither does the toilet or sink. You have a
problem with it? That's your problem, we're not going to kowtow to your
weird prejudices. :)
--
You -NEED- this echo! It has become your crack cocain.
- David Rice
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill requires hiring 'gays,' cross-dressers |
13 May 2007 11:35:00 PM |
|
|
On May 13, 4:27 pm, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarna...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snips]
On Sun, 13 May 2007 03:24:37 -0700, osprey wrote:
Some legitimate questions are raised, and it needs to be addressed.
The question about bathrooms...it's a good question. How do you
address that problem? If you have a transgendered person going to
work, women are probably going to be HIGHLY upset if that person uses
the females restroom and is a biological male. The only solution
is... they must use the mens bathroom. It's a good question, and a
concern.
More and more places - not a lot, statistically, but a growing number -
solve the issue by going to unisex bathrooms. You want to pee? Right
through there. Jane or John - or Pat - makes no difference.
Keeps the whole discrimination issue out of it entirely - we don't care
what gender you are, and neither does the toilet or sink. You have a
problem with it? That's your problem, we're not going to kowtow to your
weird prejudices. :)
That's odd...someone who looks out for equality and being fair and
respectful to ALL, and not just a few..is considered prejudice. I
didn't know you had a different definition.
Or maybe...
You're the one who is prejudice.
Don't bother responding, I already know what your going to try to say
and how you will spin it and frankly, I'm not interested.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom S" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill requires hiring 'gays,' cross-dressers |
14 May 2007 05:59:50 PM |
|
|
On 13 May 2007 21:35:00 -0700, osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
On May 13, 4:27 pm, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarna...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snips]
On Sun, 13 May 2007 03:24:37 -0700, osprey wrote:
Some legitimate questions are raised, and it needs to be addressed.
The question about bathrooms...it's a good question. How do you
address that problem? If you have a transgendered person going to
work, women are probably going to be HIGHLY upset if that person uses
the females restroom and is a biological male. The only solution
is... they must use the mens bathroom. It's a good question, and a
concern.
More and more places - not a lot, statistically, but a growing number -
solve the issue by going to unisex bathrooms. You want to pee? Right
through there. Jane or John - or Pat - makes no difference.
Keeps the whole discrimination issue out of it entirely - we don't care
what gender you are, and neither does the toilet or sink. You have a
problem with it? That's your problem, we're not going to kowtow to your
weird prejudices. :)
This concept has been around parts of Europe for years. When you walk
through the bathroom door of a bar or restaurant, you will likely see
a sink flanked by two doors. Behind each of those doors is a
closet-sized room with a toilet. When someone vacates one of the
rooms and goes to wash their hands, the next person in line enters the
just vacated "closet".one of the more un-nerving shocks to the
uninitiated was standing in line for the bathroom with your bosses
wife in line ahead of you. All you can do is socialize until it is
your turn. ((^:
Tom S.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kelsey Bjarnason" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill requires hiring 'gays,' cross-dressers |
15 May 2007 01:41:00 PM |
|
|
[snips]
On Mon, 14 May 2007 18:59:50 -0400, Tom S wrote:
This concept has been around parts of Europe for years. When you walk
through the bathroom door of a bar or restaurant, you will likely see
a sink flanked by two doors. Behind each of those doors is a
closet-sized room with a toilet. When someone vacates one of the
rooms and goes to wash their hands, the next person in line enters the
just vacated "closet".one of the more un-nerving shocks to the
uninitiated was standing in line for the bathroom with your bosses
wife in line ahead of you. All you can do is socialize until it is
your turn. ((^:
Been there, done that... and at least one such restroom I was in - in
Ottawa - also had valettes. Female attendants. Handing out towels and so
forth.
Personally, I don't see the big deal, it's not like the porcelain is going
to care who uses it.
