A Ban on Discrimination Against Gay Employees Is Likely

[bobbyw24]

http://kiplinger.com/businessresource/forecast/archive/ban_discrimination_against_gay_workers_090716.html

A Ban on Discrimination Against Gay Employees Is Likely
But whether to include protections for transgendered persons will be a sticking point.

By Martha Lynn Craver

July 16, 2009

Odds are good that Congress will pass a bill to ban job discrimination based on sexual orientation. It will expand current federal employment law, which bars bias on the basis of a worker’s race, religion, gender, national origin, age or disability.

The legislation will not apply to small businesses with fewer than 15 employees, the military or religious organizations. The House is likely to act by fall and the Senate by the end of the year. President Obama is sure to sign it.

Less certain is whether the final legislation will also include a ban on discrimination of transgendered persons, which is more controversial. The antidiscrimination bill, introduced by Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), does include such gender identity protections, but employer groups are concerned about that provision. For example, the Society for Human Resource Management says that while it will support sexual orientation discrimination protection, it will not support gender identity protections.

Hundreds of companies already have enacted policies protecting gay and transgendered workers. According to the Human Rights Campaign Fund, a gay rights organization, 85% of Fortune 500 companies have implemented nondiscrimination policies that include sexual orientation, and more than one-third have policies that include gender identity.

In 29 states, it’s legal to fire or to refuse to hire someone for being gay. In 38 states, there is no prohibition on employers that discriminate against transgendered workers.

[CUnknown]

It -should- be illegal to fire someone for being gay. That's discrimination, plain and simple. What your employees do in their bedrooms is absolutely none of your business.

[Kludge]

That's discrimination, plain and simple.

So?

[Fozz]

It -should- be illegal to fire someone for being gay. That's discrimination, plain and simple. What your employees do in their bedrooms is absolutely none of your business.
Whoever an employer hires or fires is none of the government's business.

Gays just want special rights.

[heavenlyboy34]

It -should- be illegal to fire someone for being gay. That's discrimination, plain and simple. What your employees do in their bedrooms is absolutely none of your business.

No it shouldn't. If I own a business, it is my choice to hire/fire who I want. If the public decides my policies are "unfair", they can shop elsewhere. Disallowing me from making that choice is objectively immoral and anti-capitalistic. If the State gets to make hiring decisions, that is Statism. :p:mad:

[Liberty Star]

US Military's DADT policy then would no longer be legal?


I don't see that happening anytime soon and very likely not the middle of war on terra. Bruno Cohen's weird movie release may have also helped push such possibility back by few decades sadly.

[TonySutton]

This is bad news, next thing you know they will want to protect bigots :(

[Kludge]

This is bad news, next thing you know they will want to protect bigots :(

Not before bigotry is classified as a treatable medical disorder.

[speciallyblend]

It -should- be illegal to fire someone for being gay. That's discrimination, plain and simple. What your employees do in their bedrooms is absolutely none of your business.

i totally agree, until the gop gets that liberty is for all! the gop is screwed. the fact is this is not special rights! it is called giving folks equal rights!

now if a person acts like bruno at work. then i understand firing them is ok;) other then that.

the gop and republicans have some soul searching! i will make sure my vote keeps the gop in check until they actually understand Liberty for all , not just christians!

most folks view the gop as a right-wing/old guard nut party. i have to agree! sincerely registered republican!

[speciallyblend]

Whoever an employer hires or fires is none of the government's business.

Gays just want special rights.

BS

[Fozz]

i totally agree, until the gop gets that liberty is for all! the gop is screwed. the fact is this is not special rights! it is called giving folks equal rights!

now if a person acts like bruno at work. then i undestand firing them is ok;) other then that.

the gop and republicans have some soul searching! i will make sure my vote keeps the gop in check until they actually understand Liberty for all , not just christians!

most folks view the gop has a right-wing/old guard nut party. i have to agree! sincerely registered republican!

Interfering with who gets hired or fired is giving gays special rights. If a gay person gets fired because he is incompetent, then if there is a law like this, he can lie and say that he was fired for being gay, then the employer, who did NOTHING wrong, would get punished. I promise you that Ron Paul would oppose this. Gays do not deserve special rights.

[muh_roads]

BS

No it's not. An employer should have the freedom to hire/fire who they want.

A company run entirely by homosexuals should be free to deny someone who is hetero if they want. Interior Designer for example. lol

[speciallyblend]

No it shouldn't. If I own a business, it is my choice to hire/fire who I want. If the public decides my policies are "unfair", they can shop elsewhere. Disallowing me from making that choice is objectively immoral and anti-capitalistic. If the State gets to make hiring decisions, that is Statism. :p:mad:

well you might have the right,but to fire someone based on who they like outside of the job is flat out wrong. you cna twist anyway you want it,but if your basing your hiring pratices on who they are dating. it is flatout wrong!

now if someone acts like bruno at work. then you have every rightbut to use their sexual preference as a reason is flat out wrong no matter how you put it>

maybe i should fire anyone that supports ron paul !

this revolution must understand liberty is for everyone not just ron paul supporters and christians and whoever tows their lines!

this has nothing to do with special rights. when you have employers firi ng folks over nothing really!

i do not buy the argument. you should only have the right to fire someone if they fail to do the work or do not show to work or steal! who they have sex with (m/f) doesn't matter!

[speciallyblend]

No it shouldn't. If I own a business, it is my choice to hire/fire who I want. If the public decides my policies are "unfair", they can shop elsewhere. Disallowing me from making that choice is objectively immoral and anti-capitalistic. If the State gets to make hiring decisions, that is Statism. :p:mad:

well you might have the right,but to fire someone based on who they like outside of the job is flat out wrong. you cna twist anyway you want it,but if your basing your hiring pratices on who they are dating. it is flatout wrong!

now if someone acts like bruno at work. then you have every rightbut to use their sexual preference as a reason is flat out wrong no matter how you put it>

maybe i should fire anyone that supports ron paul !

this revolution must understand liberty is for everyone not just ron paul supporters and christians and whoever tows their lines!

this has nothing to do with special rights. when you have employers firing folks over nothing really!

i do not buy the argument. you should only have the right to fire someone if they fail to do the work or do not show to work or steal! who they have sex with (m/f) doesn't matter!

wierd it double posted!!

[Kludge]

I'm still kinda miffed that Hooters won't hire me.

The manager was kind enough to tell me my boobs were big enough, though.

[Fozz]

well you might have the right,but to fire someone based on who they like outside of the job is flat out wrong. you cna twist anyway you want it,but if your basing your hiring pratices on who they are dating. it is flatout wrong! now if someone acts like bruno at work. then you have every rightbut to use their sexual preference as a reason is flat out wrong no matter how you put it>
It may be wrong in your opinion, but it is the employer's choice to have whoever he wants working in his business. It should certainly not be a crime to fire a gay person.

maybe i should fire anyone that supports ron paul !
Ok go ahead, it shouldn't be a crime.


this revolution must understand liberty is for everyone not just ron paul supporters and christians and whoever tows their lines!
Liberty is for everyone, but special rights/privileges for minorities is not liberty. What will you do when Ron Paul votes against this?


this has nothing to do with special rights. when you have employers firing folks over nothing really!

i do not buy the argument. you should only have the right to fire someone if they fail to do the work or do not show to work or steal! who they have sex with (m/f) doesn't matter!
Its none of the government's business who the employer fires or hires. And how can anyone prove that the employer fired someone for no reason other than being gay?

[pcosmar]

No it's not. An employer should have the freedom to hire/fire who they want.


I believe this to be true, However the precedent has been set.
They can presently fire or refuse to hire based on a substance used on your own time in your own home(A month ago). :(

[Maverick]

Pat-yourself-on-the-back bullshit feel-good legislation that will change nothing.



According to the Human Rights Campaign Fund, a gay rights organization, 85% of Fortune 500 companies have implemented nondiscrimination policies that include sexual orientation, and more than one-third have policies that include gender identity.


If 85% of these companies already have voluntarily enacted this policy (and the percentage is likely comparable with small businesses) that should tell you that the fedgov is proving itself to be completely unnecessary and useless yet again.

[speciallyblend]

Interfering with who gets hired or fired is giving gays special rights. If a gay person gets fired because he is incompetent, then if there is a law like this, he can lie and say that he was fired for being gay, then the employer, who did NOTHING wrong, would get punished. I promise you that Ron Paul would oppose this. Gays do not deserve special rights.

not true. they have courts to take that to! it has nothing to do with special rights.

I 100% disagree with you and i am sure your against the ada to?

I will vote for gays to have rights protecting them from dumbass employers! if you have just cause to fire an employee. then you have just cause! that is the bottom line .



maybe i should remove the r next to my name. the gop is full of bigots and folks who want rights themselves and no one else. maybe we should take your right away to practice whatever religion you practice. so you do not have special rights!!

i support gay rights.i support christian rights. i support people to have rights!
i support consumer rights!

I SUPPORT THE ADA,because there are so many evil folks out there. that do not care about disabled folks. may i ask what color you are??

it is easy for white folks to bitch about special rights. people lose their rights everyday over color and bigots in both parties not to mention the disabled who get screwed everyday! nobody is making special rights! they are given rights to make them somewhat equal! i am still waiting for women rights to make women equal!
now if you think women's rights are special? then i would assume they have special rights to vote??

please get some common sense! the fact is these rights will still not make them equal!

women have had rights since 1923 yet they are still not equal. talk to me in 86 years oo well we are there already! do not give me this special rights bs! women have had your so-called special rights for 86 yrs and they are still not equal! give me a break on this gop bs!!

[Bossobass]

I demand this bill include illustrations.

Bosso

[speciallyblend]

Pat-yourself-on-the-back bullshit feel-good legislation that will change nothing.



If 85% of these companies already have voluntarily enacted this policy (and the percentage is likely comparable with small businesses) that should tell you that the fedgov is proving itself to be completely unnecessary and useless yet again.

because they do not always follow their own bs rules. the fact is they need these rights to protect the other 15% who have no protection.

unless your gay and get fired what does it have to do with you in the first place??

is someone forcing themselves on your AZZ?? literally?

do women have special rights???

[speciallyblend]

Interfering with who gets hired or fired is giving gays special rights. If a gay person gets fired because he is incompetent, then if there is a law like this, he can lie and say that he was fired for being gay, then the employer, who did NOTHING wrong, would get punished. I promise you that Ron Paul would oppose this. Gays do not deserve special rights.

nope .if the employer has just cause. then fine,but being gaY IS NOT JUST CAUSE ,get real

IF AN EMPLOYER FIRES SOMEONE FOR BEING GAY.then they should be sued! that is the bottom line! and that person should be sued for being a dumbass!

maybe i should start firing folks for being christians! or do they have special rights!!

my experience with what your saying is BS considering i have a daughter who has been fired for no reason,many times!

your making scenarios up and if that is the case and you have just cause .then you show up to court! but people need protection from dumbass employers and from this thread their might be more then i knew! sexual preference is not a reason to fire someone that is the bottom line! yeah im sure someone is going to get fired for stealing and say wait im gay. yeah right and good luck in court;) if they stole they get fired . JUST CAUSE is the bottom line. stop making up crap!

are you one of those folks that think gay is a choice?? if so that explains everthing!!

