(08-13-2011 12:15 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  I didn't realize that I can fire my evangelical employees simply because they are evangelicals? (Actually I can't - its against the law to discriminate against persons because of their religion). Why can evangelicals discriminate against Gay employees (They can in 29 states - including Ohio)? I support non-discrimination laws, but they need to be consistent.

You can't fire employees for being gay, so what's your point?

(08-13-2011 12:00 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(08-12-2011 09:40 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Harvey Milk, the first openly Gay elected official of any consequence on planet earth, led a movement to teach Gays themselves that they could be proud of who they are. He led the first successful Gay ballot fight (against the Briggs Amendment). He was assasinated by a right wing, Christian politician. His murderer received 3 years in prison for killing him.

He was the most significant politician in the last 50 years in California's second largest city.

He is as significant to today's political discourse as Cesar Chavez or any of the Religous Right are.

You can teach your kids that Gays are filthy disgusting creatures and lie to them about us at home. Not at school. At least not in California.

Quote:Good spin. Milk was killed by a former city supervisor who had suffered discrimination because he didn't properly blend into his city's ethnic flavor. Where's his ******* movie?

Exactly how was Dan White discriminated against? Back it up. Because he got 3 years in jail for the premeditated assasination of the Mayor of San Francisco and Harvey Milk? Because Moscone and Milk refused to appoint the disruptive Dan White back onto the Board of Supervisors after he resigned?

Please...try to defend the assertion that Dan White was a victim of discrimination...

Here's my defense, that is. unless you don't believe Wiki

Quote:On November 10, 1978, 10 months after being sworn in, White resigned his position on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, claiming that his annual salary of $9,600 was not enough to support his family.[108] Milk was also feeling the pinch of the decrease in income when he and Scott Smith were forced to close Castro Camera a month before.[note 8] Within days, White requested that his resignation be withdrawn and he be reinstated, and Mayor Moscone initially agreed.[109][110] However, further consideration—and intervention by other supervisors—convinced the mayor to appoint someone more in line with the growing ethnic diversity of White's district and the liberal leanings of the Board of Supervisors.[111] On November 18, news broke of the murder of California Representative Leo Ryan, who was in Jonestown, Guyana to check on the remote community built by members of the Peoples Temple who had relocated from San Francisco. The next day came news of the mass suicide of members of the Peoples Temple. Horror came in degrees as San Franciscans learned more than 400 Jonestown residents were dead.[112] Dan White remarked to two aides who were working for his reinstatement, "You see that? One day I'm on the front page and the next I'm swept right off."[113] Soon the number of dead in Guyana topped 900.[114]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_Milk


The ball is in your court - who's laughing now professor?

TLB, still waiting, or is it game, set and match?

(08-13-2011 01:09 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(08-13-2011 12:00 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(08-12-2011 09:40 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Harvey Milk, the first openly Gay elected official of any consequence on planet earth, led a movement to teach Gays themselves that they could be proud of who they are. He led the first successful Gay ballot fight (against the Briggs Amendment). He was assasinated by a right wing, Christian politician. His murderer received 3 years in prison for killing him.

He was the most significant politician in the last 50 years in California's second largest city.

He is as significant to today's political discourse as Cesar Chavez or any of the Religous Right are.

You can teach your kids that Gays are filthy disgusting creatures and lie to them about us at home. Not at school. At least not in California.

Quote:Good spin. Milk was killed by a former city supervisor who had suffered discrimination because he didn't properly blend into his city's ethnic flavor. Where's his ******* movie?

Exactly how was Dan White discriminated against? Back it up. Because he got 3 years in jail for the premeditated assasination of the Mayor of San Francisco and Harvey Milk? Because Moscone and Milk refused to appoint the disruptive Dan White back onto the Board of Supervisors after he resigned?

Please...try to defend the assertion that Dan White was a victim of discrimination...

