(05-09-2016 09:55 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 11:59 AM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 11:49 AM)fsquid Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 11:42 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 10:56 AM)fsquid Wrote:  So the state has no money for teacher raises, but money for this?

False, McCrory has pitched a 5% increase in salary and an average 3.5% bonus this year.

Only a decade late.

Well that would put the responsibility back on the Demos' plates then. They had run the show in NC for nearly a century.

The GOP has run the state since 2011. They own anything that has happened for the last six years, including the huge cuts in education funding. We are 47th in the nation in education spending, 42nd in teacher pay and eliminated due process for those that didn't have it by 2013, ended master's pay for those that didn't already have it, eliminated the teaching fellows program, eliminated huge numbers of teacher assistant positions and tried to eliminate the driver's Ed program before parent backlash caused them to retreat. The list goes on and on. The are running k-12 schools into the ground!

What were we before 2011? Was it much better? Did the teachers not know how much the state paid before taking the job?

(05-09-2016 09:58 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 09:55 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 11:59 AM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 11:49 AM)fsquid Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 11:42 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  False, McCrory has pitched a 5% increase in salary and an average 3.5% bonus this year.

Only a decade late.

Well that would put the responsibility back on the Demos' plates then. They had run the show in NC for nearly a century.

The GOP has run the state since 2011. They own anything that has happened for the last six years, including the huge cuts in education funding. We are 47th in the nation in education spending, 42nd in teacher pay and eliminated due process for those that didn't have it by 2013, ended master's pay for those that didn't already have it, eliminated the teaching fellows program, eliminated huge numbers of teacher assistant positions and tried to eliminate the driver's Ed program before parent backlash caused them to retreat. The list goes on and on. The are running k-12 schools into the ground!

What were we before 2011? Was it much better? Did the teachers not know how much the state paid before taking the job?

Great question. And you can detect by the sound of crickets that he damned well knows how it was under democratic control. Hint. A 3.5 percent decrease in their last year in office.

But dose republicans.... Derp derp

(05-09-2016 09:58 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 09:55 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 11:59 AM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 11:49 AM)fsquid Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 11:42 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  False, McCrory has pitched a 5% increase in salary and an average 3.5% bonus this year.

Only a decade late.

Well that would put the responsibility back on the Demos' plates then. They had run the show in NC for nearly a century.

The GOP has run the state since 2011. They own anything that has happened for the last six years, including the huge cuts in education funding. We are 47th in the nation in education spending, 42nd in teacher pay and eliminated due process for those that didn't have it by 2013, ended master's pay for those that didn't already have it, eliminated the teaching fellows program, eliminated huge numbers of teacher assistant positions and tried to eliminate the driver's Ed program before parent backlash caused them to retreat. The list goes on and on. The are running k-12 schools into the ground!

What were we before 2011? Was it much better? Did the teachers not know how much the state paid before taking the job?

We were up to about 27th in pay. It was much better. We had a salary schedule that the GOP eliminated so what we knew about state pay changed significantly when they took over. They also eliminated longevity pay which was another significant cut in pay. They eliminated the master's pay schedule as well, so teachers that were hired with the expectation of going to grad school to increase their income had the rug pulled out from under them.

(05-09-2016 07:11 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 05:22 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 05:14 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  Just saw Obama's Attorney General say that this is about treating all Americans with dignity and respect. So perverts that want to go into the little girls bathroom need to be treated with dignity and respect? The libs have f'd up this country so bad, not sure it can be made right again.

(sneering sarcasm)
Nah, no animus towards transgendered persons in Mississippi. None at all. I can't imagine why anyone would think that Mississippi's SB 1523 was just motivated by hatred of LGBT persons.

(end sarcasm)

Yea, Mississippi is just a terrible place because we want women to use the women's bathroom and men to use the men's bathroom. Damn, how much more hateful could we be.

I heard that the Governor had to ship his own son out of state, because he kept getting assaulted in Hattiesburg. Not that Gov. Bryant did anything to protect those LGBT people who can't flee.

I suspect that Gov. Bryant was far less concerned with the safety of his own child than he was over the fear that the fact that his son is Gay might cost him some votes with the large number of Mississippians who hate Gay people.