[coyote_sprit]

well you might have the right,but to fire someone based on who they like outside of the job is flat out wrong. you cna twist anyway you want it,but if your basing your hiring pratices on who they are dating. it is flatout wrong!Whether it is flat out wrong to you doesn't matter the only person whose opinion matters in this case is the employer.


now if someone acts like bruno at work. then you have every rightbut to use their sexual preference as a reason is flat out wrong no matter how you put it
Like I said it doesn't matter what you feel is wrong or right, if it is so wrong then the market will decide that by not going to that employer for anything.


maybe i should fire anyone that supports ron paul !
That's a straw man argument and even then an employer has the right to fire anyone whom he pleases.


this revolution must understand liberty is for everyone not just ron paul supporters and christians and whoever tows their lines!
True and that's why we should allow employers to fire whomever the hell they want.


this has nothing to do with special rights. when you have employers firing folks over nothing really!
Nothing to you could mean everything to someone else.


i do not buy the argument. you should only have the right to fire someone if they fail to do the work or do not show to work or steal! who they have sex with (m/f) doesn't matter!
That's great except you have no right telling an employer who he can or cannot fire.

If you dislike someone's firing practices so much the free market solution to them is to abstain from buying any of that companies products or abstain from companies that contract that company.

[Fozz]

not true. they have courts to take that to! it has nothing to do with special rights.

I 100% disagree with you and i am sure your against the ada to?

I will vote for gays to have rights protecting them from dumbass employers! if you have just cause to fire an employee. then you have just cause! that is the bottom line .
Being employed is not a "right", and employers should not have to answer to the government why they are firing someone.


maybe i should remove the r next to my name. the gop is full of bigots and folks who want rights themselves and no one else. maybe we should take your right away to practice whatever religion you practice. so you do not have special rights!!
Um, no. Freedom of religion is a fundamental first amendment right, and the government has no right to interfere with it. However, an employer should be able to have workers from whatever religion he wants.


i support gay rights.i support christian rights. i support people to have rights!
i support consumer rights!
Gay rights means that the government should not discriminate, but when it gets to controlling people's attitudes or who someone hires/fires, it becomes statism.



it is easy for white folks to bitch about special rights. people lose their rights everyday over color and bigots in both parties not to mention the disabled who get screwed everyday! nobody is making special rights! they are given rights to make them somewhat equal! i am still waiting for women rights to make women equal!
now if you think women's rights are special? then i would assume they have special rights to vote??

please get some common sense! the fact is these rights will still not make them equal!

women have had rights since 1923 yet they are still not equal. talk to me in 86 years oo well we are there already! do not give me this special rights bs! women have had your so-called special rights for 86 yrs and they are still not equal! give me a break on this gop bs!!
You need to know the difference between being discriminated by the government and being discriminated by an employer. The former is unacceptable, but the ladder is the choice of the employer. Shoving homosexuality down everyone's throats is not liberty. Again, what will you do when Ron Paul votes against this bill? Because I know he will if it comes up.

[speciallyblend]

well whatever you guys say. i support gay rights and until the gop does. then you can count my vote on keeping the gop in a minority where they should be! you can count my vote on that!

you guys probably think being gay is a choice to! so that says enough for me!

[speciallyblend]

Being employed is not a "right", and employers should not have to answer to the government why they are firing someone.


Um, no. Freedom of religion is a fundamental first amendment right, and the government has no right to interfere with it. However, an employer should be able to have workers from whatever religion he wants.


Gay rights means that the government should not discriminate, but when it gets to controlling people's attitudes or who someone hires/fires, it becomes statism.


You need to know the difference between being discriminated by the government and being discriminated by an employer. The former is unacceptable, but the ladder is the choice of the employer. Shoving homosexuality down everyone's throats is not liberty. Again, what will you do when Ron Paul votes against this bill? Because I know he will if it comes up.

i agree being a discostick employer they have the right to be a P.R.I.C.K aka discostick
1 question, should women have rights??


employers do not have the right to fire a person because they are gay,unless they do not do their job! i get that;)

so on your ideas. i have the right to fire a woman because she is a woman! it is not an amendment so we can fire women now. i guess that makes the old white guy and right-wingers happy!

[Krugerrand]

If an employer has generally unfair hiring practices, not only can the consumer affect changes ... but good employees will often take notice and look for employment elsewhere. This will naturally cause negative consequences for the employer.

[CUnknown]

Let's say that you have an employee who is going an excellent job, with no cause for complaint. But, you hear a rumor that's he's gay. You ask him if he's gay, and he says yes. The next day you fire him.

Are people here honestly saying there is nothing wrong with that? If he is free, he is free to do what he wants in his own bedroom, period.

[Krugerrand]

1 question, should women have rights??

Yes. The same rights as a man. To force somebody tho hire me and pay me a wage is not one of them.

[Fozz]

well whatever you guys say. i support gay rights and until the gop does. then you can count my vote on keeping the gop in a minority where they should be! you can count my vote on that!

you guys probably think being gay is a choice to! so that says enough for me!
Gays should have equal rights, but neither gays nor any other minorities should have "employment protection", hate crime protection, or affirmative action. Those are special rights.

[coyote_sprit]

well whatever you guys say. i support gay rights and until the gop does. then you can count my vote on keeping the gop in a minority where they should be! you can count my vote on that!
...Groups can't have rights...


you guys probably think being gay is a choice to! so that says enough for me!
Wow another straw man, you fail to realize that many of use here don't have problems with gay people but we have a problem with the government telling an employer who he can and cannot fire.

[Krugerrand]

Let's say that you have an employee who is going an excellent job, with no cause for complaint. But, you hear a rumor that's he's gay. You ask him if he's gay, and he says yes. The next day you fire him.

Are people here honestly saying there is nothing wrong with that? If he is free, he is free to do what he wants in his own bedroom, period.

Yes. He is free do do what he wants in his bedroom. The employer is free to pay salary to whomever he chooses.

[speciallyblend]

Whether it is flat out wrong to you doesn't matter the only person whose opinion matters in this case is the employer.


Like I said it doesn't matter what you feel is wrong or right, if it is so wrong then the market will decide that by not going to that employer for anything.


That's a straw man argument and even then an employer has the right to fire anyone whom he pleases.


True and that's why we should allow employers to fire whomever the hell they want.


Nothing to you could mean everything to someone else.


That's great except you have no right telling an employer who he can or cannot fire.

If you dislike someone's firing practices so much the free market solution to them is to abstain from buying any of that companies products or abstain from companies that contract that company.

i do employ so do not tell me!

are you a republican?, fired:) sounds like a plan. i let everyone i know who hires. the best way to kill the gop fire them all;) thanks for giving me an idea;)

[coyote_sprit]

i agree being a discostick employer they have the right to be a P.R.I.C.K aka discostick
1 question, should women have rights??
Women should only have the same right as everyone else and the right to employment is not one of them.


employers do not have the right to fire a person because they are gay,unless they do not do their job! i get that;)
Employers have a right to fire someone for any reason they feel is necessary.


so on your ideas. i have the right to fire a woman because she is a woman! it is not an amendment so we can fire women now. i guess that makes the old white guy and right-wingers happy!

An employer should be able to fire who he wants. Quit assuming that because we agree he can do what he wants with his own money that we support what he's doing.

[mczerone]

We should all make our own consumer choices.

If you wish to defend gay rights, refuse to deal with a known discriminator (*) and those who deal with him.

But you also must allow bigots to flock together, and let them worry about each other being gay. Live and let live, fund what you want and avoid what you don't.


* - the standard used to determine if this is know must also be subjective, possibly as little as a hunch would be sufficient, others may wait for clear and convincing evidence that the employer discriminated for a specific reason while favoring an individual with an opposing trait without a non-discriminatory refute. The standard that individuals use, either as individuals or through justice agencies, would also be reason for others to boycott them - if someone is jumping to conclusions before your subjective opinion has been formed, you may decide to not deal with those people who you feel have the correct ideals, but are doing injustice by means of being inaccurate with their charges.

Sorry for being long winded in the asterisk, I tried to rigorously follow any 'loose ends' of how a free market solution would work.

[coyote_sprit]

i do employ so do not tell me!

are you a republican?, fired:) sounds like a plan. i let everyone i know who hires. the best way to kill the gop fire them all;) thanks for giving me an idea;)

Well then fire me but I'm gonna tell all the people I know to abstain from your product and tell them to tell all the people they know the same thing. Certainly wouldn't run to the government every time I feel offended though.

[speciallyblend]

Yes. He is free do do what he wants in his bedroom. The employer is free to pay salary to whomever he chooses.

and he must have a justified cause to fire;) and being gay is not one,hence they need to have some rights to protect them to hopefully make them equal. women are still waiting to be equal! and it has been almost 80 plus years and woman have rights and they are not equal yet!

if it wasn't for evil folks firing folks for being gay. we wouldn't be at this point. you let me know when women/or gay folks have the white man held down by the throat over their special rights as you call them!!

let me know when women have special rights?? ok!

what i see is the ron paul revolution is full of hypocrites! and some right-wing nut jobs!

[CountryboyRonPaul]

You can't legislate morality.

[heavenlyboy34]

well you might have the right,but to fire someone based on who they like outside of the job is flat out wrong. you cna twist anyway you want it,but if your basing your hiring pratices on who they are dating. it is flatout wrong!

now if someone acts like bruno at work. then you have every rightbut to use their sexual preference as a reason is flat out wrong no matter how you put it>

maybe i should fire anyone that supports ron paul !

this revolution must understand liberty is for everyone not just ron paul supporters and christians and whoever tows their lines!

this has nothing to do with special rights. when you have employers firing folks over nothing really!

i do not buy the argument. you should only have the right to fire someone if they fail to do the work or do not show to work or steal! who they have sex with (m/f) doesn't matter!

wierd it double posted!!

Who are you to tell me who I can hire and fire (or use State power to do so)? This is antithetical to free market captialism. If there is truly a market for gay people, employers will actively seek them out, and prospective employees will go there. Just like other niche businesses attract specific people, "gay" businesses can succeed or fail on their own merits. There are no special "rights" for gays, straights, or any special group in reality.

Gays must appeal to the intellect and moral sense of employers and make themselves valuable. They will then succeed.

[speciallyblend]

Well then fire me but I'm gonna tell all the people I know to abstain from your product and tell them to tell all the people they know the same thing. Certainly wouldn't run to the government every time I feel offended though.

go ahead!i do not want a hypocrites money! i wouldn't fire a person without just cause,so the government is not an issue with me;)

[heavenlyboy34]

and he must have a justified cause to fire;) and being gay is not one,hence they need to have some rights to protect them to hopefully make them equal. women are still waiting to be equal! and it has been almost 80 plus years and woman have rights and they are not equal yet!

if it wasn't for evil folks firing folks for being gay. we wouldn't be at this point. you let me know when women/or gay folks have the white man held down by the throat over their special rights as you call them!!

let me know when women have special rights?? ok!

what i see is the ron paul revolution is full of hypocrites! and some right-wing nut jobs!

