(08-14-2011 10:58 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Why don't Christians at the workplace have their analog to these groups. First of all, many companies do have Christian groups. But they tend to cause A LOT of problems as, unlike Gay or minority affinity groups, they usually prothelize. No one is joining a Gay group at work unless they are Gay.

Oh, I gotta hear this. Which companies have Christian groups? Please, do tell.

...waiting...

(08-14-2011 11:28 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-14-2011 05:27 PM)Rebel Wrote:  Go to San Fran. See how you're treated by the liberals there as a conservative. Would I be protected, Tom?

Somehow I doubt it.

The question of employment protection on the basis of political advocacy is an interesting one. On a Federal level, there is no protection. Most states don't protect either. I know of one state, Wisconsin, that does prohibit discrimination on that category.

There have been a few cases of that recently. I know that a woman in Huntsville Alabama was fired from her job for having an Obama bumper sticker on her car.

As far as any possible integration of yourself into the San Francisco area, I really don't know that much about SF (Believe it or not, most Gays don't go to SF as much as straights think - I personally can't stand the place). I don't like the weather there. I think the people are too far to the left -even for me - and its ruinously expensive. And I think SF is dirty. I like Southern California much better.

Micheal Savage (nee Wiener) lives there. He's as right wing as they come. I have a college roommate who is on the central committee of the GOP in SF County/City. He seems to be doing well and prefers living there to his native South. And he's married (to a woman) and has kids. So its certainly doable for a Conservative.

I think the GOP vote in SF is 11%. And in the metro area its around 30%. That's a lot of people. There are six million people living in the Bay Area, so that translates to about 1.8 million GOP supporters. But most Republicans in the Bay Area would be considered RINO's anywhere else. I think that anytime one side becomes too powerful it creates a desire by some people to rein in that power.

I don't think you want protection. I think you want exception. ...and I'm probably the most gay-friendly libertarian/conservative on the board.

(08-14-2011 11:36 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(08-14-2011 10:58 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Why don't Christians at the workplace have their analog to these groups. First of all, many companies do have Christian groups. But they tend to cause A LOT of problems as, unlike Gay or minority affinity groups, they usually prothelize.

Ok so Christians can do just about anything they want...

Quote:I'll give you a personal example. I was working for a Fortune 500 company in California a decade or so ago. A new director was brought in and in his first meeting with his DIRECT REPORTS asked if he could start the meeting off with a prayer. The room had 2 Gay men, 1 Lesbian, 2 Athiests, and 1 Jewish person in it as well as 10 other persons of various demoniations and intensity).

It's amazing in this world, which you say wants to squash homosexuals that a fortune 50 meeting was 20% queer.

Quote:The new manager was a former LDS mission president (which he foolishly put on his resume

Well your first problem is assuming LDS are Christians, but continue

Quote:I actually told the straight people who wanted to discriminate against him for that in the interview process that they should ignore his religious affiliation and concentrate on his qualifications).

Oh so you were masking the discrimination

I stood up and said (to my new boss) that I find the presentation of a prayer in the workplace environment to be very disturbing and that I would be at Human Resources before he got to Amen.[/qujote]

In a simpler time one could have politely excused themselves from the room. I once took a class on the Irish Language and many of the greetings read as prayers to saints and Mary. That's a no-no for me so I just left the room.

Then again at the age of 19 I was more an adult than you are now.

Quote:He was fired that day. Why? First of all, it is inappropriate for a supervisor to start a work meeting in that way because his direct reports might feel pressure to go along to get along with the boss.

Kind of like the when I have to sit through workplace sensitivity which pressures me to go against my conscious.

Quote:People don't like prothelizers.

Except gay ones on sesame stret, seems some people love those!

Quote:It creates tension and resentment in the office. Remember, that harrassment, per federal law, is not based upon the intent of the person making the action or statement but on the impact of the recipient.

Yup, thats the base fault in the law. I have no control over how you take a joke, or view a scripture on my desk. It's not enough that we ask people to act kindly towards each other.. Noooooooo We need to ross check with every person around.

Quote:And if you peruse some of the comments in here, you can see that there is a lot of animosity against Gay people.

I've seen a lot towards others as well.
[/quote]

The company I worked for in California was not representative. It had a lot of Gay employees.

Hey, so long as I have the same rights as everyone else, including equal compensation for equal work, then there isn't a problem.

It is inappropriate to bring religion into the workplace. Especially if you are doing this in a required meeting with your direct reports. It borders on coercion.

Look, if someone wants to say that Gay people are filthy and disgusting, and they deserve to be discriminated against, that is going to color the opinion that Gay people have towards those advocating hatred towards them.