Here's my defense, that is. unless you don't believe Wiki

Quote:On November 10, 1978, 10 months after being sworn in, White resigned his position on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, claiming that his annual salary of $9,600 was not enough to support his family.[108] Milk was also feeling the pinch of the decrease in income when he and Scott Smith were forced to close Castro Camera a month before.[note 8] Within days, White requested that his resignation be withdrawn and he be reinstated, and Mayor Moscone initially agreed.[109][110] However, further consideration—and intervention by other supervisors—convinced the mayor to appoint someone more in line with the growing ethnic diversity of White's district and the liberal leanings of the Board of Supervisors.[111] On November 18, news broke of the murder of California Representative Leo Ryan, who was in Jonestown, Guyana to check on the remote community built by members of the Peoples Temple who had relocated from San Francisco. The next day came news of the mass suicide of members of the Peoples Temple. Horror came in degrees as San Franciscans learned more than 400 Jonestown residents were dead.[112] Dan White remarked to two aides who were working for his reinstatement, "You see that? One day I'm on the front page and the next I'm swept right off."[113] Soon the number of dead in Guyana topped 900.[114]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_Milk


The ball is in your court - who's laughing now professor?

TLB, still waiting, or is it game, set and match?

Sorry, exactly how does Mayor Moscone's decision to not reappoint Dan White amount to discrimination? Dan White resigned. No one forced him to. No one asked him to. He knew the salary when he ran for the Board of Supervisors.

Using your "analysis", I guess it would have been discrimination for George W Bush to not appoint a far leftist to the Supreme Court.

And exactly how does this justify a 3 year sentence for premeditated murder? I know Moscone was a liberal and Milk was a f_g, but really?

I don't care how many pictures you put up. I don't think you can credibly spin Dan White as a victim of anything other than his own warped and homocidal mind.

And I don't know how Jim Jones and the Peoples Temple have anything to do with anything. You're really reaching there. Are you arguing that if the Jonestown massacre hadn't happend, that there would have been some groundswell of popular pressure to reinstate White? Please.

By the way, why did Dan White murder Harvey Milk? He wasn't the person making the appointment. And Harvey Milk and George Moscone didn't exactly get along either. Just FYI. Moscone's biggest ally on the Board of Supervisors was Diane Fienstein. Why didn't he murder Diane Fienstein (also a Supervisor) whose office was next to Milks and who also was in her office?

Just a question for others to think over. And you can think it over as well, but somehow I doubt you're capable of drawing the conclusion that just about everyone else will from that statement.

(08-13-2011 12:21 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(08-13-2011 12:15 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  I didn't realize that I can fire my evangelical employees simply because they are evangelicals? (Actually I can't - its against the law to discriminate against persons because of their religion). Why can evangelicals discriminate against Gay employees (They can in 29 states - including Ohio)? I support non-discrimination laws, but they need to be consistent.

You can't fire employees for being gay, so what's your point?

Please quote me the specific law, applicable in Georgia, that makes it illegal for someone to be fired because they are/are perceived to be Gay.

You can't BECAUSE THERE ISN'T ONE. It is LEGAL to fire someone in Georgia solely because they are Gay. And it happens. Let me know if you'd like to see some example.

There is no federal law preventing discrimination on the basis of real or perceived sexual orientation. None. Some states have laws protecting Gays from employment or public accomodation discrimination.

It is LEGAL to fire someone for being Gay in the following states. ALA, ASK, ARK, FL, GA, ID, IN, KS, KY, LA, MS, MICH, MO, MT, NB, NC, ND, OH, OK, PA, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, WV, and WY.

There are some cities and counties that have their own ordinances prohibiting employment and public accomodation discrimination.

Its a common misconception. There has been a bill that has been languishing in Congress for decades to rectify this extreme injustice. The bill is called ENDA. And it is opposed by the GOP. Vigorously. And I have NEVER seen any politician opposed to inclusion of sexual orientation in anti-discrimination legislation introduce legislation to allow discrimination against evangelicals. Not on the federal, state or local level. Not one.

So yes, it is ILLEGAL for a Gay business owner to say 'I will not hire or am firing you because you are an evangelical'. It is LEGAL in most of the country for an evangelical county offical or business owner to fire, not hire, or deny public accomodations to someone based upon their real or perceived sexual orientation.

Hope this helps you understand our anger when evangelicals say that we want 'special rights'.

Well, if it's not illegal, be sure to continue to attack things people cherish and walk around in assless chaps with pink boas at the next "pride parade". That should force change. Afterall, I remember reading about MLK's protests wanting equal rights. They walked around with their pants down around their asses, hats on sideways or picks in their hair, long T-shirts with "black power" on them, etc.

Oh, wait, that didn't happen. MLK and the other protestors, were dressed respectful and acted just like everyone else. All they wanted was equal rights and to be treated as normal and the only thing they left on the table to criticize was their race. ...and it worked out well for their cause.