Yeah, but I'm not one of them. :cool::):D

[Maverick]

you guys probably think being gay is a choice to! so that says enough for me!

Dude, you need to chill out a little. You've been throwing out a lot of ad hom in this thread already. And the above quote, you know damned well that's not true. Well, I suppose I can't speak for everyone, but I can tell you I don't think it's a choice.

I used to believe in all that "insert x rights here" and "the gov has to protect people from being fired!" but then I came to understand how futile that kind of legislation is. Futile.

The gov can pass all the legislation it wants regarding whom can fire/hire whom, and in a practical manner, it won't make any difference at all. The government can never change how a bigoted person feels about a certain group through coercion. Said bigoted person will just find some other reason not to hire or to fire the "person belonging to x group" that the bigot doesn't like. It doesn't stop minority groups from being discriminated against, it just makes bigots sneakier about it.

[Fozz]

You can't legislate morality.

HAHAHAH best post!!!!:D

[coyote_sprit]

and he must have a justified cause to fire;) and being gay is not one,hence they need to have some rights to protect them to hopefully make them equal. women are still waiting to be equal! and it has been almost 80 plus years and woman have rights and they are not equal yet!
Why must he have a just reason to do what he wants with his own money. If that were the case then everytime you made what I felt was an unjust purchase I could force you to take it back but that would be wrong because I have no place in telling you what to do with your property.

[speciallyblend]

Who are you to tell me who I can hire and fire (or use State power to do so)? This is antithetical to free market captialism. If there is truly a market for gay people, employers will actively seek them out, and prospective employees will go there. Just like other niche businesses attract specific people, "gay" businesses can succeed or fail on their own merits. There are no special "rights" for gays, straights, or any special group in reality.

Gays must appeal to the intellect and moral sense of employers and make themselves valuable. They will then succeed.

if you fire someone for just being gay. you should get a swift upper cut and a right! if you fire someone for just cause. then there is not a problem!

just do not be a discostick!

let the courts deal with it if you fired them for being gay,now if he acted like bruno at work .then you have just cause,but if he acted like you at work. then you should be sued for firing someone for no just cause. being gay is not just cause!

[coyote_sprit]

go ahead!i do not want a hypocrites money! i wouldn't fire a person without just cause,so the government is not an issue with me;)

Why am I a hypocrite? Because I feel that a person can do what he wants with his own property? Isn't that the whole point of freedom?

[rp08orbust]

maybe i should fire anyone that supports ron paul !

And Ron Paul would defend your right to do so.


this revolution must understand liberty is for everyone

Except you don't think it's for employers. Apparently freedom of association isn't one of the liberties you believe in.

[coyote_sprit]

if you fire someone for just being gay. you should get a swift upper cut and a right! if you fire someone for just cause. then there is not a problem!

just do not be a discostick!

let the courts deal with it if you fired them for being gay,now if he acted like bruno at work .the nyou have just cause,but if he acted like you at work. the nyou should be sued for firing someone for no just cause. being gay is not just cause!

The courts have no place in telling a person what to do with their own money. It's not infringing on anyones rights because you don't have a right to be employed.

[speciallyblend]

Why am I a hypocrite? Because I feel that a person can do what he wants with his own property? Isn't that the whole point of freedom?

no because you would fire someone for being gay alone!

1 question ,do you believe being gay is a choice? if you say yes.then that says it all!

[Krugerrand]

go ahead!i do not want a hypocrites money! i wouldn't fire a person without just cause,so the government is not an issue with me;)

When you claim to not fire anybody without just cause .... what if the person you fire feels that there was no just cause, does that person automatically get rehired?

Who gets to determine "just cause." You, the employee, the government?

My vote goes to the individuals writing the check. They get to determine "just cause."

[LibertyEagle]

Speciallyblend,

You mention a lot of groups having rights. Do you think individual employers have any rights?

[coyote_sprit]

no because you would fire someone for being gay alone!
I never said I would fire someone for being gay I merely said an employer should be able to. Stop putting words into my mouth.


1 question ,do you believe being gay is a choice? if you say yes.then that says it all!

Being gay is a choice for some people but for many it's not, I understand that but I still feel that an employer has a right to fire someone even for something they cannot help.

[speciallyblend]

The courts have no place in telling a person what to do with their own money. It's not infringing on anyones rights because you don't have a right to be employed.

i 100% disagree ,since my daughter has been let go several times for having epilepsy! now we cannot afford court but her rights were trashed! thank god for the ada. we hope the ada can sue for us since we are flatout broke!

gay should not be a just cause to fire .that is the bottom line! you will never change my mind on the gay issue or the ada so give it up!

those 2 issues show why i think the ron paul revolution is full of hypocrites!

maybe i need to leave this so-called joke of a revolution!

[aji]

i do employ so do not tell me!

are you a republican?, fired:) sounds like a plan. i let everyone i know who hires. the best way to kill the gop fire them all;) thanks for giving me an idea;)

Yikes, someone is thinking with emotion rather than logic!

You are obviously NOT a Ron Paul supporter as you would understand his position on collectivism and group rights.

Collectivism, group rights are the worst forms of discrimination. Any time you prop one group over another with special rights and you are committing discrimination.

There will always be predjudice in our society as we judge people on a daily basis for various reason. You cannot legislate out human emotion. It just doesn't work.
You also can't cover all the bases. i am sure that there are people out there that were fired or not hired based on being overweight, or unattractive in other ways.

It just doesn't work. I myself have been a victim of reverse discrimination, but I don't jump on the colectivist bandwagon.

The government should have NO rights telling employers who they can hire or fire.

[heavenlyboy34]

if you fire someone for just being gay. you should get a swift upper cut and a right! if you fire someone for just cause. then there is not a problem!

just do not be a discostick!

let the courts deal with it if you fired them for being gay,now if he acted like bruno at work .then you have just cause,but if he acted like you at work. then you should be sued for firing someone for no just cause. being gay is not just cause!

Since you have no "right" to be employed in a free market, you cannot logically conclude that I'm being a "discostick". Employment in a free economy is a free exchange of labor for compensation. Regulating this exchange in any way is antithetical to freedom.

[Kludge]

You are obviously NOT a Ron Paul supporter as you would understand his position on collectivism and group rights.

... Really?

[speciallyblend]

I never said I would fire someone for being gay I merely said an employer should be able to. Stop putting words into my mouth.



Being gay is a choice for some people but for many it's not, I understand that but I still feel that an employer has a right to fire someone even for something they cannot help.

i diasgree. an employer should not have the right to fire someone who is gay!

[coyote_sprit]

i 100% disagree ,since my daughter has been let go several times for having epilepsy! now we cannot afford court but her rights were trashed! thank god for the ada. we hope the ada can sue for us since we are flatout broke!
That sounded like something right out of the Troll 101 class. Not denying you have a daughter with epilepsy but that isn't relevant to this discussion what's relevant is whether an employer can fire who he wants.


gay should not be a just casue to fire .that is the bottom line! you will never change my mind on the gay issue or the ada so give it up!
Just cause should be left up to the employer. What you feel is just cause differs from what someone else feels. Remember the reason socialism doesn't work is one size fits all.


those 2 issues show why i think the ron paul revolution is full of hypocrites!
The only hypocrite here is you...

[speciallyblend]

Since you have no "right" to be employed in a free market, you cannot logically conclude that I'm being a "discostick". Employment in a free economy is a free exchange of labor for compensation. Regulating this exchange in any way is antithetical to freedom.

if you fire someone for being gay. then you are a discostick.
if you fire someone for not working or stealing then you have every right to fire them!

it is upto you to be called whatever you want to be called depending on your actions.

anyone firing anyone for just being gay deserves to be a discostick!

[coyote_sprit]

i diasgree. an employer should not have the right to fire someone who is gay!

Well then they should also not have a right to fire someone who is lazy. Some people are not lazy by choice...

[speciallyblend]

That sounded like something right out of the Troll 101 class. Not denying you have a daughter with epilepsy but that isn't relevant to this discussion what's relevant is whether an employer can fire who he wants.


Just cause should be left up to the employer. What you feel is just cause differs from what someone else feels. Remember the reason socialism doesn't work is one size fits all.


The only hypocrite here is you...

i support womens rights ,ada rights and gay rights, call me what makes you happy;)

[rp08orbust]

what i see is the ron paul revolution is full of hypocrites!

Indeed, it is full of people who like freedom as long as it doesn't lead to results that offend them.

I'm sure you believe in freedom of discrimination about who you date. You discriminate against women. So why shouldn't we have to the freedom to discriminate about who we hire?

[speciallyblend]

Speciallyblend,

You mention a lot of groups having rights. Do you think individual employers have any rights?

they do they have the right to f.u.c.k. over who they want everyday! and my daughter has lived it everyday.so p-lease do not give me this employer rights crap. they have every right to do what they want with no problems already!

every business has far more rights then the consumer. the last 3-4 yrs have proved that to me and my wife and my daughter!

as we get screwed everyday by insurance,docs,hospitals and my daughter getting screwed by employers the last 4 yrs!

[coyote_sprit]

i support womens rights ,ada rights and gay rights, call me what makes you happy;)

Collectivist suits you quite well.

[coyote_sprit]

they do they have the right to fuck over who they want everyday!

Call it what you want it's there money and therefore they can do what they wish with it.

[heavenlyboy34]

Indeed, it is full of people who like freedom as long as it doesn't lead to results that offend them.

I'm sure you believe in freedom of discrimination about who you date. You discriminate against women. So why shouldn't we have to the freedom to discriminate about who we hire?

Good point. I'd like to add that discrimination has gotten a bum rap in the modern era. Having "discriminating taste" used to be a good thing. Capitalists discriminate all the time in order to provide the objectively best quality products/services. :cool:

[coyote_sprit]

I think for every 6 times you shop at Walmart you also must shop at Target.

[mczerone]

specially blend: If I were an employer, and there were no specific contractual prohibition, I could walk up to any employee at any time and say "get out."

I need no reason, I may just need to cut the budget, I may not like the personality mixture of the employees, or maybe I'm just having a bad day. I can tell any employee to "get out."

But you claim that if they are gay, or a woman, or a racial minority, or whatever, then I need some reason?

Isn't that granting special rights and limiting my individual freedoms?


What if I hired an employee while in a hetero relationship but they later divorce and start a homosexual union? Do they then change their contractual bargaining position?

I love all people, I want to see all people maximize their own subjective happiness, and I have no issue with people for sexual orientation, religion, gender, race, or whatever.

You seem to want to exploit the monopoly on force that is the government justice system to make everyone subject to what your rules would be, and while I sympathize with your position on the issue of employing people equally, we seem to be arguing over WHO should ENFORCE these rules.

[speciallyblend]

Collectivist suits you quite well.

call me what you will then! whatever makes you happy!

[Krugerrand]

call me what you will then! whatever makes you happy!

I like your bouncing elephant. It's very hypnotic.

[speciallyblend]

specially blend: If I were an employer, and there were no specific contractual prohibition, I could walk up to any employee at any time and say "get out."

I need no reason, I may just need to cut the budget, I may not like the personality mixture of the employees, or maybe I'm just having a bad day. I can tell any employee to "get out."

