They aren't a charity.

http://lubbockonline.com/filed-online/20...9O9MLEjRAo

Here's an article showing that they get more than half of their funding from the 'state'.

http://lubbockonline.com/local-news/2014...9O91LEjRAo

Sounds like they were protecting the children. Good for them. THey didnt have a problem with him being gay. They had a problem with him intermingling his gayness with the kids. I would to. Do your job. Your job isnt to promote being gay.

(07-26-2014 10:00 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Sounds like they were protecting the children. Good for them. THey didnt have a problem with him being gay. They had a problem with him intermingling his gayness with the kids. I would to. Do your job. Your job isnt to promote being gay.

Protecting the kids from what? Do the straight employees have their spouses banned from events?

Equal is equal. And they are funded by the state.

I get that there are people that think that we are icky freaks that are so disgusting that we shouldn't be around kids. Keep that bigotry to non-taxpayer funded venues please.

(07-26-2014 10:41 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-26-2014 10:00 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Sounds like they were protecting the children. Good for them. THey didnt have a problem with him being gay. They had a problem with him intermingling his gayness with the kids. I would to. Do your job. Your job isnt to promote being gay.

Protecting the kids from what? Do the straight employees have their spouses banned from events?

Equal is equal. And they are funded by the state.

I get that there are people that think that we are icky freaks that are so disgusting that we shouldn't be around kids. Keep that bigotry to non-taxpayer funded venues please.

Why don't you direct your fury toward your many comrades who delight in being icky freaks, and who support pedophilia?

When that's cleaned up then you can start talking about bigotry.

Back at ya regarding pedophilia

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/loc...-15yo-girl
http://www.insidehalton.com/news-story/4...l-assault/
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/...728602.php
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2014...hip-church
http://www.examiner.com/article/baptist-...ongregants
http://wnep.com/2014/04/04/scranton-prie...e-charges/

Now back to the OP. The real issue here is that a taxpayer funded agency is discriminating in employment with those funds.

Tom, I don't like saying this to you because it's a schitty answer to a decent guy (you) so this is a response to the other libs who threw this in our faces for weeks and weeks: It's the law. That should shut down dawg, john666, and the Memphis Moron.

(07-26-2014 11:02 AM)smn1256 Wrote:  Tom, I don't like saying this to you because it's a schitty answer to a decent guy (you) so this is a response to the other libs who threw this in our faces for weeks and weeks: It's the law. That should shut down dawg, john666, and the Memphis Moron.

Yes, it is LEGAL for someone to be fired from even a taxpayer funded job simply for being Gay.

It shouldn't be legal.

But hopefully, at least with the new Obama Executive Order, we can get the funding pulled from the bigoted government contractor and get those kids into a less indoctrinating environment. I shudder to think of how abusive they'd be to a Gay child that got put there by the state.

Number one, what I've seen does not indicate that anyone was fired for BEING gay. If my understanding is incorrect, please link to corrention(s)

Number two, sexual orientation does not create a protected class under federal law. It does under some stsste laws.

(07-26-2014 04:57 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Number one, what I've seen does not indicate that anyone was fired for BEING gay. If my understanding is incorrect, please link to corrention(s)

Number two, sexual orientation does not create a protected class under federal law. It does under some stsste laws.

As of last Monday, it does constitute a protected class for anyone taking Federal funds. Thanks Obama.

But this case shows the need for adding sexual orientation and marital status as protected classes.

(07-26-2014 04:57 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Number one, what I've seen does not indicate that anyone was fired for BEING gay. If my understanding is incorrect, please link to corrention(s)

Number two, sexual orientation does not create a protected class under federal law. It does under some stsste laws.

The link is in the original post. Read the statement released by the organization and you will hopefully be able to fix your lack of knowledge.

It does, under Obama's executive order.

NEXT.

(07-26-2014 07:04 PM)Ole Blue Wrote:  

(07-26-2014 04:57 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Number one, what I've seen does not indicate that anyone was fired for BEING gay. If my understanding is incorrect, please link to corrention(s)

Number two, sexual orientation does not create a protected class under federal law. It does under some stsste laws.

The link is in the original post. Read the statement released by the organization and you will hopefully be able to fix your lack of knowledge.

It does, under Obama's executive order.

NEXT.

Considering the courts have been overturning King Zero's executive orders faster than I can breathe, I could use the paper that EO was printed on for toilet paper.

NEXT.

Tom, are you against using tax payer money to fund colleges and businesses that use some form of Affirmative Action?

(07-26-2014 07:39 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  Tom, are you against using tax payer money to fund colleges and businesses that use some form of Affirmative Action?

Nope. If a school barred white people from attending, then I would support yanking their funding. But diversity measures are okay.


Lets be clear, there are iiterally hundreds of colleges that have an absolute bar for a married Gay person to be an employee. Name a school that bars white people. Or Christians.

(07-26-2014 07:04 PM)Ole Blue Wrote:  

(07-26-2014 04:57 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Number one, what I've seen does not indicate that anyone was fired for BEING gay. If my understanding is incorrect, please link to corrention(s)

Number two, sexual orientation does not create a protected class under federal law. It does under some stsste laws.

The link is in the original post. Read the statement released by the organization and you will hopefully be able to fix your lack of knowledge.

It does, under Obama's executive order.

NEXT.

Maybe try reading it again and fix your own lack of knowledge.

The thread title is misleading. This guy was fired after he allowed his husband around the kids. He was not fired for being gay, or marrying gay. He was fired because he brought his gayness into his job.

(07-26-2014 07:04 PM)Ole Blue Wrote:  The link is in the original post. Read the statement released by the organization and you will hopefully be able to fix your lack of knowledge.

The link does not indicate that the firing was for being gay, but for specific acts. Perhaps you are the one who should fix your lack of knowledge.

Quote:It does, under Obama's executive order.

And said executive order will face trouble in the courts as a result.

Of course, this may well be happening to force a political showdown. I don't think Obama is nearly as concerned about the welfare of gay people as I am. But a potential voting bloc, now that's a different matter. Obama doesn't give a f-k about gays or the poor or illegal aliens, except that they are sure to turn up and vote democrat on election day.

(07-27-2014 05:17 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  And said executive order will face trouble in the courts as a result.

What do you think the problem will be? I haven't read the order, but this doesn't seem to be much different than the way government contracts swing union/open shop depending on the party in the White House (as long as it only applies going forward). Can you even bring a RFRA claim against an executive action? I'm sure there will be challenges, just not sure I see any with legs.

(07-26-2014 11:02 AM)smn1256 Wrote:  Tom, I don't like saying this to you because it's a schitty answer to a decent guy (you) so this is a response to the other libs who threw this in our faces for weeks and weeks: It's the law. That should shut down dawg, john666, and the Memphis Moron.

are you kidding?

It was once the law that blacks had to use different fountains and we all know how that turned out......

(07-27-2014 09:54 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-26-2014 11:02 AM)smn1256 Wrote:  Tom, I don't like saying this to you because it's a schitty answer to a decent guy (you) so this is a response to the other libs who threw this in our faces for weeks and weeks: It's the law. That should shut down dawg, john666, and the Memphis Moron.

are you kidding?

It was once the law that blacks had to use different fountains and we all know how that turned out......

Missed his point.