Attacking other people's **** and having festivals looking like a bunch of hedonistic f'n morons won't get you anywhere.

...but you continue the charge. If you're around, we'll be having this same discussion in 30 years as to why you're not treated equal.

Fool.

(08-13-2011 12:09 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(08-13-2011 09:04 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-13-2011 05:05 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  This is typical of gay issuses. In your face. It is the main obstacle to acceptance of other gay issuses.

I doubt seriously that most in the gay community are as vocal and principled as our friend Tom. I believe that most just simply want to live their lives quietly and peacefully like the rest of us. I understand the problem with the legal aspects of marriage and I see no reason why civil unions would not be acceptable to the vast majority of the gay community. I think Tom is in the minority in his views.

I agree with Sum and you. Unfortunately, we only hear from the in-your-face gays. When that happens I usually want to hit them with a bat. The quiet gays that simply act normal and try to fit in are the ones being hurt in all this.

Can you help me on how a Gay person should 'fit in'. Would that be to:

1) Not complain and protest real discrimination
2) Lie at work to the question of "what did you do last weekend" or "are you single"
3) Hide off in some dark corner as if we are somehow defective freaks?
4) Accept loud flashy public spectacles like Mardi Gras and NYE from straights but never go out there and do (much less) in public than goes on during those events?

Look, loud flashy (and sometimes risque) Gay Pride parades actually work. I know people don't want to see it. But it is so out there that everyone watches. I used to think that those events were bad PR. And they do create a backlash. But most people understand that Gay Pride is just an annual event, not an everyday thing. Like Mardi Gras for straight people.

And remember, we look for visibility as we have never seen any advance from being quiet, hidden, and patient. And no, I don't walk around in public in a thong (lord knows, no one would want to see that). But if someone else does one day per year, fine with me.

I understand that people don't get it...and at a 10,000 foot level it doesn't make sense that even a Gay Pride parade would be good for the cause of Gay acceptance. But as many a Hollywood PR agent knows..any publicity is good publicity.

(08-13-2011 12:15 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Please don't make the silly argument that because I can marry a woman that Gay marriage bans don't discriminate. Unless you want me marrying your daughter. I didn't think so.

Oh, you mean don't win the argument with relevant facts?

Yeah, that burns doesn't it?

Quote:I don't think you get our point on the issue of 'throwing a fit'. Actually we do get loud and obnoxious.

You get it just fine.

(08-13-2011 06:32 PM)Rebel Wrote:  Well, if it's not illegal, be sure to continue to attack things people cherish and walk around in assless chaps with pink boas at the next "pride parade". That should force change. Afterall, I remember reading about MLK's protests wanting equal rights. They walked around with their pants down around their asses, hats on sideways or picks in their hair, long T-shirts with "black power" on them, etc.

Oh, wait, that didn't happen. MLK and the other protestors, were dressed respectful and acted just like everyone else. All they wanted was equal rights and to be treated as normal and the only thing they left on the table to criticize was their race. ...and it worked out well for their cause.

Attacking other people's **** and having festivals looking like a bunch of hedonistic f'n morons won't get you anywhere.

...but you continue the charge. If you're around, we'll be having this same discussion in 30 years as to why you're not treated equal.

Fool.

Did you go to the Augusta Gay Pride Festival this year? Or any year? Well if you did, I would be very surpised if you saw anyone walking around in assless chaps. Same goes with 99% of the Gay Pride events in the country. The only nudity you'll likely see is a few Lesbians walking around topless. If the authorities arrest people for nudity, there would be no complaint from me. If the authorities arrest people for dressing provokatively, that's a different case. Pink boas rock though. But pink isn't my color, so I just go with the rainbow one. You can borrow it if you'd like.

What you are probably referring to is Folsom Street Festival in San Francisco (not the Gay Pride Parade in SF). There IS semi-public nudity at that one event. I actually went one year as I happened to be SF that weekend. It was disgusting. I left after an hour. But that is NOT a public event. The street is completely closed off. They use massive privacy screens 60+ feet in the air at all the entrances. You have to be 21 or older to go inside AND you have to pay to do so.

Again, there are many disingenious anti-Gay persons who use pictures of that event to try to paint that as indicative of Gay life. Sure, some engage in that type of behavior. But you'll never see it in Augusta because NO ONE in Augusta would behave like that.