But you claim that if they are gay, or a woman, or a racial minority, or whatever, then I need some reason?

Isn't that granting special rights and limiting my individual freedoms?


What if I hired an employee while in a hetero relationship but they later divorce and start a homosexual union? Do they then change their contractual bargaining position?

I love all people, I want to see all people maximize their own subjective happiness, and I have no issue with people for sexual orientation, religion, gender, race, or whatever.

You seem to want to exploit the monopoly on force that is the government justice system to make everyone subject to what your rules would be, and while I sympathize with your position on the issue of employing people equally, we seem to be arguing over WHO should ENFORCE these rules.

so you disagree with women rights then?

no i am saying you must have just cause,being a discostick in my eyes is not just cause. having a reason to fire someone is fine.If you have a good reason to fire someone, then fine. if you do not then your a discostick! depends on what you want to be ,firing someone for no reason is a simple answer=discostick!

[__27__]

and he must have a justified cause to fire;) and being gay is not one,hence they need to have some rights to protect them to hopefully make them equal. women are still waiting to be equal! and it has been almost 80 plus years and woman have rights and they are not equal yet!

if it wasn't for evil folks firing folks for being gay. we wouldn't be at this point. you let me know when women/or gay folks have the white man held down by the throat over their special rights as you call them!!

let me know when women have special rights?? ok!

what i see is the ron paul revolution is full of hypocrites! and some right-wing nut jobs!

Says the guy advocating the government boot to "certain peoples" throats for the supposed "protection" of anther group.

Get over your little hissy fit and stop turning to the government tit to be your little blanky of protection. A business is private property, and what one does with his private property is none of the governments business. If someone wants to not hire anyone with red hair, or brown eyes, that is their right. If you want to not hire anyone who is a Republican, that is your right. Just because you and I think something is wrong does not negate a persons right to do it. While you and I may agree that the Westboro Baptist Church's message of "God Hates ****" is utterly reprehensible, I certainly hope that you recognize their right to believe that and to say it. If not, then I would have to question whether you actually believe in freedom at all.

Freedom isn't pretty, your feelings will get hurt, people will be mean, not everyone will agree with you 100% of the time. If you want a world with rainbows and lollipops, you may want to look towards socialism (which is what forcing employment rules on employers is), because freedom is clearly not for you.

All of this only touches on the absurdity of your belief that "freedom" is forcing the boot of government on someones throat for the "protection" of a collective. It hasn't yet covered your utter fallacy that the practice of bigoted discrimination in employment policies is somehow a profitable and sustainable practice. For the simple practice of limiting your pool of potential employees by classifications of race, age, gender, sexual preference, etc. you guarantee yourself to be less competitive, less productive, and less profitable than any competition worth his salt who has a massively larger pool of potential employees by simple virtue of not discriminating. Then comes the absurd accusation of those typical to beholden your stance that "women and minorities make 70% of wages compared to white males for the same work". Again, pure poppycock. If this were true, why would any business hire ANYONE other than a woman or a minority. By employing only women and minorities for the same amount of production at "70% of wages" you have instantly undercut your competition by 30%. Any business who opted to discriminate and pay their white male employees 30% more would be utterly destroyed in the marketplace.

And this still hasn't covered what potential damage the company stands to receive from outraged consumers such as you or I exposing their hiring practices and reducing their market share by encouraging sane people to boycott their products. No, your statist thought process has nothing on the marketplace. It is in the best interest of every free market company to reduce their bottom line in any way possible by: 1. hiring from the largest available pool of applicants, thereby insuring the highest possible quality of employees; 2. paying the most competitive wages, i.e. the lowest possible wage for the highest possible production; 3. NOT encouraging public outrage and risking boycott of products due to silly personal stereotypes.

You either don't believe in free markets, or don't believe what your selling us is true. Because there is absolutely NO market incentive to discriminate, in fact there is GREAT market incentive to NOT discriminate.

Gays deserve the exact same rights as every other individual on the face of the planet. Any "right" granted beyond that, especially a "right" granted and imposed by the boot of government, is done so at the expense of the rights of another individual. There is NO liberty in that.

[coyote_sprit]

so you disagree with women rights then?

no i am saying you must have just cause,being a discostick in my eyes is not just cause. having a reason to fire someone is fine.If you have a good reason to fire someone, then fine. if you do not then your a discostick! depends on what you want to be ,firing someone for no reason is a simple answer=discostick!

In the immortal words of the rock, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOU THINK!! The only person who matter when it comes to firing someone is the employer.

[specsaregood]

well whatever you guys say. i support gay rights and until the gop does. then you can count my vote on keeping the gop in a minority where they should be! you can count my vote on that!

you guys probably think being gay is a choice to! so that says enough for me!

It has nothing to do with being gay or gay rights or whatever.
I take it you are not a business owner?

It has everything to do with private property rights:


Employers have a right to fire someone for any reason they feel is necessary.

Well, that should read: employers SHOULD have a right. Because it is not true anymore.
I agree and Ron Paul would agree as well.

[heavenlyboy34]

so you disagree with women rights then?

no i am saying you must have just cause,being a discostick in my eyes is not just cause. having a reason to fire someone is fine.If you have a good reason to fire someone, then fine. if you do not then your a discostick! depends on what you want to be ,firing someone for no reason is a simple answer=discostick!

The proper term is "Capitalist", but you can use "discostick" if you want. :rolleyes:

[mczerone]

I think for every 6 times you shop at Walmart you also must shop at Target.

I know, you're j/k, but to follow up:

That's great that you think that! You are free to shop T:W-m::1:6, and to try to influence others to follow your lead! But to pass a law, to force others to do so is morally wrong and will have unintended consequences. You cannot use govt force to enforce consuming standards.

Same exact answer applies to people who wish to enforce employment standards.

[speciallyblend]

I like your bouncing elephant. It's very hypnotic.

it represents the failed gop bouncing everywhere,eventually i will remove the trampoline! would be nice to see the elephant representing the gop mis the trampoline once and squash itself!

i am glad to say the gop is taking this course!

honestly i have never been so disgusted to call myself a republican!

some of these ron paul republicans are as bad as the left they call utopian! they are in their own utopian world!

i bet they think women need no rights as well? that is utopian in itself!

especially if they think women are equal in todays world!

[mczerone]

Says the guy advocating the government boot to "certain peoples" throats for the supposed "protection" of anther group.

Get over your little hissy fit and stop turning to the government tit to be your little blanky of protection. A business is private property, and what one does with his private property is none of the governments business. If someone wants to not hire anyone with red hair, or brown eyes, that is their right. If you want to not hire anyone who is a Republican, that is your right. Just because you and I think something is wrong does not negate a persons right to do it. While you and I may agree that the Westboro Baptist Church's message of "God Hates ****" is utterly reprehensible, I certainly hope that you recognize their right to believe that and to say it. If not, then I would have to question whether you actually believe in freedom at all.

Freedom isn't pretty, your feelings will get hurt, people will be mean, not everyone will agree with you 100% of the time. If you want a world with rainbows and lollipops, you may want to look towards socialism (which is what forcing employment rules on employers is), because freedom is clearly not for you.

All of this only touches on the absurdity of your belief that "freedom" is forcing the boot of government on someones throat for the "protection" of a collective. It hasn't yet covered your utter fallacy that the practice of bigoted discrimination in employment policies is somehow a profitable and sustainable practice. For the simple practice of limiting your pool of potential employees by classifications of race, age, gender, sexual preference, etc. you guarantee yourself to be less competitive, less productive, and less profitable than any competition worth his salt who has a massively larger pool of potential employees by simple virtue of not discriminating. Then comes the absurd accusation of those typical to beholden your stance that "women and minorities make 70% of wages compared to white males for the same work". Again, pure poppycock. If this were true, why would any business hire ANYONE other than a woman or a minority. By employing only women and minorities for the same amount of production at "70% of wages" you have instantly undercut your competition by 30%. Any business who opted to discriminate and pay their white male employees 30% more would be utterly destroyed in the marketplace.

And this still hasn't covered what potential damage the company stands to receive from outraged consumers such as you or I exposing their hiring practices and reducing their market share by encouraging sane people to boycott their products. No, your statist thought process has nothing on the marketplace. It is in the best interest of every free market company to reduce their bottom line in any way possible by: 1. hiring from the largest available pool of applicants, thereby insuring the highest possible quality of employees; 2. paying the most competitive wages, i.e. the lowest possible wage for the highest possible production; 3. NOT encouraging public outrage and risking boycott of products due to silly personal stereotypes.

You either don't believe in free markets, or don't believe what your selling us is true. Because there is absolutely NO market incentive to discriminate, in fact there is GREAT market incentive to NOT discriminate.

Gays deserve the exact same rights as every other individual on the face of the planet. Any "right" granted beyond that, especially a "right" granted and imposed by the boot of government, is done so at the expense of the rights of another individual. There is NO liberty in that.

+1776, for content

-1, for length! (still a great post, I just spent more time reading the forum than I intended)

[specsaregood]

honestly i have never been so disgusted to call myself a republican!


If you think the federal government should be dictating the hiring practices of private business owners then perhaps you shouldn't be one.

In case you havent' read this, it applies:



The Trouble With Forced Integration
by Rep. Ron Paul, MD

Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.

This expansion of federal power was based on an erroneous interpretation of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. The framers of the Constitution intended the interstate commerce clause to create a free trade zone among the states, not to give the federal government regulatory power over every business that has any connection with interstate commerce.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business’s workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge’s defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.

Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife. Therefore, I must oppose H.Res. 676.

July 3, 2004

[CountryboyRonPaul]

i bet they think women need no rights as well?


Women don't get special rights.

There are only individual rights.

And being an individual doesn't give anyone job security.

Do you really think the gay person suffers more than the handicapped person, or the elderly person who was turned down for employment? Does it offend you that gays would be lumped in with elderly and handicapped? It shouldn't, your the one who implies that they are to weak to find employment without government assistance.

Get over yourself

Now, if you think the law is overlooking individual rights when it comes to women, there IS a problem.

[Fozz]

If you think the federal government should be dictating the hiring practices of private business owners then perhaps you shouldn't be one.

In case you havent' read this, it applies:
Wow.....this is what I've been talking about.

[speciallyblend]

bottom line is i think an employer should have just cause to fire someone or they should of never hired them. an employer who is losing money does have the right to cut back employees but if a employer fires a he/she because they are gay. then the bottom line is that employer is a prick!

if he fires someone because of job performance. then he has just cause!

if a person fires someone over sexual preference .i have the right to call him a discostick.

if i was gay and i was fired for just being gay.then i would agree .if he has the right to fire me. i have the right to kick his ass.!

[LibertyEagle]

they do they have the right to f.u.c.k. over who they want everyday! and my daughter has lived it everyday.so p-lease do not give me this employer rights crap. they have every right to do what they want with no problems already!

every business has far more rights then the consumer. the last 3-4 yrs have proved that to me and my wife and my daughter!

as we get screwed everyday by insurance,docs,hospitals and my daughter getting screwed by employers the last 4 yrs!

WHOA. Kenny, I was just asking you a question, man.

You know, I might agree with you, except for the fact that we still have the opportunity in this country to start our own business, if we think we can build a better mousetrap.