--
Last night I purchased some tofu hotdogs. - David Rice
When you start buying tofu hot dogs, religion can't
be far behind. [G] - Judith Bandsma
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom S" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill requires hiring 'gays,' cross-dressers |
15 May 2007 06:40:06 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 15 May 2007 11:41:00 -0700, Kelsey Bjarnason
<kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote:
[snips]
On Mon, 14 May 2007 18:59:50 -0400, Tom S wrote:
This concept has been around parts of Europe for years. When you walk
through the bathroom door of a bar or restaurant, you will likely see
a sink flanked by two doors. Behind each of those doors is a
closet-sized room with a toilet. When someone vacates one of the
rooms and goes to wash their hands, the next person in line enters the
just vacated "closet".one of the more un-nerving shocks to the
uninitiated was standing in line for the bathroom with your bosses
wife in line ahead of you. All you can do is socialize until it is
your turn. ((^:
Been there, done that... and at least one such restroom I was in - in
Ottawa - also had valettes. Female attendants. Handing out towels and so
forth.
Personally, I don't see the big deal, it's not like the porcelain is going
to care who uses it.
I agree completely. When I was stationed in Italy, my then 73 year
old grandmother came to visit - she had never been to Europe and we
provided a good excuse. She thought it was hilarious to be waiting in
line for the toilet with her grandson. But what really broke her up
was the "bombsight" toilets. She took pictures to take back home and
show the people there. ((((^:
Tom S.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kelsey Bjarnason" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill requires hiring 'gays,' cross-dressers |
16 May 2007 04:53:48 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 15 May 2007 19:40:06 -0400, Tom S wrote:
On Tue, 15 May 2007 11:41:00 -0700, Kelsey Bjarnason
<kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote:
[snips]
On Mon, 14 May 2007 18:59:50 -0400, Tom S wrote:
This concept has been around parts of Europe for years. When you walk
through the bathroom door of a bar or restaurant, you will likely see
a sink flanked by two doors. Behind each of those doors is a
closet-sized room with a toilet. When someone vacates one of the
rooms and goes to wash their hands, the next person in line enters the
just vacated "closet".one of the more un-nerving shocks to the
uninitiated was standing in line for the bathroom with your bosses
wife in line ahead of you. All you can do is socialize until it is
your turn. ((^:
Been there, done that... and at least one such restroom I was in - in
Ottawa - also had valettes. Female attendants. Handing out towels and so
forth.
Personally, I don't see the big deal, it's not like the porcelain is going
to care who uses it.
I agree completely. When I was stationed in Italy, my then 73 year
old grandmother came to visit - she had never been to Europe and we
provided a good excuse. She thought it was hilarious to be waiting in
line for the toilet with her grandson. But what really broke her up
was the "bombsight" toilets. She took pictures to take back home and
show the people there. ((((^:
Not sure I know the species. However, as noted, it is mostly an issue of
nervous amusement - and that's a small price to pay to avoid the whole
gender discrimination issue in its entirety.
--
"Atheists. I hope they rot in Hell." -- Charles Baldo
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom S" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill requires hiring 'gays,' cross-dressers |
16 May 2007 05:24:03 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 16 May 2007 14:53:48 -0700, Kelsey Bjarnason
<kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 15 May 2007 19:40:06 -0400, Tom S wrote:
On Tue, 15 May 2007 11:41:00 -0700, Kelsey Bjarnason
<kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote:
[snips]
On Mon, 14 May 2007 18:59:50 -0400, Tom S wrote:
This concept has been around parts of Europe for years. When you walk
through the bathroom door of a bar or restaurant, you will likely see
a sink flanked by two doors. Behind each of those doors is a
closet-sized room with a toilet. When someone vacates one of the
rooms and goes to wash their hands, the next person in line enters the
just vacated "closet".one of the more un-nerving shocks to the
uninitiated was standing in line for the bathroom with your bosses
wife in line ahead of you. All you can do is socialize until it is
your turn. ((^:
Been there, done that... and at least one such restroom I was in - in
Ottawa - also had valettes. Female attendants. Handing out towels and so
forth.