(08-13-2011 06:50 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(08-13-2011 12:15 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Please don't make the silly argument that because I can marry a woman that Gay marriage bans don't discriminate. Unless you want me marrying your daughter. I didn't think so.

Oh, you mean don't win the argument with relevant facts?

Yeah, that burns doesn't it?

Quote:I don't think you get our point on the issue of 'throwing a fit'. Actually we do get loud and obnoxious.

You get it just fine.

No it doesn't burn. Its just a silly argument. It reduces marriage to the simply matching of opposite genitalia. It takes love out of marriage. It takes free will out of marriage.

And it causes a lot of stupid marriages between in the closet people and a straight partner.

Unless you really want me to marry your daughter, then I guess your argument is really theoretical. I don't want a theoretical marriage. I want a marriage with someone that I love and that loves me for who I am.

Its not that revolutionary.

(08-13-2011 06:59 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  I don't want a theoretical marriage. I want a marriage with someone that I love and that loves me for who I am.

No that isn't what you want, because if it was you wouldn't be on here complaining. There are more than a few churches that will perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples. You've been very clear, you want the tax incentive and state benefits that come with marriage.

You position isn't about love, it's about money. At least have the intellectual honesty to admit it.

(08-13-2011 12:19 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-13-2011 12:11 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-13-2011 11:53 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-13-2011 09:17 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-13-2011 09:06 AM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  Wow! Fo! We actually agree on something. But I've yet to see anyone in the gay community that posts on this board willing to accept civil unions. Forcing the Marriage issue definitely intrudes in religous space which is why gubment should change from marriage to civil unions.

Like I said...I question the "real" agenda of any gay activist that would oppose that civil unions be the method of legal marriage for everyone.

BTW...We agree on more than you think....probably 90%.

I have no problem with removing all rights for straight couples married and force them to go to the courthouse for a civil union (which would be open to Gays) in order to get state recognition. Its not going to happen though.

It would require that about 1700 laws on the Federal level alone to be amended. And tens of thousands of state laws. Its just not practical. As far as a 'solution' it works great in theory, but not in political reality.

For purposes of 'protecting marriage', its misguided in my opinion to create civil unions(with less rights and responsibilities) while marriage is still an option. This has been the 'solution' that many states have been moving towards. The problem with this solution is that it is still unequal. Furthermore, since this option is open to straight people, many straights are choosing civil unions rather than marriage. And this is causing marriage rates to drop precipitously in states like California. I don't really have a problem if some couple choose to have 'marriage lite', but if someone wants to protect the institution of marriage, the movement of straight couples to civil unions is fraught with danger for marriage.

So I see marriage equality as the solution that makes the most sense.

I call fabrics. The only thing that needs to change is to allow gays to acquire the govt. license like everyone else. You want equality?...I cant see how it could be any clearer or easier. I'm sorry Tom...but...I am beginning to smell a agenda beyond this issue. I was afraid of this from the start. My suggestion is to take the path of least resistance and take it. Unless something is going on in Alabama that I am not aware of....what you are seeking is NEVER going to happen there in your lifetime. That is just being realistic.

Oh if civil unions were an option in Alabama we'd take it. How do you think a civil unions bill would do in the tea party legislature ?

Now, we wouldn't take it and stop unless all of the benefits of marriage were accrued only to those that were civil unioned.

But its really a theoretical exercise in Alabama. We'll be fighting this one using the 'full faith and credit clause' in the Federal Courts.

I think you underestimate what classical liberals really feel in regard to civil liberties. I understand that you have been programmed to be wary of any conservative mindset..but..Most of the TP people are much more tolerant socially than you may think. The vast majority are just totally pissed of with our nations debt and out of hand spending. That is their main agenda..

The media always focuses on the fringe players...just like it does in regard to gay activism. The majority of folks just want to live free and want everyone else to have the same option.

Continuing to compare gays and "evangelicals" is just plain dumb.

And gay pride. WTF is up with that any way? Taking it up the ass is just something you like, it's not an accomplishment (I don't want to hear about the 12 incher). You have gay pride, the rest of us have hetero pride. See, just sounds silly.

There was another group who took pride in a DNA trait. Not saying your born that way. Some chose to be German.

(08-13-2011 06:44 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-13-2011 12:09 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(08-13-2011 09:04 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-13-2011 05:05 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  This is typical of gay issuses. In your face. It is the main obstacle to acceptance of other gay issuses.