[heavenlyboy34]

it represents the failed gop bouncing everywhere,eventually i will remove the trampoline! would be nice to see the elephant representing the gop mis the trampoline once and squash itself!

i am glad to say the gop is taking this course!

honestly i have never been so disgusted to call myself a republican!

some of these ron paul republicans are as bad as the left they call utopian! they are in their own utopian world!

i bet they think women need no rights as well? that is utopian in itself!

especially if they think women are equal in todays world!

women already have rights. They don't need any special synthetic "rights" either. They (like gays) should work things out through contracts and persuasion rather than though force (which, as you should know, is antithetical to liberty).

[specsaregood]

Wow.....this is what I've been talking about.

I take it you mean Ron Paul's speech on the subject?

I'm not racist and I try to be as unprejudiced as possible -- judging people on their actions rather than any superficial group/design. BUT, I am a small business owner and believe in strong property rights. Employers should have the right to hire and fire as they please as long as they are inline with mutually agreed employment contracts. It is THEIR business, not the governments, not the employees, not anybody elses. If they don't like it, they can work for a competitor or start their own business.

[speciallyblend]

+1776, for content

-1, for length! (still a great post, I just spent more time reading the forum than I intended)

all sounds good on paper,but tell that BS to my daughter who has been fired from several jobs because she has epilespy!

until you live the bs. you know nothing of what you speak!

i disagree womens rights are not special,unless you think women voting is special. womens rights and gay rights and ADA and rights for blacks are not special,just F'in COMMON SENSE. if folks were not so deaf dumb and blind and living in a utopian world. we might not need those rights,but the fact most are deaf dumb and blind we need some rights to hopefully give them equal rights! now women have had these so-called special rights for over 80 yrs and yet they are still not equal in the work plaCE OR PAY! SPECIAL RIGHTS MY ASS. if women had special rights .they would make more then men and they would have an equal playing field.which they still DO NOT. if you think women have equal access to work and jobs. then you are a utopian

if employers had common sense. then we might not need these rights but if we waited for employers to come around. then women wouldn't be able to vote or work really!

do you think women have an equal playing field.if you say yes. then that might be the problem! do you think gays have an equal plaYING FIELD?

[mczerone]

bottom line is i think an employer should have just cause to fire someone or they should of never hired them. an employer who is losing money does have the right to cut back employees but if a employer fires a he/she because they are gay. then the bottom line is that employer is a prick!

if he fires someone because of job performance. then he has just cause!

if a person fires someone over sexual preference .i have the right to call him a discostick.

if i was gay and i was fired for just being gay.then i would agree.


That's great that you think that! You are free to shop T:W-m::1:6, and to try to influence others to follow your lead! But to pass a law, to force others to do so is morally wrong and will have unintended consequences. You cannot use govt force to enforce consuming standards.

Same exact answer applies to people who wish to enforce employment standards.


My answer from above still applies.



.if he has the right to fire me. i have the right to kick his ass.!

Further, if you think you have the right to kick an employer's ass for firing you because you are gay (hypothetically), then I again will let you believe this.

However, as someone who doesn't believe in instigating aggression, I'd likely boycott you, the fired homosexual, for resorting to physical violence instead of seeking justice peacefully.

Hopefully you don't claim that there should also be a Federal Law allowing a fired homosexual to engage in physical combat with their employer, but based on how you couldn't separate your personal morality from national imperatives, I doubt you see any problem with such a law.

[specsaregood]

but tell that BS to my daughter who has been fired from several jobs because she has epilespy!

And you have proof that your daughter was fired for this reason?

[speciallyblend]

women already have rights. They don't need any special synthetic "rights" either. They (like gays) should work things out through contracts and persuasion rather than though force (which, as you should know, is antithetical to liberty).

huh? not true. they had to be given rights. we still have rights on the books to protect women. hey lets remove their rights. then they cannot vote! women have no rights?? huh? they had to be given rights since the white man had no intention of ever giving them rights!

women have rights. they had to fight for them! the same folks calling gay rights special are basically slapping women right in the face.

so women are grandfathered in and gays are screwed right? because women fought for rights befor you were born it is ok for them and not gays! blacks are ok because they were grandfathered in with women.??

[specsaregood]

then they cannot vote! women have no rights?? huh?


Voting is matter of affecting the government and public issues, it has nothing to do with private property or private business affairs. Big difference. Everyone here agrees that all people should have the same rights in regards to public services; but private businesses or private services or private property should not be in the realm of the governments rule.

[speciallyblend]

And you have proof that your daughter was fired for this reason?

yes, we are waiting on word from the ADA,since we are flat broke!

my daughter has spoke to them and they are talking to attorneys but that doesn't stop the discostick from letting my daughter go! and losing her job! and having to try to find another!
she just found a job .another long story! so we hope things go well!

but if it wasn't for the ada and the law that was just changed.she would be screwed!
of course even with the law to protect her .she is still screwed and trying to catch up!

the employer(that fired her) even made her write a letter from the doctor ,saying ok to go back to work. which is a flatout violation of the colorado ada law! not to mention she had the highest sells in the store etc! we have a copy of the letter and then like 1 week later she was fired and her medical condition was given as the reason!

not sure why we havne't heard back from attorneys or the ada,but i have a feeling my daughter doesn't want to push it.she wants to move on from the scum of a former boss! she is 21 now so upto her to force the issue. me and my wife think she has a 100% solid case! she is a proud girl so i think she hasn't pursued with the ADA. i will let her know she should but she is the adult. if i had my way i would of used my right and burnt the store down!

[speciallyblend]

Voting is matter of affecting the government and public issues, it has nothing to do with private property or private business affairs. Big difference. Everyone here agrees that all people should have the same rights in regards to public services; but private businesses or private services or private property should not be in the realm of the governments rule.

all sounds good ,but private business should be held accountable for violating peoples rights. I support Gay rights. if an employer cannot make a justified cause to fire someone. then they need their head examined! there are many reason to let a person go,but to let a person go because of their sexual preference is down right being a dumb###,unless they act like bruno at work!

i am sorry wrong right or whatever ,letting someone go because of their sexual preference is wrong! if someone is so anti-gay ,be smart and make up a reason geez! lie to me! be smart at least f'in lie to the person! if they are gonna be that stupid ,then be smart and lie at least!

[ClayTrainor]

huh? not true. they had to be given rights. we still have rights on the books to protect women. hey lets remove their rights. then they cannot vote!
Nobody wants to take away women's right to vote... The argument is that the government should not be able to tell property and business owners, who they can and can't let on to their property, and who they can and can't let work on their property.



women have no rights?? huh? they had to be given rights since the white man had no intention of ever giving them rights!

Blaming the white man, really? lol



women have rights. they had to fight for them! the same folks calling gay rights special are basically slapping women right in the face.


Women and gays both deserve the same rights as me and you. They do not deserve the right to FORCE employers to hire them, just because they think they're "special". They gotta work, and earn their living,b y proving their worth just like the rest of us. If they're discriminated against, than they must overcome and find an intelligent employer who won't. Perhaps take your own initiative, and start up your own thing.

Of course if you belong to one of these "special groups" the employer is goign to be scared of hiring you, due to your ability to use the government to sue his ass off, and destroy his company.




so women are grandfathered in and gays are screwed right? because women fought for rights befor you were born it is ok for them and not gays! blacks are ok because they were grandfathered in with women.??

I think you're confused about what "rights" these people are fighting for...

[ClayTrainor]

all sounds good ,but tell that bs to my daughter!

it's not bs. You believe the government should force people what they can and can't do with private property, so long as someone with epilepsy is involved?

[heavenlyboy34]

huh? not true. they had to be given rights. we still have rights on the books to protect women. hey lets remove their rights. then they cannot vote! women have no rights?? huh? they had to be given rights since the white man had no intention of ever giving them rights!

women have rights. they had to fight for them! the same folks calling gay rights special are basically slapping women right in the face.

so women are grandfathered in and gays are screwed right? because women fought for rights befor you were born it is ok for them and not gays! blacks are ok because they were grandfathered in with women.??

If you believe in liberty, then "rights" are self-evident and do not need to be granted by anyone or any government. I see nothing "self-evident" about what you call "gay rights" or "women's rights". These are politically derived privileges, not rights. As such, they will be taken away when TPTB feels like it.

[bobbyw24]

all sounds good ,but private business should be held accountable for vilating peoples rights. I support Gay rights. if an employer cannot make a justified cause to fire someone. then they need their head examined! there are many reason to let a perosn go,but to let a person go becasue of their sexual preference is down right being a dumb###

have a disabiility rights law center to take these types of cases with no costs to the disabled plaintiff. Here is one such group:

http://disabilityrightslegalcenter.org/

[ClayTrainor]

If you believe in liberty, then "rights" are self-evident and do not need to be granted by anyone or any government. I see nothing "self-evident" about what you call "gay rights" or "women's rights". These are politically derived privileges, not rights. As such, they will be taken away when TPTB feels like it.

very well said!

[bobbyw24]

Try this link for Colorado:

http://www.ccdconline.org/

[speciallyblend]

Nobody wants to take away women's right to vote... The argument is that the government should not be able to tell property and business owners, who they can and can't let on to their property, and who they can and can't let work on their property.



Blaming the white man, really? lol



Women and gays both deserve the same rights as me and you. They do not deserve the right to FORCE employers to hire them, just because they think they're "special". They gotta work, and earn their living,b y proving their worth just like the rest of us. If they're discriminated against, than they must overcome and find an intelligent employer who won't. Perhaps take your own initiative, and start up your own thing.

Of course if you belong to one of these "special groups" the employer is goign to be scared of hiring you, due to your ability to use the government to sue his ass off, and destroy his company.



I think you're confused about what "rights" these people are fighting for...

clay i agree,but an employer should have a justified cause to let someone go,PERIOD! being gay or a woman or black white is not jusitifed. not doing your job or laying folks off for lack of money is justified!

that is the bottom line to me,any other reason is simple=discostick!

not confusing it,but if it wasn;t for womens rights and some protection they have in the work place. then women wouldn't be where they are today and blacks needed rights to or they would of never been given an equal chance in the work place!

i am not confusing them. i am just saying gays and other races should have same protections as women! most folks cannot tell a gay person except for the bs hollywood sterotypes and bruno bs! unless a person admits they are gay or they are flatout open about it.most are clueless.

i do not think a person should lose their job because they are gay! call me what you will but i call a person who fires a person on being gay alone,a discostick!

i have no problem having a gay person who is not doing their job from being fired! but to say you cannot fire a gay because they will make a law is BS. if you have just cause to fire someone you can. In colorado you can lie and fire someone and get away with it,so do not fire them because they are gay!that simple! folks are whinning over nothing.unless you fire someone for being gay,it is mute and in my eyes if you fire someone just because they are gay. you deserve lawsuits and an ass kicking ,even better if the gay person is the one kicking the employers ass;)

if your an employer you have the right to lie and say your 5 minutes late your fired! if your an employer firing someone for being gay. then i hope that person does kick the employers ass! i would cheer for him:)

[heavenlyboy34]

very well said!