Personally, I don't see the big deal, it's not like the porcelain is going
to care who uses it.
I agree completely. When I was stationed in Italy, my then 73 year
old grandmother came to visit - she had never been to Europe and we
provided a good excuse. She thought it was hilarious to be waiting in
line for the toilet with her grandson. But what really broke her up
was the "bombsight" toilets. She took pictures to take back home and
show the people there. ((((^:
Not sure I know the species. However, as noted, it is mostly an issue of
nervous amusement - and that's a small price to pay to avoid the whole
gender discrimination issue in its entirety.
The bombsight toilet - a rectangular porcelain fixture mounted flush
with the floor. It was about 3 or 4 inches deep with the water tank
mounted on or in the wall. Two foot pads on one end and a "hole" on
the other end. If you are a guy and need to take a leak, stand on
the footpads facing the hole and aim. If you were female or a male
needing to take a dump, position yourself on the footpads with your
back to the hole, squat and drop your bombs. (((^:
You're so right about avoiding the gender discrimination issue.
Of course, the Europeans are generally much more liberal and open
minded than Americans about sex, nudity, bodily functions, etc. It is
certainly a refreshing change from some of the uptights over here.
Tom S.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kelsey Bjarnason" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill requires hiring 'gays,' cross-dressers |
17 May 2007 01:30:14 PM |
|
|
[snips]
On Wed, 16 May 2007 18:24:03 -0400, Tom S wrote:
The bombsight toilet - a rectangular porcelain fixture mounted flush
with the floor. It was about 3 or 4 inches deep with the water tank
mounted on or in the wall. Two foot pads on one end and a "hole" on
the other end. If you are a guy and need to take a leak, stand on
the footpads facing the hole and aim. If you were female or a male
needing to take a dump, position yourself on the footpads with your
back to the hole, squat and drop your bombs. (((^:
If I'm reading you right, this has a rather high potential for misfires.
:)
You're so right about avoiding the gender discrimination issue.
Indeed.
Of course, the Europeans are generally much more liberal and open minded
than Americans about sex, nudity, bodily functions, etc. It is
certainly a refreshing change from some of the uptights over here.
Not just them. Case in point... I used to live in Montreal, and spent
some time over at the ladyfriend's house. This was back in the day, so
she still lived home with her folks.
Her home was home to several: her parents, her older brother and her two
younger sisters, one of whom, Julie - was n about grade 6, I think.
Saturday night, prime time - about 7PM - we're sitting in the living room,
having some dinner, and the TV is on. Some really bad show comes on, a
C-grade or worse comedy/drama sort of thing a I recall. In any case,
partway through, out comes this gent, buck naked and face-first to all
assembled. Not only was he starkers and facing forward, he was "animated"
- his coupling gear was performing more or less in the role of a
propeller, spinning around and around and around, as he merrily made plain
that this was to be the focus of attention.
Total reaction from the assembled audience at home? Zero. No
sixth-grader wondering what that was, no parents freaking out about the
horrors of the human body, nothing. Maybe a chuckle or two, but more
because the scene was so cheesy than anything.
Get uptight over this sort of thing? Gimme a break. You want to get
uptight, how about over something sensible, like the violence on TV - and
even in cartoons aimed *directly* at kids? That would make sense.
Getting all uptight over nudity or sex just says you're in dire need of
getting some yourself.
--
"We can easily endure adversity. Another man's, I mean." -- Twain
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom S" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill requires hiring 'gays,' cross-dressers |
17 May 2007 09:23:30 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 17 May 2007 11:30:14 -0700, Kelsey Bjarnason
<kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote:
[snips]
On Wed, 16 May 2007 18:24:03 -0400, Tom S wrote:
The bombsight toilet - a rectangular porcelain fixture mounted flush
with the floor. It was about 3 or 4 inches deep with the water tank
mounted on or in the wall. Two foot pads on one end and a "hole" on
the other end. If you are a guy and need to take a leak, stand on
the footpads facing the hole and aim. If you were female or a male
needing to take a dump, position yourself on the footpads with your
back to the hole, squat and drop your bombs. (((^:
If I'm reading you right, this has a rather high potential for misfires.
