(07-03-2014 05:58 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-03-2014 05:05 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(07-03-2014 01:14 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-03-2014 11:58 AM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(07-03-2014 11:03 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Absolutely legal at least on the Gay issue. Even though this appears to be a confidential questionaire, even if not, it is LEGAL to fire someone for being Gay or Gay supportive. Therefore it is LEGAL to fire someone for not being Gay or Gay supportive. Of course that's not what's happening here.

Tom, the only way for a company to know if you're gay or supportive is if you tell them and it's illegal for them to ask.

Its completely LEGAL for them to ask then fire you for whatever answer you give them. Its also completely LEGAL for them to investigate you and fire you for the mere SUSPICION that you might be Gay (or straight for that matter).

There has been legislation introduced in Congress each session for the last 30 years to resolve this issue. The current iteration is called "The Employment Non-Discrimination Act" or ENDA. It has been blocked, repeatedly, by the Republicans.

It is true, however, that various jurisdictions below the Federal level have enacted workplace protections that cover sexual orientation and/or gender identity. However, since these are not FEDERAL laws, they don't provide the same access to other Federal remedies that inclusion of sexual orientation as a protected class (along with the existing protections held by RELIGION) would provide.

However, in the case of a confidential questionaire attached to a survey, questions as those asked would remain legal.

It WHAT UNIVERSE would EEOC laws NOT protect against this. Question #5 could most certainly be considered encroachment on religious freedom.


Did Obama eliminate EEOC laws with an Executive Order?

Completely legal to ask under Federal Law. Sexual Orientation isn't protected.

Have you actually read the EEOC laws?

Quote:Discrimination against an individual because that person is transgender is discrimination because of sex in violation of Title VII. This is also known as gender identity discrimination. In addition, lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals may bring sex discrimination claims. These may include, for example, allegations of sexual harassment or other kinds of sex discrimination, such as adverse actions taken because of the person's non-conformance with sex-stereotypes.

Right from their website. I think you're wrong.

(07-03-2014 11:03 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  it is LEGAL to fire someone for being Gay or Gay supportive.

As an employer at various times in my career... this is the FIRST time I have EVER heard this, even in Texas.

I think you are suffering from the position that while discrimination for a variety of reasons USED to be legal, they were declared moot by Federal rulings... so while those laws may still be on the books, they are unenforceable. Kind of like the deed on my Bellaire Texas home from the 30's that said that my outhouse had to be at least 5 feet from the property line and I couldn't sell my home to anyone other than a Caucasian without my neighbor's permission. Both of those lines were still on the deed in 2008, but obviously rendered moot by subsequent laws.

Case in point, the SCOTUS agreed with the EEOC in 2012 that trans-gendered discrimination was made illegal by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, yet all of those sites that talk about it being legal to discriminate against gays in 29 states ALSO talk about it being illegal to discriminate against trans-gendered in 33. Mia Macy was the case in question. Interestingly, she sued Eric Holder.

It doesn't surprise me that Democrats would bother wasting time on passing an entirely symbolic law and that Republicans would not want to waste the time, effort and money. You may choose to read more into it than that... but asked a different way... why would Republicans waste a moment fighting for the uninformed or clearly partisan (over facts) vote? They aren't going to win the emotional vote on the issue by saying yes... and the intellectual vote won't like that they wasted time on a moot issue.

I wonder if "None of your ******* business" is an option.

(07-03-2014 06:18 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-03-2014 11:03 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  it is LEGAL to fire someone for being Gay or Gay supportive.

As an employer at various times in my career... this is the FIRST time I have EVER heard this, even in Texas.

I think you are suffering from the position that while discrimination for a variety of reasons USED to be legal, they were declared moot by Federal rulings... so while those laws may still be on the books, they are unenforceable. Kind of like the deed on my Bellaire Texas home from the 30's that said that my outhouse had to be at least 5 feet from the property line and I couldn't sell my home to anyone other than a Caucasian without my neighbor's permission. Both of those lines were still on the deed in 2008, but obviously rendered moot by subsequent laws.

Case in point, the SCOTUS agreed with the EEOC in 2012 that trans-gendered discrimination was made illegal by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, yet all of those sites that talk about it being legal to discriminate against gays in 29 states ALSO talk about it being illegal to discriminate against trans-gendered in 33. Mia Macy was the case in question. Interestingly, she sued Eric Holder.

It doesn't surprise me that Democrats would bother wasting time on passing an entirely symbolic law and that Republicans would not want to waste the time, effort and money. You may choose to read more into it than that... but asked a different way... why would Republicans waste a moment fighting for the uninformed or clearly partisan (over facts) vote? They aren't going to win the emotional vote on the issue by saying yes... and the intellectual vote won't like that they wasted time on a moot issue.