Thanks! :cool::) ~hugs~

[specsaregood]

i am sorry wrong right or whatever ,letting someone go because of their sexual preference is wrong!

I agree, that doesn't mean it should be illegal.



if someone is so anti-gay ,be smart and make up a reason geez! lie to me! be smart at least f'in lie to the person! if they are gonna be that stupid ,then be smart and lie at least!

So you admit that these laws dont' have any real effect? Since the person can make up any other lie as to the reason for their firing? So you are pushing for laws that unfairly restrict business owners but have no real way of changing attitudes or hiring practices? Then what is the point? All legislation like this does is force the prejudices under the surface to hide away in the darkness instead of exposing them to the public. It creates dishonesty and does nothing to actuall effect behavior. I'd say if anything it has a negative result.....

[JeNNiF00F00]

yes, we are waiting on word from the ADA,since we are flat broke!

my daughter has spoke to them and they are talking to attorneys but that doesn't stop the discostick from letting my daughter go! and losing her job! and having to try to find another!
she just found a job .another long story! so we hope things go well!

but if it wasn't for the ada and the law that was just changed.she would be screwed!
of course even with the law to protect her .she is still screwed and trying to catch up!

the employer(that fired her) even made her write a letter from the doctor ,saying ok to go back to work. which is a flatout violation of the colorado ada law! not to mention she had the highest sells in the store etc! we have a copy of the letter and then like 1 week later she was fired and her medical condition was given as the reason!

not sure why we havne't heard back from attorneys or the ada,but i have a feeling my daughter doesn't want to push it.she wants to move on from the scum of a former boss! she is 21 now so upto her to force the issue. me and my wife think she has a 100% solid case! she is a proud girl so i think she hasn't pursued with the ADA. i will let her know she should but she is the adult. if i had my way i would of used my right and burnt the store down!

Was this a firing or lay off? This is a sign of the times man. I got laid off twice in 1 year and have been unemployed for a year. What kind of jobs was she taking? Maybe it was the environment in which she was in? I know of a lady who is epileptic and had to be taken off by an ambulance but she didn't lose her job over it.

The way you need to look at it is like this: If these people didn't respect your daughter then why the hell would your daughter want to work there in the first place? If shes gotten let go because of a disability then thats THEIR loss. When 1 door closes another one opens. Anyways shes gonna be okay. She just has to find that right job, which would be healthier for her in the long run anyways. Its hard on all of us right now! Take it easy! :)

[bobbyw24]

A Libertarian lawyer's book advocating that all anti-discrimination laws should be repealed and the free market should be the only factor in employment, housing, etc.

Might have to re-read it to see if I agree with it or not.

http://www.amazon.com/Forbidden-Grounds-Against-Employment-Discrimination/dp/0674308093

[ClayTrainor]

clay i agree,but an employer should have a justified cause to let someone go,PERIOD!
Agreed, he should, but it is not the place of the government to force him to.

That goes against everything I believe in.



being gay or a woman or black white is not jusitifed. not doing your job or laying folks off for lack of money is justified!


I should have the right to hire or fire whoever i want! I've hired women to do web-design work for me, i've hired gay people to do accounting for me. I also believe i should be able to fire their ass, for any reason i want. I should be able to fire the gay guy, for any reason i want, including discrimination if i so choose, (which i wouldn't). it's my property and my business, not the governments, not yours and it certainly doesn't belong to gay people or women!

Being whoever you are is totally justified, and you're entitled to the same rights. It doesn't make you entitled to a job, or money, those are not rights!!!

I cannot infringe on his basic human rights, but they should not be able to infringe on my property rights, just because they think they're "special".





that is the bottom line to me,any other reason is simple=discostick!

[mczerone]

huh? not true. they had to be given rights. we still have rights on the books to protect women. hey lets remove their rights. then they cannot vote! women have no rights?? huh? they had to be given rights since the white man had no intention of ever giving them rights!

women have rights. they had to fight for them! the same folks calling gay rights special are basically slapping women right in the face.

so women are grandfathered in and gays are screwed right? because women fought for rights befor you were born it is ok for them and not gays! blacks are ok because they were grandfathered in with women.??

Women did not fight to gain any rights; they fought for THE LAW to RECOGNIZE their EXISTING rights.

You are off the deep end today, sb, fighting boogeymen while everyone in the thread is equally sensitive to your ideological position.

[speciallyblend]

If you believe in liberty, then "rights" are self-evident and do not need to be granted by anyone or any government. I see nothing "self-evident" about what you call "gay rights" or "women's rights". These are politically derived privileges, not rights. As such, they will be taken away when TPTB feels like it.

well then i support gays having those privileges,since employers do not give a dam aBOUT THEIR RIGHTS!

IF IT IS THAT BIG OF A DEAL. THEN THE EMPLOYER NEEDS TO HAVE A JUSTIFIED REASON TO LET THEM GO AND I DO NOT CARE WHAT YOU OR OTHERS SAY. BEING GAY IS NOT JUST NOTICE TO BE LET GO!

IF IT BOTHERS YOU THAT MUCH LIE TO THEM when you fire them geeez! then at least your hoenst to yourself by lying to them.that you fired them for being gay.keep it to yourself! there are many reasons to let a person go other then being gay,all i can say is BE REAL AND GET REAL!

hell i should make my hiring based on voting! you voted for mccain, your fired!

[ClayTrainor]

i have no problem having a gay person who is not doing their job from being fired!

Who gets to decide if they were doing a good job or not? The government?



but to say you cannot fire a gay because they will make a law is BS.

It happens with pregnant women all the time, in Canada. Same thing, different "special right". We even have women who don't tell their employer that they're pregnant, then intentionally get fired, so they can sue for millions instead of working for honest money.



if you have just cause to fire someone you can.
Who gets to determine "Just cause".

I might think a gay guy is doing a terrible job but, he might be able to explain to the government how he did a great job. How would they know how to best run my marketing company, and who the best employees would be?

Should men that get fired from Hooters, sue for discrimination? It's total nonsense. Private businesses need to run free of government intervention, unless they violate INALIENABLE human rights.




In colorado you can lie and fire someone and get away with it,so do not fire them because they are gay!that simple!

It's my property, my business, i reserve the right to run it however i want, because it's mine!



folks are whinning over nothing.
You just don't get it. You're supporting the gun of the government.




unless you fire someone for being gay,it is mute and in my eyes if you fire someone just because they are gay. you deserve lawsuits and an ass kicking ,even better if the gay person is the one kicking the employers ass;)

Total nonsense, and a violation of individual rights.



if your an employer you have the right to lie and say your 5 minutes late your fired! if your an employer firing someone for being gay. then i hope that person does kick the employers ass! i would cheer for him:)

I wouldn't, because that's assault and a violation of property rights!

Who's side are you on SB? It's looking like you're far too willing to put your hand on the gun, if you ask me

[specsaregood]

IF IT BOTHERS YOU THAT MUCH LIE TO THEM when you fire them geeez! then at least your hoenst to yourself by lying to them.that you fired them for being gay.keep it to yourself! there are many reasons to let a person go other then being gay,all i can say is BE REAL AND GET REAL!


Once again, as I pointed out above, you admit that legislation such as this has no real effect except to push prejudices underneath the surface. All it does is create thought-crime.

[speciallyblend]

Women did not fight to gain any rights; they fought for THE LAW to RECOGNIZE their EXISTING rights.

You are off the deep end today, sb, fighting boogeymen while everyone in the thread is equally sensitive to your ideological position.

no but women do have rights in the work place, what i am saying is they were given equal rights by law, BY LAW:) and 80 yrs later. they are still not equal that is what i am saying. do women make as much as men? that is all i was saying.

as for the deep end yes, i think many in the revolution are full of BS!

i was only using it as an example to show we gave women equal rights by law and they still have to fight for their equal rights> if you think women have equal rights. then you are living in a right wing utopian world!


many in the ron paul revolution want liberty for their beliefs and no one elses

[rp08orbust]

speciallyblend,

Should there be laws against unfairly dumping someone? I'm sure you believe in dumping a boyfriend or girlfriend for any reason whatsoever. Why shouldn't employment relationships be just as consensual as romantic ones?

[speciallyblend]

Once again, as I pointed out above, you admit that legislation such as this has no real effect except to push prejudices underneath the surface. All it does is create thought-crime.

no but many workers have some rights to protect themselves! not that they have a fighting chance in many instances,but the rights do help protect employers from being discosticks!

i would rather give folks some rights to protect themselves from deaf dumb and blind discosticks! then having no rights at all


example where was our rights when we had an accident that wasn't our fault yet the lawyers/insurances and courts and docs capped what we could get from the accident.

so after 250,000 in bills and a cap of 100,000 and now no money and we are on our own. where are our rights? we have none. so now we deal with something we never asked for so some insurance company could make their bottom line(profit),leaving us out to hang high and dry .while the corporations continue to screw us. i am tired about hearing the lil man held down by corporations/employer BS!

if someone is fired for just being gay. then the employer is a discostick!

if you are willingto fire someone for just being gay.then you are a discostick and many more words i cannot print here! your problem not mine!

[CUnknown]

The argument is that the government should not be able to tell property and business owners, who they can and can't let on to their property, and who they can and can't let work on their property.

You are exaggerating the situation here. Anti-discrimination laws aren't about the government telling business owners who they can and can't let on their property. Let's stick to the issue at hand.


Women and gays both deserve the same rights as me and you. They do not deserve the right to FORCE employers to hire them, just because they think they're "special". They gotta work, and earn their living, by proving their worth just like the rest of us.

You seem to be confusing the issue with affirmative action and quotas. We're not talking about quotas. This isn't about the government forcing you to hire someone just because you don't have enough of minority category #37 this week. We're talking about someone who is doing a good job, but is fired just because they are gay, black, a woman, whatever. That's wrong and it shouldn't be allowed in a free society.

In a free society, you should be able to do anything, as long as it doesn't impact the rights or freedom of another person. Firing someone solely because they are gay does impact another person and shouldn't be allowed.

The alternative is to force these people to hide who they really are, to have a conformist society where everyone drives the same car, has a white picket fence, goes to church on sundays, and is terrified to let anyone know if they aren't quite up to society's standards of what is "normal."

There are cases when the government can and should act to protect freedom. Isn't that what we want? A limited government that only acts to protect freedom? What you seem to be arguing for here is a repressive society.

[specsaregood]

no but many workers have some rights to protect themselves! not that they have a fighting chance in many instacnes,but the rights do help protect employers from being discosticks!

Ok, since you are unreasonable about private property rights.

What do you think about the fact that some businesses get exemptions from these laws? Such as chinese restaurants can legally hire only chinese waitstaff. Is that ok in your book?
This creates special rights for special businesses....

[ClayTrainor]

no but many workers have some rights to protect themselves!
GM had too many rights, to protect themselves, and look what happened. ;)

Workers shouldn't have "rights", that's not how your country was founded. Jobs are just products of wealth creation, not vice versa.

Employees deserve the right to quit, and change jobs, and start a business whenever and however they want, that's it!!! They don't deserve to use the government to FORCE employers how to run their business.



not that they have a fighting chance in many instacnes, but the rights do help protect employers from being discosticks!