There's a reason why people have to go through workplace training. Because in the workplace, they will have to interact with persons that are outside their normal social groups. Unfortunately, people don't always act in a professional manner. And that is why companies attempt to train their employees to be able to identify and reduce some of the most egregious abuses. Not everyone is white, male, straight, and fundamentalist. And unfortunately, sometimes people in the majority (of power) assume that everyone thinks like them or that they get to make the rules.

(08-14-2011 11:39 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(08-14-2011 10:58 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Why don't Christians at the workplace have their analog to these groups. First of all, many companies do have Christian groups. But they tend to cause A LOT of problems as, unlike Gay or minority affinity groups, they usually prothelize. No one is joining a Gay group at work unless they are Gay.

Oh, I gotta hear this. Which companies have Christian groups? Please, do tell.

...waiting...

Some companies are in and of themselves "Christian groups". For example, Chick-Fil-A, Amway, Micheals, and Hobby Lobby. Where the stated goal of the company is to advance a fundamentalist message. Name one company whose stated goal is to advance the Gay and Lesbian message.

(08-14-2011 11:47 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Look, if someone wants to say that Gay people are filthy and disgusting, and they deserve to be discriminated against, that is going to color the opinion that Gay people have towards those advocating hatred towards them.

Kind of like calling someone a bigot because they think homosexuality is a sin? Mind you I am not saying I am better than you, lord know I have my own sins to deal with, but does my faith make me a bigot? If I don't at in any negative way based on it?

Quote:There's a reason why people have to go through workplace training. Because in the workplace, they will have to interact with persons that are outside their normal social groups.

How is that different than life?

Quote:Unfortunately, people don't always act in a professional manner. And that is why companies attempt to train their employees to be able to identify and reduce some of the most egregious abuses.

Let's be honest what you and I consider egregious may differ greatly. These sensitivity training things go way over the top.

Quote:Not everyone is white, male, straight, and fundamentalist. And unfortunately, sometimes people in the majority (of power) assume that everyone thinks like them or that they get to make the rules.

And sometimes self righteous people in the minority thinks that people should be retrained to think like them..

(08-14-2011 11:40 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(08-14-2011 11:28 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-14-2011 05:27 PM)Rebel Wrote:  Go to San Fran. See how you're treated by the liberals there as a conservative. Would I be protected, Tom?

Somehow I doubt it.

The question of employment protection on the basis of political advocacy is an interesting one. On a Federal level, there is no protection. Most states don't protect either. I know of one state, Wisconsin, that does prohibit discrimination on that category.

There have been a few cases of that recently. I know that a woman in Huntsville Alabama was fired from her job for having an Obama bumper sticker on her car.

As far as any possible integration of yourself into the San Francisco area, I really don't know that much about SF (Believe it or not, most Gays don't go to SF as much as straights think - I personally can't stand the place). I don't like the weather there. I think the people are too far to the left -even for me - and its ruinously expensive. And I think SF is dirty. I like Southern California much better.

Micheal Savage (nee Wiener) lives there. He's as right wing as they come. I have a college roommate who is on the central committee of the GOP in SF County/City. He seems to be doing well and prefers living there to his native South. And he's married (to a woman) and has kids. So its certainly doable for a Conservative.

I think the GOP vote in SF is 11%. And in the metro area its around 30%. That's a lot of people. There are six million people living in the Bay Area, so that translates to about 1.8 million GOP supporters. But most Republicans in the Bay Area would be considered RINO's anywhere else. I think that anytime one side becomes too powerful it creates a desire by some people to rein in that power.

I don't think you want protection. I think you want exception. ...and I'm probably the most gay-friendly libertarian/conservative on the board.

Exception no... Just equal protection under the law. And equal pay for equal work. And non-discrimination for corporate recipients of taxpayer funds.

Will passing marriage equality and non-discrimination legislation end the abuse of Gay Americans? No. But it will stop the most egregious abuses.

(08-15-2011 12:23 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(08-14-2011 11:47 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Look, if someone wants to say that Gay people are filthy and disgusting, and they deserve to be discriminated against, that is going to color the opinion that Gay people have towards those advocating hatred towards them.

Kind of like calling someone a bigot because they think homosexuality is a sin? Mind you I am not saying I am better than you, lord know I have my own sins to deal with, but does my faith make me a bigot? If I don't at in any negative way based on it?

Quote:There's a reason why people have to go through workplace training. Because in the workplace, they will have to interact with persons that are outside their normal social groups.

How is that different than life?

Quote:Unfortunately, people don't always act in a professional manner. And that is why companies attempt to train their employees to be able to identify and reduce some of the most egregious abuses.