And he's your friggin' Governor.

http://www.washingtonblade.com/2016/04/1...ay-attack/

---

And then there's the Sheriff in lovely Hattiesburg. Fires employees for being Gay and then brags about it in a court pleading. The facts of the story are far worse than I'm mentioning here. And Billy "Bigot" McGee is still the Sheriff there.

That's just Hattiesburg.

(05-09-2016 11:47 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 07:11 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 05:22 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 05:14 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  Just saw Obama's Attorney General say that this is about treating all Americans with dignity and respect. So perverts that want to go into the little girls bathroom need to be treated with dignity and respect? The libs have f'd up this country so bad, not sure it can be made right again.

(sneering sarcasm)
Nah, no animus towards transgendered persons in Mississippi. None at all. I can't imagine why anyone would think that Mississippi's SB 1523 was just motivated by hatred of LGBT persons.
(end sarcasm)

Yea, Mississippi is just a terrible place because we want women to use the women's bathroom and men to use the men's bathroom. Damn, how much more hateful could we be.

If the Governor had to ship his own son out of state for his own safety, then there's a pretty big problem.

Tom, I have a question. We know that you are very concerned about the rights of the transgendered to pee where they are comfortable doing so. What about the rights of that female who doesn't want a genetic male coming into her bathroom? Does that person have rights or not? And if yes, then how do you weigh the calculus of rights between the two of them?

Do you think that maybe, just maybe, some of this legislation arises out of legitimate concerns for the welfare and well-being of the majority non-transgendered population? Or in your world do those people simply have no rights?

The transgenders do not want their own bathroom. Adding a third unisex bathroom is not only expensive, it won't solve their gripe. Transgenders want to enter the lady's bathroom and showers in fabulous fashion, Broadway style, with schlongs flailing. Anything else is completely unacceptable to them.

(05-09-2016 11:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 11:47 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 07:11 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 05:22 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 05:14 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  Just saw Obama's Attorney General say that this is about treating all Americans with dignity and respect. So perverts that want to go into the little girls bathroom need to be treated with dignity and respect? The libs have f'd up this country so bad, not sure it can be made right again.

(sneering sarcasm)
Nah, no animus towards transgendered persons in Mississippi. None at all. I can't imagine why anyone would think that Mississippi's SB 1523 was just motivated by hatred of LGBT persons.
(end sarcasm)

Yea, Mississippi is just a terrible place because we want women to use the women's bathroom and men to use the men's bathroom. Damn, how much more hateful could we be.

If the Governor had to ship his own son out of state for his own safety, then there's a pretty big problem.

Tom, I have a question. We know that you are very concerned about the rights of the transgendered to pee where they are comfortable doing so. What about the rights of that female who doesn't want a genetic male coming into her bathroom? Does that person have rights or not? And if yes, then how do you weigh the calculus of rights between the two of them?

Do you think that maybe, just maybe, some of this legislation arises out of legitimate concerns for the welfare and well-being of the majority non-transgendered population? Or in your world do those people simply have no rights?

These bills aren't about women's safety or even comfort. They're largely being pushed by MEN. They're simply a trojan horse for haters to try and stop any LGBT friendly legislation.

There are no legitimate concerns of a female going to the restroom with another female who happened to be assigned male genitals at birth, but who presents permanently as female.

Look, if I thought the other side was willing to negotiate in good faith, maybe I listen. But we're dealing with Dan Patrick, Paxton, etc. No point. Just run to the Federal Courts. And ask for every Executive Order out of the Presidents office you can think of.

(05-10-2016 12:03 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  The transgenders do not want their own bathroom. Adding a third unisex bathroom is not only expensive, it won't solve their gripe. Transgenders want to enter the lady's bathroom and showers in fabulous fashion, Broadway style, with schlongs flailing. Anything else is completely unacceptable to them.

Anything that categorizes them as anything other than their gender identity is not acceptable.

Showers? Where are there any group showers anymore? When was the last time you went to a gym?

(05-10-2016 12:07 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  These bills aren't about women's safety or even comfort. They're largely being pushed by MEN. They're simply a trojan horse for haters to try and stop any LGBT friendly legislation.
There are no legitimate concerns of a female going to the restroom with another female who happened to be assigned male genitals at birth, but who presents permanently as female.
Look, if I thought the other side was willing to negotiate in good faith, maybe I listen. But we're dealing with Dan Patrick, Paxton, etc. No point. Just run to the Federal Courts. And ask for every Executive Order out of the Presidents office you can think of.