It also helps unqualified people get and maintain jobs they don't deserve, and in GM's case, it also helps them take money from taxpayers like yourself in order to support these jobs they have a "right" to.

You don't believe in the free-market, do you?

[ClayTrainor]

. We're talking about someone who is doing a good job, but is fired just because they are gay, black, a woman, whatever. That's wrong and it shouldn't be allowed in a free society.

Who gets to determine if they are doing a good job or not?

What you're describing is wrong, morally, but should not be regulated with a gun.



In a free society, you should be able to do anything, as long as it doesn't impact the rights or freedom of another person. Firing someone solely because they are gay does impact another person and shouldn't be allowed.


Because it impacts another person? Bring up a case where it impacts their basic inalienable rights, and we'll talk.



The alternative is to force these people to hide who they really are, to have a conformist society where everyone drives the same car, has a white picket fence, goes to church on sundays, and is terrified to let anyone know if they aren't quite up to society's standards of what is "normal."

It should encourage them to start their own practices, and prove these opinion wrong through voluntary action, not by grabbing a gun and instructing private business owners how to behave.



There are cases when the government can and should act to protect freedom. Isn't that what we want?

First and foremost is property rights. If i assault somebody, for whatever reason, i deserve to be punished. If i enslave somebody, for whatever reason, i deserve to be punished.

I shouldn't tell black, gay, muslim, etc. people to "get off my lawn", simply because of who they are, but i have a right to allowing whoever i want onto my property, and they don't. It's my property...

Of course, i hire, fire and befriend people from all backgrounds, and races. It's not an issue with me, but property rights is.



A limited government that only acts to protect freedom? What you seem to be arguing for here is a repressive society.

Negative, a free-market society, entirely based on voluntary exchange, where your property is ACTUALLY your own, not society's.

[speciallyblend]

the bottom line is if your hiring or firing because of someone being gay. your a prick dick and many more words and if those words ban me. then please ban me forever. would do my blood pressure well to be banned for life. I Beg YOU BAN ME FOREVER!

COMMON SENSE FOLKS

[__27__]

the bottom line is if your hiring or firing because of someone being gay. your a prick dick and many more words and if those words ban me. then please ban me forever. would do my blood pressure well to be banned for life. I Beg YOU BAN ME FOREVER!

And what you don't get is WE COMPLETELY AGREE WITH YOU. We simply draw the line at sticking the federal gun to the businessman's temple.

[ClayTrainor]

the bottom line is if your hiring or firing because of someone being gay. your a prick dick and many more words and if those words ban me.
Absolutely agreed... Why would you think i disagree with this? I'm simply not willing to stick a gun in peoples faces, in order to tell them not to do it, like you are.



then please ban me forever. would do my blood pressure well to be banned for life. I Beg YOU BAN ME FOREVER!

COMMON SENSE FOLKS

I'm not defending the actions, i'm rejecting your solution. It's not moral to grab a gun, and instruct business owners how to behave. There are better ways ;)

Nobody wants you banned, are you kidding? Calm down man, we're all friends here... :)

[specsaregood]

the bottom line is if your hiring or firing because of someone being gay. your a prick dick and many more words and if those words ban me. then please ban me forever. would do my blood pressure well to be banned for life. I Beg YOU BAN ME FOREVER!

COMMON SENSE FOLKS

Is it ok by you for a gay-themed business to only hire gay people?

[heavenlyboy34]

well then i support gays having those privileges,since employers do not give a dam aBOUT THEIR RIGHTS!

IF IT IS THAT BIG OF A DEAL. THEN THE EMPLOYER NEEDS TO HAVE A JUSTIFIED REASON TO LET THEM GO AND I DO NOT CARE WHAT YOU OR OTHERS SAY. BEING GAY IS NOT JUST NOTICE TO BE LET GO!

IF IT BOTHERS YOU THAT MUCH LIE TO THEM when you fire them geeez! then at least your hoenst to yourself by lying to them.that you fired them for being gay.keep it to yourself! there are many reasons to let a person go other then being gay,all i can say is BE REAL AND GET REAL!

hell i should make my hiring based on voting! you voted for mccain, your fired!

Wow! Not only do you not prove your own case, you reinforce mine! You must be taking lessons from Theo. ;) lolz

[Bossobass]

Funny stuff, this thread.

While Rome is burning, you blather about who can be fired.

Congress is irrelevant. The Fed can fire EVERYONE without impunity.

Bosso

[ClayTrainor]

Funny stuff, this thread.

While Rome is burning, you blather about who can be fired.

Congress is irrelevant. The Fed can fire EVERYONE without impunity.

Bosso

Most important post of this thread!

I'm done arguing this nonsense, there are bigger issues at hand.

[CUnknown]

Who gets to determine if they are doing a good job or not?

Well, I am speaking in hypotheticals. Let's say a situation where the business owner him- or herself believes that the gay guy was a good worker, but fires them anyway.


Because it impacts another person? Bring up a case where it impacts their basic inalienable rights, and we'll talk.

It impacts their liberty and pursuit of happiness. Also potentially their life -- what if they need a job to survive? We talk a lot about eliminating the "social safety net" around here. I'm mostly fine with that, but if we do that, we have to make sure people aren't being fired for discriminatory reasons. If there's no welfare, and everyone around them is racist and refuses to hire them... what do they do?

In any case, it affects their liberty. They will directly feel the forces of repression in their lives. How is it so wrong for the government to oppress people, but when people oppress people, you turn a blind eye? The problem is the oppression, imo, not so much the agent of that oppression.


I shouldn't tell black, gay, muslim, etc. people to "get off my lawn", simply because of who they are, but i have a right to allowing whoever i want onto my property, and they don't. It's my property...

I actually have no problem with forcing anyone off your lawn if you don't want them there. I agree that property rights are important. They don't have a right to be on your lawn. But people do have the right to be treated equally in the workplace.



A limited government that only acts to protect freedom? What you seem to be arguing for here is a repressive society.
Negative, a free-market society, entirely based on voluntary exchange, where your property is ACTUALLY your own, not society's.

I know you don't mean to argue for a repressive society. I'm not trying to attack you here, but I do feel strongly about this (as I know you do too). It's just I think that repression would increase without these anti-discrimination laws, not decrease.

[nbhadja]

nope .if the employer has just cause. then fine,but being gaY IS NOT JUST CAUSE ,get real

IF AN EMPLOYER FIRES SOMEONE FOR BEING GAY.then they should be sued! that is the bottom line! and that person should be sued for being a dumbass!

maybe i should start firing folks for being christians! or do they have special rights!!

my experience with what your saying is BS considering i have a daughter who has been fired for no reason,many times!

your making scenarios up and if that is the case and you have just cause .then you show up to court! but people need protection from dumbass employers and from this thread their might be more then i knew! sexual preference is not a reason to fire someone that is the bottom line! yeah im sure someone is going to get fired for stealing and say wait im gay. yeah right and good luck in court;) if they stole they get fired . JUST CAUSE is the bottom line. stop making up crap!

are you one of those folks that think gay is a choice?? if so that explains everthing!!


I am not. I believe gay people are naturally gay.

But I am for freedom for all. This law gives gays special rights. You are not understanding what freedom is.

I believe a employer has the right to fire and hire whoever they want for what ever reason they want.

If I was fired for my skin color I would be mad and hate the company but I would respect the fact that they can make whatever decision they want.

[nbhadja]

i 100% disagree ,since my daughter has been let go several times for having epilepsy! now we cannot afford court but her rights were trashed! thank god for the ada. we hope the ada can sue for us since we are flatout broke!

gay should not be a just cause to fire .that is the bottom line! you will never change my mind on the gay issue or the ada so give it up!

those 2 issues show why i think the ron paul revolution is full of hypocrites!

maybe i need to leave this so-called joke of a revolution!

Why are we considered jokes for believing in freedom? That make's no sense.

[Light]

speciallyblend has just proved what I thought of him all along. A troll who doesn't believe in Ron Paul's principles, and simply posts here to bash the GOP (that is practically 90% of all his posts, not to mentions his overuse of smileys and overall childish nature of his posts). Most of his posts I have seen him write are the same thing (about the GOP sucking).

A business is private property. People can hire as they see fit. If someone can sue a business for hiring discrimination, then can I sue the government for affirmative action?

[ClayTrainor]

speciallyblend has just proved what I thought of him all along. A troll who doesn't believe in Ron Paul's principles, and simply posts here to bash the GOP (that is practically 90% of all his posts, not to mentions his overuse of smileys and overall childish nature of his posts). Most of his posts I have seen him write are the same thing (about the GOP sucking).


SB is my friend, and he is not a troll. He's very emotional about some issues, and i certainly have some strong disagreements but, he's no troll. He's helped and contributed to many projects, and does believe in Ron Paul's message, for the most part.

[nbhadja]

no but women do have rights in the work place, what i am saying is they were given equal rights by law, BY LAW:) and 80 yrs later. they are still not equal that is what i am saying. do women make as much as men? that is all i was saying.

as for the deep end yes, i think many in the revolution are full of BS!

i was only using it as an example to show we gave women equal rights by law and they still have to fight for their equal rights> if you think women have equal rights. then you are living in a right wing utopian world!


many in the ron paul revolution want liberty for their beliefs and no one elses

You would not understand liberty if it hit you in the face.

Everyone here understands liberty. Maybe you should learn more about liberty since you think the government, instead of the business owners, should make the decisions of a private company.

[CUnknown]

How about, instead of using government force (pointing a gun at people) to get them to treat gays fairly, what would you say to using a less coercive means of discrimination law enforcement? Such as giving tax breaks to those who don't break these laws?

Let's say a small town has two hardware stores and the town they're in has some form of property tax or sales tax on their businesses. One hardware store has been found in a court to discriminate unfairly against gays. But, instead of forcing them to re-hire this employee or sending the business owner to jail, the court instead orders tax breaks for the other hardware store?

Admittedly, this form of enforcement wouldn't be possible in a tax-free society. But it's better than sending them to jail, right? And gays would still be protected because the discriminatory store would probably be put out of business and the non-discriminatory one could open up a second branch.

I'm wondering if you guys are against these laws, period, or only against the means of enforcement commonly used.

[bobbyw24]

Let's devote the same energy to spreading Ron Paul's message of freedom and liberty.

[__27__]

How about, instead of using government force (pointing a gun at people) to get them to treat gays fairly, what would you say to using a less coercive means of discrimination law enforcement? Such as giving tax breaks to those who don't break these laws?

Let's say a small town has two hardware stores and the town they're in has some form of property tax or sales tax on their businesses. One hardware store has been found in a court to discriminate unfairly against gays. But, instead of forcing them to re-hire this employee or sending the business owner to jail, the court instead orders tax breaks for the other hardware store?

Admittedly, this form of enforcement wouldn't be possible in a tax-free society. But it's better than sending them to jail, right? And gays would still be protected because the discriminatory store would probably be put out of business and the non-discriminatory one could open up a second branch.

I'm wondering if you guys are against these laws, period, or only against the means of enforcement commonly used.

And a tax is nothing more than money extracted at the point of a gun (or the threat thereof). You don't need any GI to solve this problem, the market can do it all on it's own.