I doubt seriously that most in the gay community are as vocal and principled as our friend Tom. I believe that most just simply want to live their lives quietly and peacefully like the rest of us. I understand the problem with the legal aspects of marriage and I see no reason why civil unions would not be acceptable to the vast majority of the gay community. I think Tom is in the minority in his views.

I agree with Sum and you. Unfortunately, we only hear from the in-your-face gays. When that happens I usually want to hit them with a bat. The quiet gays that simply act normal and try to fit in are the ones being hurt in all this.

Can you help me on how a Gay person should 'fit in'. Would that be to:

1) Not complain and protest real discrimination
2) Lie at work to the question of "what did you do last weekend" or "are you single"
3) Hide off in some dark corner as if we are somehow defective freaks?
4) Accept loud flashy public spectacles like Mardi Gras and NYE from straights but never go out there and do (much less) in public than goes on during those events?

Look, loud flashy (and sometimes risque) Gay Pride parades actually work. I know people don't want to see it. But it is so out there that everyone watches. I used to think that those events were bad PR. And they do create a backlash. But most people understand that Gay Pride is just an annual event, not an everyday thing. Like Mardi Gras for straight people.

And remember, we look for visibility as we have never seen any advance from being quiet, hidden, and patient. And no, I don't walk around in public in a thong (lord knows, no one would want to see that). But if someone else does one day per year, fine with me.

I understand that people don't get it...and at a 10,000 foot level it doesn't make sense that even a Gay Pride parade would be good for the cause of Gay acceptance. But as many a Hollywood PR agent knows..any publicity is good publicity.

The reason people don't get it Tom, is because is comes off as GD circus. You can not sit there and tell me that the MAJORITY of the gay community approves of the antics that occur in these events. I KNOW better. I'm 51 and have had personal contact over the years with several gay men who I know do not approve of this type of BS. They are actually embarrassed by that what goes on at these events.

If you want to be taken seriously...then ACT seriously. Stop being silly and start being serious about your agenda. Like it or not...the ultra fairy aspect of gay activism is hurting you severely.

Step your sh!t up and be professional in your approach. Otherwise you are going to continue to be marginalized by the media and made to look foolish. This is not complicated Tom. It is just the way one gets sh!t done in America.

(08-13-2011 07:32 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Continuing to compare gays and "evangelicals" is just plain dumb.

And gay pride. WTF is up with that any way? Taking it up the ass is just something you like, it's not an accomplishment (I don't want to hear about the 12 incher). You have gay pride, the rest of us have hetero pride. See, just sounds silly.

There was another group who took pride in a DNA trait. Not saying your born that way. Some chose to be German.

Yes...These festivals showcase the fringe element of the gay movement. They do more harm to their cause than good. The gay movement needs a good PR firm to take on it's cause.

(08-13-2011 06:06 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-13-2011 01:09 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(08-13-2011 12:00 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(08-12-2011 09:40 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Harvey Milk, the first openly Gay elected official of any consequence on planet earth, led a movement to teach Gays themselves that they could be proud of who they are. He led the first successful Gay ballot fight (against the Briggs Amendment). He was assasinated by a right wing, Christian politician. His murderer received 3 years in prison for killing him.

He was the most significant politician in the last 50 years in California's second largest city.

He is as significant to today's political discourse as Cesar Chavez or any of the Religous Right are.

You can teach your kids that Gays are filthy disgusting creatures and lie to them about us at home. Not at school. At least not in California.

Quote:Good spin. Milk was killed by a former city supervisor who had suffered discrimination because he didn't properly blend into his city's ethnic flavor. Where's his ******* movie?

Exactly how was Dan White discriminated against? Back it up. Because he got 3 years in jail for the premeditated assasination of the Mayor of San Francisco and Harvey Milk? Because Moscone and Milk refused to appoint the disruptive Dan White back onto the Board of Supervisors after he resigned?

Please...try to defend the assertion that Dan White was a victim of discrimination...