They're being pushed by men because that's who's in the legislatures. I know lots of women, including some lesbians, who don't want men in their bathroom.

And "females who happened to be assigned male genitals at birth"? Really? I don't think that's how it works. You get the genitals that fit who you are genetically.

And exactly what would meet your definition of negotiating in good faith? What points would you be willing to give on? From what I've seen, your definition of negotiating in good faith is giving in on everything, kind of like democrats' ideas of compromise. Disagree? Fine, where are you willing to give?

(05-09-2016 07:01 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 06:36 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 05:42 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 05:31 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  Remember when Houston tried to do the same and it backfired on the Mayor? That should be a lesson...

We weren't ready. We had bad leaders running the HERO campaign. Mayor Parker had little to do with the law.

We've learned. How to WIN. And we will win in North Carolina and Mississippi very shortly. Texas will happen shortly too.

There is nothing to win. You already have the same rights as everyone else and the law protects you just like everyone else. What you seek is "special" treatment. It is plain as the nose on your face Tom. Just a bunch of selfish children needing attention.

I am banned from executive employment at about a third of the taxpayer supported hospitals (Ascension, St Josephs, Cristus, etc.), many taxpayer subsidized schools etc., and many state supported social work groups simply because I am Gay. Discrimination exists, and it is far wider reaching than you think.

All we demand is the same protections that our persecutors have. If it is illegal for a person to fire someone for being a member of an anti-Gay religious group, then it should be illegal for a Gay or Trans person to be fired simply because they are Gay and sexually active and/or Trans.

If you think that adding Gays to existing non-discrimination ordinances covering religious persons is no big deal. Then why are y'all so opposed to adding us to those protections.

Banned?

Banned.

Please provide that part of the employment code or provision that expressly says that.

Thanks.

(05-09-2016 07:01 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 06:36 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 05:42 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 05:31 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  Remember when Houston tried to do the same and it backfired on the Mayor? That should be a lesson...

We weren't ready. We had bad leaders running the HERO campaign. Mayor Parker had little to do with the law.
We've learned. How to WIN. And we will win in North Carolina and Mississippi very shortly. Texas will happen shortly too.

There is nothing to win. You already have the same rights as everyone else and the law protects you just like everyone else. What you seek is "special" treatment. It is plain as the nose on your face Tom. Just a bunch of selfish children needing attention.

I am banned from executive employment at about a third of the taxpayer supported hospitals (Ascension, St Josephs, Cristus, etc.), many taxpayer subsidized schools etc., and many state supported social work groups simply because I am Gay. Discrimination exists, and it is far wider reaching than you think.
All we demand is the same protections that our persecutors have. If it is illegal for a person to fire someone for being a member of an anti-Gay religious group, then it should be illegal for a Gay or Trans person to be fired simply because they are Gay and sexually active and/or Trans.
If you think that adding Gays to existing non-discrimination ordinances covering religious persons is no big deal. Then why are y'all so opposed to adding us to those protections.

So, since you want to negotiate in good faith, would you say that a reasonable compromise would be a law that protected those employment rights, but did not include the bathroom provisions?

Put it another way, if you were told you could have one or the other but not both--the employment discrimination provisions or the bathroom access provisions--which would you take?

(05-09-2016 07:01 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 06:36 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 05:42 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 05:31 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  Remember when Houston tried to do the same and it backfired on the Mayor? That should be a lesson...

We weren't ready. We had bad leaders running the HERO campaign. Mayor Parker had little to do with the law.

We've learned. How to WIN. And we will win in North Carolina and Mississippi very shortly. Texas will happen shortly too.

There is nothing to win. You already have the same rights as everyone else and the law protects you just like everyone else. What you seek is "special" treatment. It is plain as the nose on your face Tom. Just a bunch of selfish children needing attention.

I am banned from executive employment at about a third of the taxpayer supported hospitals (Ascension, St Josephs, Cristus, etc.), many taxpayer subsidized schools etc., and many state supported social work groups simply because I am Gay. Discrimination exists, and it is far wider reaching than you think.

All we demand is the same protections that our persecutors have. If it is illegal for a person to fire someone for being a member of an anti-Gay religious group, then it should be illegal for a Gay or Trans person to be fired simply because they are Gay and sexually active and/or Trans.