Let's be honest what you and I consider egregious may differ greatly. These sensitivity training things go way over the top.

Quote:Not everyone is white, male, straight, and fundamentalist. And unfortunately, sometimes people in the majority (of power) assume that everyone thinks like them or that they get to make the rules.

And sometimes self righteous people in the minority thinks that people should be retrained to think like them..

You either refuse to see that discrimination against Gay persons exists, you support that discrimination, or you just think your group should have special treatment by society.

I'll give you another example. How about a Doctor who wishes to practice in Pensacola, Florida. What hospital can he work for that will pay him equal pay for equal work? He can work at one of the six hospitals there. Do you think that this discrimination has an impact on him? And that's just stated discrimination. And all of those hospitals were built using taxpayer funds.

Look, of course I'm going to be more focused on justice for Gay people. Because I am the one being discriminated against. It impacts me to an extent that you have difficulty seeing.

You seem to have trouble with the concept that Gay people do not want to plead for equal treatment, we should have that by law. For us to have to plead for equal treatment means that equal treatment is somehow some sort of gift by the majority, rather than an unailenable right.

(08-11-2011 10:43 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-11-2011 10:20 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(08-11-2011 10:09 PM)CountryRedHawk Wrote:  

(08-11-2011 08:54 PM)Paul M Wrote:  So you stance on shoving the gay agenda down the throats of 3 year olds would be?

It's no different than shoving your Christian agenda down a 3 year olds throat.

(See, that works on any group.)

I'm agnostic.

I don't watch Sesame Street so I could be wrong but I don't think they push Jesus.

Still don't know your position on pushing a gay agenda on an unsuspecting, captive, innocent audience.

If you aren't religious, then what is your rationale for opposing Gay characters being around children. Its not like their relationship is sexual or anything.

Seriously, Gay people exist. And they're not going back into the closet. Simply acknowleging reality might be useful.

If you're upset about Gays being presented as valuable members of our society in childrens programming, would you be upset if Jews or Muslims or Christians or Mexicans are presented as valuable members of our society to the same age group? Being a member of a religion IS a choice (being Gay might or might not be a choice). I think we all have an interest in teaching tolerance of others so that we can have a modicum of peace in this country we will ALL continue to share.

I don't think that children are a 'captive audience' over at PBS. When I think 'captive audience' I think back to the fundamentalist teachers and football coaches using the schools as a vehicle to sell fundamentalism during practices and school times when I was a child.

And the government implicitly funds lots of Christian childrens programming through all those 'religious broadcasters licenses' that come at a small fraction of a commercial license. And those sites do use programming to push an agenda at our kids.

They will go back in the closet if they start taking ass beatings (and not the kind they want) like they used to back in the 50's. This show will be dead to alot of parents if this happens

(08-15-2011 12:21 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-14-2011 11:39 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(08-14-2011 10:58 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Why don't Christians at the workplace have their analog to these groups. First of all, many companies do have Christian groups. But they tend to cause A LOT of problems as, unlike Gay or minority affinity groups, they usually prothelize. No one is joining a Gay group at work unless they are Gay.

Oh, I gotta hear this. Which companies have Christian groups? Please, do tell.

...waiting...

Some companies are in and of themselves "Christian groups". For example, Chick-Fil-A, Amway, Micheals, and Hobby Lobby. Where the stated goal of the company is to advance a fundamentalist message. Name one company whose stated goal is to advance the Gay and Lesbian message.

CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX... they all have or have had television series produced to portray Gays and Lesbians in a positive light. Name one series that was truly about Christians. Over the past few years several have portrayed Christians in a negative light. The companies you mention don't have employees walking around with Bibles preaching in the business establishment. All the businesses mentioned, except Amway which I have no idea, are very successful companies because of their outstanding service and quality.

(08-14-2011 11:11 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-13-2011 07:18 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(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:  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.

Name one tea party endorsed member of congress that supported a repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell or that supports marriage equality. Or that supports the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

I call BS on "the Tea Party isn't anti-Gay" meme. While there may be individual members of the Tea Party that support some measures of greater justice for Gay Americans, I cannot think of ONE SINGLE tea partier elected anywhere that has done so.

When I see tea party.. I see Michelle Bachmann. Or Alan West. For me, its not how you feel, but how those you support VOTE in congress.

I'm not saying this to be pissy. But I sincerely ask you to help me find ONE elected tea party Congressman or Senator that supports any measure of Gay equality in the form of actual legislation.

Seeing as how Ron Paul started the TP movement...I say this question answers itself. Everything he stands for involves personal liberty...including yours.