It hasn't yet covered your utter fallacy that the practice of bigoted discrimination in employment policies is somehow a profitable and sustainable practice. For the simple practice of limiting your pool of potential employees by classifications of race, age, gender, sexual preference, etc. you guarantee yourself to be less competitive, less productive, and less profitable than any competition worth his salt who has a massively larger pool of potential employees by simple virtue of not discriminating. Then comes the absurd accusation of those typical to beholden your stance that "women and minorities make 70% of wages compared to white males for the same work". Again, pure poppycock. If this were true, why would any business hire ANYONE other than a woman or a minority. By employing only women and minorities for the same amount of production at "70% of wages" you have instantly undercut your competition by 30%. Any business who opted to discriminate and pay their white male employees 30% more would be utterly destroyed in the marketplace.

And this still hasn't covered what potential damage the company stands to receive from outraged consumers such as you or I exposing their hiring practices and reducing their market share by encouraging sane people to boycott their products. No, your statist thought process has nothing on the marketplace. It is in the best interest of every free market company to reduce their bottom line in any way possible by: 1. hiring from the largest available pool of applicants, thereby insuring the highest possible quality of employees; 2. paying the most competitive wages, i.e. the lowest possible wage for the highest possible production; 3. NOT encouraging public outrage and risking boycott of products due to silly personal stereotypes.

You either don't believe in free markets, or don't believe what your selling us is true. Because there is absolutely NO market incentive to discriminate, in fact there is GREAT market incentive to NOT discriminate.

Gays deserve the exact same rights as every other individual on the face of the planet. Any "right" granted beyond that, especially a "right" granted and imposed by the boot of government, is done so at the expense of the rights of another individual. There is NO liberty in that.

[brandon]

OF COURSE there is going to be discrimination in the work place! A business becomes successful by discriminating the good workers from the bad!

[Sandman33]

Whoever an employer hires or fires is none of the government's business.

Gays just want special rights.


Absolutely correct. Just like the wimmins lobbies.

[TonySutton]

Just like the wimmins lobbies. (bold mine)

It is the lack of respect you show others which makes me not want to show any respect to you.

[MelissaWV]

I'll never understand the people who like to involve their gossip and prejudice in with work. The places that decide to fire a worker because they're one way or another, but ignore the fact that person's a better worker, will suffer for it. If they don't, then I guess the firing was justified :D as someone more efficient was found for the post.

How do people know Bob is gay at work? Probably because Bob is constantly chatting about his significant other, or pontificating about his homosexuality. I hate it when heterosexuals do it, I hate it when bisexuals do it, and I certainly am not going to give homosexuals a pass on it: keep your private life at home. I don't want to know. I just want to proofread in peace.

[Standing Like A Rock]

Just to clear up everything about women, here are just a few reasons why men make more than women:

-Men go into technology and hard sciences more than women.
-Men are more likely to take hazardous jobs than women, and such jobs pay more than cushier and safer jobs.
-Men are more willing to expose themselves to inclement weather at work, and are compensated for it ("compensating differences" in the language of economics).
-Men tend to take more stressful jobs that are not "nine-to-five."
-Many women prefer personal fulfillment at work (child care professional, for example) to higher pay.
-Men are bigger risk takers than women, in general. Higher risk leads to higher reward.
-The worst working hours pay more, and men are more likely to work these hours than women.
-Dangerous jobs (coal mining) pay more and are more male dominated.
-Men tend to "update" their work qualifications more than women do.
-Men are more likely to work longer hours, and the pay gap widens for every hour past 40 per week.
-Women are more likely to have "gaps" in their careers, primarily because of child rearing and child care. Less experience means lower pay.
-Women are nine times more likely than men to drop out of work for "family reasons." Less seniority leads to lower pay.
-Men work more weeks per year than women.
-Men have half the absenteeism rate of women.
-Men are more willing to commute long distances to work.
-Men are more willing to relocate to undesirable locations for higher-paying jobs.
-Men are more willing to take jobs that require extensive travel.
-In the corporate world men are more likely to choose higher-paying fields such as finance and sales, whereas women are more prevalent in lower-paying fields such as human resources and public relations.
-When men and women have the same job title, male responsibilities tend to be greater.
-Men are more likely to work by commission; women are more likely to seek job security. The former has more earning potential.
-Women place greater value on flexibility, a humane work environment, and having time for children and family than men do.


Additionally, history shows that "women's rights" in the workplace have actually hurt women. For example, laws that were enacted to "protect" women by shortening their work week, and forcing them to be paid more actually caused women to work less and make less because businesses had less incentive to hire them.

Also, many large businesses currently hire MORE women than men in certain fields. Because of the reasons I listed above, women tend to not advance as far in their fields as men do. Therefore many companies favor women in the hiring process in order to make the ratio more equitable at higher positions. Do you find this practice wrong? Do you think it should be illegal?

[Sandman33]

It is the lack of respect you show others which makes me not want to show any respect to you.

What I said was the truth.

If you don't like it I really don't give a damn.

[Fozz]

Well, I am speaking in hypotheticals. Let's say a situation where the business owner him- or herself believes that the gay guy was a good worker, but fires them anyway.



It impacts their liberty and pursuit of happiness. Also potentially their life -- what if they need a job to survive? We talk a lot about eliminating the "social safety net" around here. I'm mostly fine with that, but if we do that, we have to make sure people aren't being fired for discriminatory reasons. If there's no welfare, and everyone around them is racist and refuses to hire them... what do they do?

In any case, it affects their liberty. They will directly feel the forces of repression in their lives. How is it so wrong for the government to oppress people, but when people oppress people, you turn a blind eye? The problem is the oppression, imo, not so much the agent of that oppression.



I actually have no problem with forcing anyone off your lawn if you don't want them there. I agree that property rights are important. They don't have a right to be on your lawn. But people do have the right to be treated equally in the workplace.



I know you don't mean to argue for a repressive society. I'm not trying to attack you here, but I do feel strongly about this (as I know you do too). It's just I think that repression would increase without these anti-discrimination laws, not decrease.

You should read the Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism by Bob Murphy. He makes the clear case that capitalism gets rid of prejudice because if businesses discriminate, they lose money because of the opportunity cost of rejecting a more productive person who happened to be Muslim or gay or some other minority.

Also read this:
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=103

[Sandman33]

Just to clear up everything about women, here are just a few reasons why men make more than women:

-Men go into technology and hard sciences more than women.
-Men are more likely to take hazardous jobs than women, and such jobs pay more than cushier and safer jobs.
-Men are more willing to expose themselves to inclement weather at work, and are compensated for it ("compensating differences" in the language of economics).
-Men tend to take more stressful jobs that are not "nine-to-five."
-Many women prefer personal fulfillment at work (child care professional, for example) to higher pay.
-Men are bigger risk takers than women, in general. Higher risk leads to higher reward.
-The worst working hours pay more, and men are more likely to work these hours than women.
-Dangerous jobs (coal mining) pay more and are more male dominated.
-Men tend to "update" their work qualifications more than women do.
-Men are more likely to work longer hours, and the pay gap widens for every hour past 40 per week.
-Women are more likely to have "gaps" in their careers, primarily because of child rearing and child care. Less experience means lower pay.
-Women are nine times more likely than men to drop out of work for "family reasons." Less seniority leads to lower pay.
-Men work more weeks per year than women.
-Men have half the absenteeism rate of women.
-Men are more willing to commute long distances to work.
-Men are more willing to relocate to undesirable locations for higher-paying jobs.
-Men are more willing to take jobs that require extensive travel.
-In the corporate world men are more likely to choose higher-paying fields such as finance and sales, whereas women are more prevalent in lower-paying fields such as human resources and public relations.
-When men and women have the same job title, male responsibilities tend to be greater.
-Men are more likely to work by commission; women are more likely to seek job security. The former has more earning potential.
-Women place greater value on flexibility, a humane work environment, and having time for children and family than men do.


Additionally, history shows that "women's rights" in the workplace have actually hurt women. For example, laws that were enacted to "protect" women by shortening their work week, and forcing them to be paid more actually caused women to work less and make less because businesses had less incentive to hire them.

Also, many large businesses currently hire MORE women than men in certain fields. Because of the reasons I listed above, women tend to not advance as far in their fields as men do. Therefore many companies favor women in the hiring process in order to make the ratio more equitable at higher positions. Do you find this practice wrong? Do you think it should be illegal?

So you're saying that men are just plain more willing to work harder, longer, and more stressfull jobs?

Bullshit. Every time I watch those Alaskan Crab Fisherpersons on TV it's just FULL of women.....
.......
.......
I could make a really fd up joke and just end with the words IN THE BOATS KITCHEN....but the truth is that women wont even get on those boats to cook, let alone catch King Crabs.....nope.

I wonder where the wimmins lobby for more female Crab fisherpersons is? They don't seem to get too upset about that do they?

[MelissaWV]

So you're saying that men are just plain more willing to work harder, longer, and more stressfull jobs?

:D Personally, I don't think being limited to a violently swaying sea is the life for me, nor is the constant smell of the sea and recently extracted sea creatures. I do think the "more stressful" part is a little off. Dangerous? Sure. But there are hugely stressful jobs (nurse, air traffic controller, school bus driver...) that see a lot of females involved.

I think there's also a bit of a hidden statistic. If there are two incomes, and the woman's is less, and she's going to be staying home for at least a portion due to motherhood's glorious grossness... well... she's very likely to take a long sabatical and that big lapse in experience, plus the "mommy stupidity" that sets in (talk to a new mom sometime. Seriously. The whole vocabulary and ability to interact is just gone.)... it's going to lead to making less as well. She might even stay home longer since her income wouldn't cover most of the expenses that her going back to work would impose upon the family. The way things are, it's just way more likely her income is the smaller one, and more easily sacrificed. If mom makes the big bucks, by all means, dad should consider staying home after awhile.

Ah but we know my thoughts on all that stuff. What does this have to do with gay people in the workplace, though?

[Sandman33]

:D Personally, I don't think being limited to a violently swaying sea is the life for me, nor is the constant smell of the sea and recently extracted sea creatures. I do think the "more stressful" part is a little off. Dangerous? Sure. But there are hugely stressful jobs (nurse, air traffic controller, school bus driver...) that see a lot of females involved.

I think there's also a bit of a hidden statistic. If there are two incomes, and the woman's is less, and she's going to be staying home for at least a portion due to motherhood's glorious grossness... well... she's very likely to take a long sabatical and that big lapse in experience, plus the "mommy stupidity" that sets in (talk to a new mom sometime. Seriously. The whole vocabulary and ability to interact is just gone.)... it's going to lead to making less as well. She might even stay home longer since her income wouldn't cover most of the expenses that her going back to work would impose upon the family. The way things are, it's just way more likely her income is the smaller one, and more easily sacrificed. If mom makes the big bucks, by all means, dad should consider staying home after awhile.

Ah but we know my thoughts on all that stuff. What does this have to do with gay people in the workplace, though?

:D SHIT I'd LOVE to stay at home with my kid and send my wife out crab fishing.

fucking awesome!

[__27__]

:D SHIT I'd LOVE to stay at home with my kid and send my wife out crab fishing.

fucking awesome!

x2