If you think that adding Gays to existing non-discrimination ordinances covering religious persons is no big deal. Then why are y'all so opposed to adding us to those protections.

No one asks your sexual preference on an application. No one asks that in a job interview. It is illegal to do so. I have hired guys I suspected were gay. Their sexual preference had nothing to do with completing the jobs I hired them for. I tell every employee I hire that sexual harassment,grabassing and other stuff of a sexual nature is not tolerated in our facility. Again...You want a special consideration..not equal treatment Tom.

(05-09-2016 03:34 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  HB 2 removed employment protections for LGBT persons in North Carolina's largest city.

It was the most important part of the bill.

The GOP in NC is reading something new into the law about cities not having any powers at all. Had the anti-Gay GOP legislature not specifically written legislation removing those protections, it would be illegal for people to be fired simply because they are LGBT.

Tom's "most important part of the bill" didn't even warrant a comment from Lynch. She specifically said that the restroom restriction was "impermissibly discriminatory". Now, since the court of appeals failed to say that significantly similar laws (like the VA law that was discussed earlier) explicitly violated Title IX, it would have been nice to know on what grounds the justice department finds the bill imperissibly discriminatory".

NC is suing on the grounds the the DOJ is misinterpreting Title VII by claiming that a single bill passed to protect expectations of privacy establishes a "pattern of discriminating against transgender employees" and ignores the fact that transgendered status is not a protected class under Title VII. It goes on to say that if the US government wants transgendered status to be protected it must be done by Congress.


To me this reeks of a political move by the left in a swing state with a Republican governor. Until Congress decides to include transgendered persons as a protected class, there is little precedent for their suit against NC since the NC law creates reasonable accommodations while protecting the basic expectations of privacy, especially considering there has been no lawsuit by an individual in NC challenging the reasonable accommodations or alleging discrimination. NC is basically asking the courts to tell them what rules to play by, and to clarify the grounds on which the DOJ is threatening to withhold federal funds since there is no clear violation of Title IX to which federal funds are tied.

Delusion as a group worthy of special rights.

Most places already have handicap restrooms.

(05-10-2016 05:35 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 07:01 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 06:36 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 05:42 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 05:31 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  Remember when Houston tried to do the same and it backfired on the Mayor? That should be a lesson...

We weren't ready. We had bad leaders running the HERO campaign. Mayor Parker had little to do with the law.

We've learned. How to WIN. And we will win in North Carolina and Mississippi very shortly. Texas will happen shortly too.

There is nothing to win. You already have the same rights as everyone else and the law protects you just like everyone else. What you seek is "special" treatment. It is plain as the nose on your face Tom. Just a bunch of selfish children needing attention.

I am banned from executive employment at about a third of the taxpayer supported hospitals (Ascension, St Josephs, Cristus, etc.), many taxpayer subsidized schools etc., and many state supported social work groups simply because I am Gay. Discrimination exists, and it is far wider reaching than you think.

All we demand is the same protections that our persecutors have. If it is illegal for a person to fire someone for being a member of an anti-Gay religious group, then it should be illegal for a Gay or Trans person to be fired simply because they are Gay and sexually active and/or Trans.

If you think that adding Gays to existing non-discrimination ordinances covering religious persons is no big deal. Then why are y'all so opposed to adding us to those protections.

No one asks your sexual preference on an application. No one asks that in a job interview. It is illegal to do so. I have hired guys I suspected were gay. Their sexual preference had nothing to do with completing the jobs I hired them for. I tell every employee I hire that sexual harassment,grabassing and other stuff of a sexual nature is not tolerated in our facility. Again...You want a special consideration..not equal treatment Tom.

No one asks if you are a Baptist. But you can't be fired even if the employer finds out. Or if you're open about your Baptistness.

We don't demand special consideration. But to have being LGBT hold the same protection as being a Baptist.

(05-10-2016 07:16 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 03:34 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  HB 2 removed employment protections for LGBT persons in North Carolina's largest city.

It was the most important part of the bill.

The GOP in NC is reading something new into the law about cities not having any powers at all. Had the anti-Gay GOP legislature not specifically written legislation removing those protections, it would be illegal for people to be fired simply because they are LGBT.