(08-14-2011 11:15 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-14-2011 07:55 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-14-2011 05:28 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Texas is a right to work state. Employers don't need to state a reason for cutting someone loose. Just as you don't have to give a reason why you are quitting. With larger co. HR dept. Has the final oversight. What's the beef here?

You don't need a reason for "laying someone off or eliminating a job" but you damn well better be careful about why you fire someone. You better have have gone through the proper warning procedures and have documentation. I have never "fired" anyone...they "fired" themselves..because they f'ed up on the job and I had them dead to rights and had backup... I went through the grinder of a court procedure one time...I learned my lesson. You fire someone if you wish and most of the time, you will get away with it because most people are too ignorant of their rights to do anything about it. Take my word...It is not worth the gamble. The EOC hearings are VERY pro worker and if you loose...it is not only embarrassing but costly. Fortunately for me...the time I got dragged before the EOC...the worker lied on the stand and got caught. I was not though prepared. That has not happened again.

Actually, The EEOC has no jurisdiction in cases involving workers being fired on the basis of real or percieved sexual orientation. We would like to have our group included in those protections.

My understanding is that it is really pretty hard to prove discrimination through the EEOC. There are usually a lot of ways for an employer to claim performance or other reasons for the layoff.

No...You can not fire someone on anything other than job performance and you MUST have documentation. The exception is in the case of criminal activity. Obviously an employer has the right to fire someone that commits a crime on it's premises. Have you actually been dragged before a hearing? I have...twice. Take my word for it...it is not a business friendly proceeding. They scrutinize every detail of a complaint.

(08-15-2011 12:21 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-14-2011 11:39 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(08-14-2011 10:58 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Why don't Christians at the workplace have their analog to these groups. First of all, many companies do have Christian groups. But they tend to cause A LOT of problems as, unlike Gay or minority affinity groups, they usually prothelize. No one is joining a Gay group at work unless they are Gay.

Oh, I gotta hear this. Which companies have Christian groups? Please, do tell.

...waiting...

Some companies are in and of themselves "Christian groups". For example, Chick-Fil-A, Amway, Micheals, and Hobby Lobby. Where the stated goal of the company is to advance a fundamentalist message. Name one company whose stated goal is to advance the Gay and Lesbian message.

Hollywood.

Cfb, thats f/ucking uncalled for.

Why are you for the suppression of the Constitution? You know the whole freedom of religion thing. Why shouldn't a company start their day with a prayer if they so choose? I don't pray but it doesn't bothers me if others do. Tough if it did. Kind of like sucking dick. I don't but it's not my concern if others do.

(08-15-2011 01:07 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  You either refuse to see that discrimination against Gay persons exists, you support that discrimination, or you just think your group should have special treatment by society.

Or I see it as less than African Americans suffer and more in line with the attitudes you seem to have towards Christians.

Quote:I'll give you another example. How about a Doctor who wishes to practice in Pensacola, Florida. What hospital can he work for that will pay him equal pay for equal work? He can work at one of the six hospitals there. Do you think that this discrimination has an impact on him? And that's just stated discrimination. And all of those hospitals were built using taxpayer funds.

We have been over this. A hospital is bound to pay a single person the same salary. The fact homosexuals can not get married is not their fault.

Quote:Look, of course I'm going to be more focused on justice for Gay people. Because I am the one being discriminated against. It impacts me to an extent that you have difficulty seeing.

Funny, the true mark of compassion is seing the struggles of others and not selfishly focusing on your own.

Quote:You seem to have trouble with the concept that Gay people do not want to plead for equal treatment, we should have that by law.

You seem to have trouble with the fact they don't stop there. They want my kids to be read the story "daddies room mate and heather has two mommies, and Tango Makes Three". The want public schools to be indoctrination centers.

(08-14-2011 11:37 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Uh.. can you please answer my question regarding how a Gay man, married to a non-US citizen male, can LIVE in the same country with that spouse?

He can file for a visa and then a green card like every other person who wants to stay here.

Quote:Is that a benefit or a right?

A benefit in every sense of the word.

Quote:Somehow, you seem to think the right to live in the same house with the person they love is about money.

Your entire argument about gay rights revolves around money and state benefits you want to receive that are granted by the state to married couples. The state grants benefits based on what is advantageous to the state. It is advantageous for the state for a man and woman to marry. Two men, or two women, marrying yields absolutely no benefit to the state.

Your argument is about money and state granted benefits. You try to frame it about love because you have more success tugging at people's emotions since there is no logical foundation for your argument.

What the gay movement doesn't seem to realize is that as long as they're militant, the blood in the water is their own...