Uh, its LEGAL in Texas to fire someone for being Gay. Its completely legal for some crude 'phobe to literally say "you're fired because you are Gay" under Texas law. Its completely legal in Bellaire to deny housing, employment, and public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation. The EEOC can't do anything unless there's some other second derivative angle to go at.

The Macy case was a narrow ruling and should not be considered applicable to any other cases.

(07-03-2014 06:38 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-03-2014 06:18 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-03-2014 11:03 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  it is LEGAL to fire someone for being Gay or Gay supportive.

As an employer at various times in my career... this is the FIRST time I have EVER heard this, even in Texas.

I think you are suffering from the position that while discrimination for a variety of reasons USED to be legal, they were declared moot by Federal rulings... so while those laws may still be on the books, they are unenforceable. Kind of like the deed on my Bellaire Texas home from the 30's that said that my outhouse had to be at least 5 feet from the property line and I couldn't sell my home to anyone other than a Caucasian without my neighbor's permission. Both of those lines were still on the deed in 2008, but obviously rendered moot by subsequent laws.

Case in point, the SCOTUS agreed with the EEOC in 2012 that trans-gendered discrimination was made illegal by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, yet all of those sites that talk about it being legal to discriminate against gays in 29 states ALSO talk about it being illegal to discriminate against trans-gendered in 33. Mia Macy was the case in question. Interestingly, she sued Eric Holder.

It doesn't surprise me that Democrats would bother wasting time on passing an entirely symbolic law and that Republicans would not want to waste the time, effort and money. You may choose to read more into it than that... but asked a different way... why would Republicans waste a moment fighting for the uninformed or clearly partisan (over facts) vote? They aren't going to win the emotional vote on the issue by saying yes... and the intellectual vote won't like that they wasted time on a moot issue.

Uh, its LEGAL in Texas to fire someone for being Gay. Its completely legal for some crude 'phobe to literally say "you're fired because you are Gay" under Texas law. Its completely legal in Bellaire to deny housing, employment, and public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation. The EEOC can't do anything unless there's some other second derivative angle to go at.

So the EEOC website is wrong... interesting I guess you should call them to correct.

Quote:Discrimination against an individual because that person is transgender is discrimination because of sex in violation of Title VII. This is also known as gender identity discrimination. In addition, lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals may bring sex discrimination claims. These may include, for example, allegations of sexual harassment or other kinds of sex discrimination, such as adverse actions taken because of the person's non-conformance with sex-stereotypes.

(07-03-2014 06:38 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-03-2014 06:18 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-03-2014 11:03 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  it is LEGAL to fire someone for being Gay or Gay supportive.

As an employer at various times in my career... this is the FIRST time I have EVER heard this, even in Texas.

I think you are suffering from the position that while discrimination for a variety of reasons USED to be legal, they were declared moot by Federal rulings... so while those laws may still be on the books, they are unenforceable. Kind of like the deed on my Bellaire Texas home from the 30's that said that my outhouse had to be at least 5 feet from the property line and I couldn't sell my home to anyone other than a Caucasian without my neighbor's permission. Both of those lines were still on the deed in 2008, but obviously rendered moot by subsequent laws.

Case in point, the SCOTUS agreed with the EEOC in 2012 that trans-gendered discrimination was made illegal by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, yet all of those sites that talk about it being legal to discriminate against gays in 29 states ALSO talk about it being illegal to discriminate against trans-gendered in 33. Mia Macy was the case in question. Interestingly, she sued Eric Holder.

It doesn't surprise me that Democrats would bother wasting time on passing an entirely symbolic law and that Republicans would not want to waste the time, effort and money. You may choose to read more into it than that... but asked a different way... why would Republicans waste a moment fighting for the uninformed or clearly partisan (over facts) vote? They aren't going to win the emotional vote on the issue by saying yes... and the intellectual vote won't like that they wasted time on a moot issue.

Uh, its LEGAL in Texas to fire someone for being Gay. Its completely legal for some crude 'phobe to literally say "you're fired because you are Gay" under Texas law. Its completely legal in Bellaire to deny housing, employment, and public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation. The EEOC can't do anything unless there's some other second derivative angle to go at.

The Macy case was a narrow ruling and should not be considered applicable to any other cases.

Uh.....you're not a lawyer. You're "expert" opinion is invalid.

(07-03-2014 06:38 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-03-2014 06:18 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-03-2014 11:03 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  it is LEGAL to fire someone for being Gay or Gay supportive.

As an employer at various times in my career... this is the FIRST time I have EVER heard this, even in Texas.