:)
(((^: They all seemed to be a standard size,so it only took a couple
of attempts to learn where on the footpads to "stand" before
squatting. You be a sharpshooter in almost no time.
You're so right about avoiding the gender discrimination issue.
Indeed.
Of course, the Europeans are generally much more liberal and open minded
than Americans about sex, nudity, bodily functions, etc. It is
certainly a refreshing change from some of the uptights over here.
Not just them. Case in point... I used to live in Montreal, and spent
some time over at the ladyfriend's house. This was back in the day, so
she still lived home with her folks.
Her home was home to several: her parents, her older brother and her two
younger sisters, one of whom, Julie - was n about grade 6, I think.
Saturday night, prime time - about 7PM - we're sitting in the living room,
having some dinner, and the TV is on. Some really bad show comes on, a
C-grade or worse comedy/drama sort of thing a I recall. In any case,
partway through, out comes this gent, buck naked and face-first to all
assembled. Not only was he starkers and facing forward, he was "animated"
- his coupling gear was performing more or less in the role of a
propeller, spinning around and around and around, as he merrily made plain
that this was to be the focus of attention.
Total reaction from the assembled audience at home? Zero. No
sixth-grader wondering what that was, no parents freaking out about the
horrors of the human body, nothing. Maybe a chuckle or two, but more
because the scene was so cheesy than anything.
Get uptight over this sort of thing? Gimme a break. You want to get
uptight, how about over something sensible, like the violence on TV - and
even in cartoons aimed *directly* at kids? That would make sense.
Getting all uptight over nudity or sex just says you're in dire need of
getting some yourself.
I agree. Children learn from their parents what is "dirty","clean,
"good", "bad",etc. from a very young age. If they are never taught
that the naked body or sex is "dirty" or "bad", they will not consider
it to be so. And the parental teaching doesn't have to be explicit or
intentional. Acting shocked, embarrassed, outraged when a child
accidentally walks in on one when one is changing clothes teaches that
a naked body is somehow dirty or something to be ashamed of, while
calmly covering up and talking about knocking before entering, etc.
would reinforce teachings about respecting other people and their
space/privacy.
Tom S.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "bob&carole" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill requires hiring 'gays,' cross-dressers |
14 May 2007 12:40:19 AM |
|
|
On May 14, 12:35=EF=BF=BDam, osprey <noneedtok...@mail.com> wrote:
On May 13, 4:27 pm, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarna...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snips]
On Sun, 13 May 2007 03:24:37 -0700, osprey wrote:
Some legitimate questions are raised, and it needs to be addressed.
The question about bathrooms...it's a good question. =A0How do you
address that problem? =A0If you have a transgendered person going to
work, women are probably going to be HIGHLY upset if that person uses
the females restroom and is a biological male. =A0The only solution
is... they must use the mens bathroom. =A0It's a good question, and a
concern.
More and more places - not a lot, statistically, but a growing number -
solve the issue by going to unisex bathrooms. =A0You want to pee? =A0Ri=
ght
through there. =A0Jane or John - or Pat - makes no difference.
Keeps the whole discrimination issue out of it entirely - we don't care
what gender you are, and neither does the toilet or sink. =A0You have a
problem with it? =A0That's your problem, we're not going to kowtow to y=
our
weird prejudices. =A0:)
That's odd...someone who looks out for equality and being fair and
respectful to ALL, and not just a few..is considered prejudice. I
didn't know you had a different definition.
Or maybe...
You're the one who is prejudice.
Ebonics?
Don't bother responding, I already know what your going to try to say
and how you will spin it and frankly, I'm not interested
Amen..........