Tom's "most important part of the bill" didn't even warrant a comment from Lynch. She specifically said that the restroom restriction was "impermissibly discriminatory". Now, since the court of appeals failed to say that significantly similar laws (like the VA law that was discussed earlier) explicitly violated Title IX, it would have been nice to know on what grounds the justice department finds the bill imperissibly discriminatory".

NC is suing on the grounds the the DOJ is misinterpreting Title VII by claiming that a single bill passed to protect expectations of privacy establishes a "pattern of discriminating against transgender employees" and ignores the fact that transgendered status is not a protected class under Title VII. It goes on to say that if the US government wants transgendered status to be protected it must be done by Congress.


To me this reeks of a political move by the left in a swing state with a Republican governor. Until Congress decides to include transgendered persons as a protected class, there is little precedent for their suit against NC since the NC law creates reasonable accommodations while protecting the basic expectations of privacy, especially considering there has been no lawsuit by an individual in NC challenging the reasonable accommodations or alleging discrimination. NC is basically asking the courts to tell them what rules to play by, and to clarify the grounds on which the DOJ is threatening to withhold federal funds since there is no clear violation of Title IX to which federal funds are tied.

The law is new. Lawsuits are coming.

Humiliating and stigmatizing school children is not 'reasonable'. Nor is NC's situation where the rules are very complicated. And there's no law requiring that a Transgender person be accommodated in a restroom. The law doesn't mandate ANY accommodation be provided. Nor does the executive order. A request doesn't require compliance.

How is it reasonable that a pre-op Transgendered male born in California can use the mens room (because she can get her legal gender changed on her birth certificate even before surgery), but a post op Transgendered male born in Tennessee must use the ladies room in NC. The whole law is a mess.

(05-10-2016 12:33 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 07:01 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 06:36 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 05:42 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 05:31 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  Remember when Houston tried to do the same and it backfired on the Mayor? That should be a lesson...

We weren't ready. We had bad leaders running the HERO campaign. Mayor Parker had little to do with the law.
We've learned. How to WIN. And we will win in North Carolina and Mississippi very shortly. Texas will happen shortly too.

There is nothing to win. You already have the same rights as everyone else and the law protects you just like everyone else. What you seek is "special" treatment. It is plain as the nose on your face Tom. Just a bunch of selfish children needing attention.

I am banned from executive employment at about a third of the taxpayer supported hospitals (Ascension, St Josephs, Cristus, etc.), many taxpayer subsidized schools etc., and many state supported social work groups simply because I am Gay. Discrimination exists, and it is far wider reaching than you think.
All we demand is the same protections that our persecutors have. If it is illegal for a person to fire someone for being a member of an anti-Gay religious group, then it should be illegal for a Gay or Trans person to be fired simply because they are Gay and sexually active and/or Trans.
If you think that adding Gays to existing non-discrimination ordinances covering religious persons is no big deal. Then why are y'all so opposed to adding us to those protections.

So, since you want to negotiate in good faith, would you say that a reasonable compromise would be a law that protected those employment rights, but did not include the bathroom provisions?

Put it another way, if you were told you could have one or the other but not both--the employment discrimination provisions or the bathroom access provisions--which would you take?

We tried that in Plano. And in Arkansas. And in Gainesville. Every time we try to strip out the protections, we still get 'Transbashing' as the response.

If stripping out the bathroom protections would actually move the needle as far as GOP legislatures, then we might consider it as a temporary step. But since we're going to face the bathroom stuff either way, we might as well advocate for a full measure of equality rather than a half one.

(05-10-2016 09:35 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-10-2016 05:35 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 07:01 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 06:36 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 05:42 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  We weren't ready. We had bad leaders running the HERO campaign. Mayor Parker had little to do with the law.

We've learned. How to WIN. And we will win in North Carolina and Mississippi very shortly. Texas will happen shortly too.

There is nothing to win. You already have the same rights as everyone else and the law protects you just like everyone else. What you seek is "special" treatment. It is plain as the nose on your face Tom. Just a bunch of selfish children needing attention.

I am banned from executive employment at about a third of the taxpayer supported hospitals (Ascension, St Josephs, Cristus, etc.), many taxpayer subsidized schools etc., and many state supported social work groups simply because I am Gay. Discrimination exists, and it is far wider reaching than you think.

All we demand is the same protections that our persecutors have. If it is illegal for a person to fire someone for being a member of an anti-Gay religious group, then it should be illegal for a Gay or Trans person to be fired simply because they are Gay and sexually active and/or Trans.