Here's my defense, that is. unless you don't believe Wiki

Quote:On November 10, 1978, 10 months after being sworn in, White resigned his position on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, claiming that his annual salary of $9,600 was not enough to support his family.[108] Milk was also feeling the pinch of the decrease in income when he and Scott Smith were forced to close Castro Camera a month before.[note 8] Within days, White requested that his resignation be withdrawn and he be reinstated, and Mayor Moscone initially agreed.[109][110] However, further consideration—and intervention by other supervisors—convinced the mayor to appoint someone more in line with the growing ethnic diversity of White's district and the liberal leanings of the Board of Supervisors.[111] On November 18, news broke of the murder of California Representative Leo Ryan, who was in Jonestown, Guyana to check on the remote community built by members of the Peoples Temple who had relocated from San Francisco. The next day came news of the mass suicide of members of the Peoples Temple. Horror came in degrees as San Franciscans learned more than 400 Jonestown residents were dead.[112] Dan White remarked to two aides who were working for his reinstatement, "You see that? One day I'm on the front page and the next I'm swept right off."[113] Soon the number of dead in Guyana topped 900.[114]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_Milk


The ball is in your court - who's laughing now professor?

TLB, still waiting, or is it game, set and match?

Sorry, exactly how does Mayor Moscone's decision to not reappoint Dan White amount to discrimination? Dan White resigned. No one forced him to. No one asked him to. He knew the salary when he ran for the Board of Supervisors.

Using your "analysis", I guess it would have been discrimination for George W Bush to not appoint a far leftist to the Supreme Court.

And exactly how does this justify a 3 year sentence for premeditated murder? I know Moscone was a liberal and Milk was a f_g, but really?

I don't care how many pictures you put up. I don't think you can credibly spin Dan White as a victim of anything other than his own warped and homocidal mind.

And I don't know how Jim Jones and the Peoples Temple have anything to do with anything. You're really reaching there. Are you arguing that if the Jonestown massacre hadn't happend, that there would have been some groundswell of popular pressure to reinstate White? Please.

If White had been a minority, not setting aside his resignation would have been politically incorrect if not outright discrimination. Setting aside a resignation is far different than Bush appointing a lib. It's apples and oranges. Besides, Wiki says right there he was thought to be out of line with their ethnic diversity. Since most of the country is straight, following their judgement, hiring a gay guy would be out of touch with the rest of the country.

Don't ask me about the 3 year sentence, that it was just 3 years in Liberalville oughta say somthing.

The Jim Jones thing was part of the article that should not have been pasted.

(08-13-2011 06:25 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Please quote me the specific law, applicable in Georgia, that makes it illegal for someone to be fired because they are/are perceived to be Gay.

You can't BECAUSE THERE ISN'T ONE.

Both Atlanta and Decatur have laws.. They are, the last time I checked, in Georgia.

(08-13-2011 06:06 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Sorry, exactly how does Mayor Moscone's decision to not reappoint Dan White amount to discrimination? Dan White resigned. No one forced him to. No one asked him to. He knew the salary when he ran for the Board of Supervisors.

This is you...



He was approved to retake the position before his race was considered.. What would you call that?

(08-13-2011 09:48 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(08-13-2011 06:25 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Please quote me the specific law, applicable in Georgia, that makes it illegal for someone to be fired because they are/are perceived to be Gay.

You can't BECAUSE THERE ISN'T ONE.

Both Atlanta and Decatur have laws.. They are, the last time I checked, in Georgia.

Tom loses all cred with this assertion. You simply can not fire anyone without serious repercussions for anything other than job performance. I have been a supervisor for over 25 years and have fired easily over a hundred employees. Even in NC...which is a right to work state...you MUST have evidence of poor work performance to fire someone. You can do it ..but...you risk getting hauled in front of the EOC. Take my word for it...YOU BETTER HAVE YOUR SH!T TOGETHER if you are dragged before the EOC for a hearing. I have....and it is not fun.

(08-13-2011 06:44 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Can you help me on how a Gay person should 'fit in'. Would that be to:

1) Not complain and protest real discrimination
2) Lie at work to the question of "what did you do last weekend" or "are you single"
3) Hide off in some dark corner as if we are somehow defective freaks?
4) Accept loud flashy public spectacles like Mardi Gras and NYE from straights but never go out there and do (much less) in public than goes on during those events?

What do workplace behaviors have to do with Children's television? Seriously?

This is way the gay pride movement jumps the shark. I could give a fat rats behind what you do in you bedroom. That's true of some random Bulletin board poster and its true of a coworker.

If the opportunity arises I'll be sure to let you know my beliefs but I am not going to start ignoring and insulting you.

When you decide your agenda includes my kids... well that where I'll start shutting you off and go against anything else you say.