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kelsey Bjarnason" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill requires hiring 'gays,' cross-dressers |
14 May 2007 02:26:46 PM |
|
|
[snips]
On Sun, 13 May 2007 21:35:00 -0700, osprey wrote:
Keeps the whole discrimination issue out of it entirely - we don't care
what gender you are, and neither does the toilet or sink. You have a
problem with it? That's your problem, we're not going to kowtow to your
weird prejudices. :)
That's odd...someone who looks out for equality and being fair and
respectful to ALL
Yes, by not buying into weird pecadillos and treating everyone the same.
Your point was?
Don't bother responding, I already know what your going to try to say
That you're insane?
--
Look, Chickie. It's your Bible, your rules; YOU go to hell. - Marty
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill requires hiring 'gays,' cross-dressers |
14 May 2007 12:41:05 AM |
|
|
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> writes:
On May 13, 4:27 pm, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarna...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snips]
On Sun, 13 May 2007 03:24:37 -0700, osprey wrote:
Some legitimate questions are raised, and it needs to be addressed.
The question about bathrooms...it's a good question. How do you
address that problem? If you have a transgendered person going to
work, women are probably going to be HIGHLY upset if that person uses
the females restroom and is a biological male. The only solution
is... they must use the mens bathroom. It's a good question, and a
concern.
More and more places - not a lot, statistically, but a growing number -
solve the issue by going to unisex bathrooms. You want to pee? Right
through there. Jane or John - or Pat - makes no difference.
Keeps the whole discrimination issue out of it entirely - we don't care
what gender you are, and neither does the toilet or sink. You have a
problem with it? That's your problem, we're not going to kowtow to your
weird prejudices. :)
That's odd...someone who looks out for equality and being fair and
respectful to ALL, and not just a few..is considered prejudice. I
didn't know you had a different definition.
Or maybe...
You're the one who is prejudice.
Why is it that I'm a southeast Kentucky native who is more literate than you
are, right down the road from Philadelphia *and* Baltimore?
Don't bother responding, I already know what your going to try to say
and how you will spin it and frankly, I'm not interested.
....so "not interested" that you keep on whining the same one-note screech that
you've amused alt.abortion readers for a few years, by now.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: San Antonio 4, Houston 2 (April 15)
NEXT GAME: October 2007, date/place/opponent TBA
.
|
|
|
| User: "bob&carole" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill requires hiring 'gays,' cross-dressers |
14 May 2007 12:49:25 AM |
|
|
On May 14, 1:41?am, The Chief Instigator <patr...@eris.io.com> wrote:
I'm a southeast Kentucky native
Well that explains your pedophilic tendencies.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kelsey Bjarnason" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill requires hiring 'gays,' cross-dressers |
13 May 2007 03:22:14 PM |
|
|
[snips]
On Sat, 12 May 2007 18:04:04 -0700, J Young wrote:
It would apply to any business with 15 or more employees and would
declare "it shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer ...
to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise
discriminate against any individual with respect to the compensation,
terms, conditions, or privileges of employment of the individual,
because of such individual's actual or perceived sexual orientation or
gender identity."
You mean such a law doesn't *already* exist? What is this, the 1800s?
Gimme a break. One's religion, gender, sexuality, race and the like have
no bearing upon their qualifications , so those cannot be used as
justifiable reasons to not hire, or to fire or otherwise treat them
exactly equivalent to any other employee.
--
"People believe what they choose to, in spite of the evidence." - M Hardy
.
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill requires hiring 'gays,' cross-dressers |
13 May 2007 03:56:05 PM |
|
|
Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> writes:
[snips]
On Sat, 12 May 2007 18:04:04 -0700, J Young wrote:
It would apply to any business with 15 or more employees and would
declare "it shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer ...
to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise
discriminate against any individual with respect to the compensation,
terms, conditions, or privileges of employment of the individual,
because of such individual's actual or perceived sexual orientation or
gender identity."
You mean such a law doesn't *already* exist?
Some states have extended their civil rights laws to cover actual
or perceived sexual orienation, etc., but the federal civil rights laws
have not yet been updated. That's what the new law is going to do if
it is passed.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