If you think that adding Gays to existing non-discrimination ordinances covering religious persons is no big deal. Then why are y'all so opposed to adding us to those protections.

No one asks your sexual preference on an application. No one asks that in a job interview. It is illegal to do so. I have hired guys I suspected were gay. Their sexual preference had nothing to do with completing the jobs I hired them for. I tell every employee I hire that sexual harassment,grabassing and other stuff of a sexual nature is not tolerated in our facility. Again...You want a special consideration..not equal treatment Tom.

No one asks if you are a Baptist. But you can't be fired even if the employer finds out. Or if you're open about your Baptistness.

We don't demand special consideration. But to have being LGBT hold the same protection as being a Baptist.

You already have that. I can't fire someone because of their religion or sex or sexual preference. Id catch living hell at a EOC hearing for doing that. Who and were are these people getting fired because they are gay Tom?

(05-10-2016 11:29 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(05-10-2016 09:35 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-10-2016 05:35 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 07:01 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 06:36 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  There is nothing to win. You already have the same rights as everyone else and the law protects you just like everyone else. What you seek is "special" treatment. It is plain as the nose on your face Tom. Just a bunch of selfish children needing attention.

I am banned from executive employment at about a third of the taxpayer supported hospitals (Ascension, St Josephs, Cristus, etc.), many taxpayer subsidized schools etc., and many state supported social work groups simply because I am Gay. Discrimination exists, and it is far wider reaching than you think.

All we demand is the same protections that our persecutors have. If it is illegal for a person to fire someone for being a member of an anti-Gay religious group, then it should be illegal for a Gay or Trans person to be fired simply because they are Gay and sexually active and/or Trans.

If you think that adding Gays to existing non-discrimination ordinances covering religious persons is no big deal. Then why are y'all so opposed to adding us to those protections.

No one asks your sexual preference on an application. No one asks that in a job interview. It is illegal to do so. I have hired guys I suspected were gay. Their sexual preference had nothing to do with completing the jobs I hired them for. I tell every employee I hire that sexual harassment,grabassing and other stuff of a sexual nature is not tolerated in our facility. Again...You want a special consideration..not equal treatment Tom.

No one asks if you are a Baptist. But you can't be fired even if the employer finds out. Or if you're open about your Baptistness.

We don't demand special consideration. But to have being LGBT hold the same protection as being a Baptist.

You already have that. I can't fire someone because of their religion or sex or sexual preference. Id catch living hell at a EOC hearing for doing that. Who and were are these people getting fired because they are gay Tom?

Do you really need 1,000,000 links? I'll just start with this one

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/...ation.html

(05-10-2016 11:36 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-10-2016 11:29 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(05-10-2016 09:35 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-10-2016 05:35 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 07:01 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  I am banned from executive employment at about a third of the taxpayer supported hospitals (Ascension, St Josephs, Cristus, etc.), many taxpayer subsidized schools etc., and many state supported social work groups simply because I am Gay. Discrimination exists, and it is far wider reaching than you think.

All we demand is the same protections that our persecutors have. If it is illegal for a person to fire someone for being a member of an anti-Gay religious group, then it should be illegal for a Gay or Trans person to be fired simply because they are Gay and sexually active and/or Trans.

If you think that adding Gays to existing non-discrimination ordinances covering religious persons is no big deal. Then why are y'all so opposed to adding us to those protections.

No one asks your sexual preference on an application. No one asks that in a job interview. It is illegal to do so. I have hired guys I suspected were gay. Their sexual preference had nothing to do with completing the jobs I hired them for. I tell every employee I hire that sexual harassment,grabassing and other stuff of a sexual nature is not tolerated in our facility. Again...You want a special consideration..not equal treatment Tom.

No one asks if you are a Baptist. But you can't be fired even if the employer finds out. Or if you're open about your Baptistness.

We don't demand special consideration. But to have being LGBT hold the same protection as being a Baptist.

You already have that. I can't fire someone because of their religion or sex or sexual preference. Id catch living hell at a EOC hearing for doing that. Who and were are these people getting fired because they are gay Tom?

Do you really need 1,000,000 links? I'll just start with this one

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/...ation.html

The Missouri court was wrong. It is illegal to harass people in the workplace. I have no idea how any sane individual could rule otherwise.