I think you are suffering from the position that while discrimination for a variety of reasons USED to be legal, they were declared moot by Federal rulings... so while those laws may still be on the books, they are unenforceable. Kind of like the deed on my Bellaire Texas home from the 30's that said that my outhouse had to be at least 5 feet from the property line and I couldn't sell my home to anyone other than a Caucasian without my neighbor's permission. Both of those lines were still on the deed in 2008, but obviously rendered moot by subsequent laws.

Case in point, the SCOTUS agreed with the EEOC in 2012 that trans-gendered discrimination was made illegal by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, yet all of those sites that talk about it being legal to discriminate against gays in 29 states ALSO talk about it being illegal to discriminate against trans-gendered in 33. Mia Macy was the case in question. Interestingly, she sued Eric Holder.

It doesn't surprise me that Democrats would bother wasting time on passing an entirely symbolic law and that Republicans would not want to waste the time, effort and money. You may choose to read more into it than that... but asked a different way... why would Republicans waste a moment fighting for the uninformed or clearly partisan (over facts) vote? They aren't going to win the emotional vote on the issue by saying yes... and the intellectual vote won't like that they wasted time on a moot issue.

Uh, its LEGAL in Texas to fire someone for being Gay. Its completely legal for some crude 'phobe to literally say "you're fired because you are Gay" under Texas law. Its completely legal in Bellaire to deny housing, employment, and public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation. The EEOC can't do anything unless there's some other second derivative angle to go at.

The Macy case was a narrow ruling and should not be considered applicable to any other cases.

Tom, that goes against all the corporate training I've had for over 30 years. Can you provide a link.

(07-03-2014 06:43 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(07-03-2014 06:38 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-03-2014 06:18 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-03-2014 11:03 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  it is LEGAL to fire someone for being Gay or Gay supportive.

As an employer at various times in my career... this is the FIRST time I have EVER heard this, even in Texas.

I think you are suffering from the position that while discrimination for a variety of reasons USED to be legal, they were declared moot by Federal rulings... so while those laws may still be on the books, they are unenforceable. Kind of like the deed on my Bellaire Texas home from the 30's that said that my outhouse had to be at least 5 feet from the property line and I couldn't sell my home to anyone other than a Caucasian without my neighbor's permission. Both of those lines were still on the deed in 2008, but obviously rendered moot by subsequent laws.

Case in point, the SCOTUS agreed with the EEOC in 2012 that trans-gendered discrimination was made illegal by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, yet all of those sites that talk about it being legal to discriminate against gays in 29 states ALSO talk about it being illegal to discriminate against trans-gendered in 33. Mia Macy was the case in question. Interestingly, she sued Eric Holder.

It doesn't surprise me that Democrats would bother wasting time on passing an entirely symbolic law and that Republicans would not want to waste the time, effort and money. You may choose to read more into it than that... but asked a different way... why would Republicans waste a moment fighting for the uninformed or clearly partisan (over facts) vote? They aren't going to win the emotional vote on the issue by saying yes... and the intellectual vote won't like that they wasted time on a moot issue.

Uh, its LEGAL in Texas to fire someone for being Gay. Its completely legal for some crude 'phobe to literally say "you're fired because you are Gay" under Texas law. Its completely legal in Bellaire to deny housing, employment, and public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation. The EEOC can't do anything unless there's some other second derivative angle to go at.

So the EEOC website is wrong... interesting I guess you should call them to correct.

Quote:Discrimination against an individual because that person is transgender is discrimination because of sex in violation of Title VII. This is also known as gender identity discrimination. In addition, lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals may bring sex discrimination claims. These may include, for example, allegations of sexual harassment or other kinds of sex discrimination, such as adverse actions taken because of the person's non-conformance with sex-stereotypes.

Here's the deal. Tom, as usual like liberals of his ilk, has taken a teeny tiny sliver of truth and made it into a monster of a fib. You can fire an employee for being gay AS LONG AS:
1. You are not the federal government
2. You are not a state government
3. You are not a local government
3. You are not in a state that has banned it for private companies
4. You do not have a federal contract
5. You do not have a state contract that bans it
6. You are not in a city/municipality that bans (eg Austin, Dallas, Ft Worth, Houston for sure ... I think San Antonio is also there)
7. You do not work for a company that doesn't allow this (almost all large companies have these policies)

So yeah, if you work at Bob's Country Bunker or Omar's Persian Palace in Nowhere, TX, then yes, your employer--who probably knew you were gay when they hired you--could fire you for being gay, if they really, really wanted to. Of course, if you decided to become straight, then all bets are off. Regardless, I don't really see this bogeyman scenario happening anytime soon because most people outside of the major cities judge your job performance on doing your job...not who you are banging!

(07-04-2014 12:47 AM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(07-03-2014 06:43 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(07-03-2014 06:38 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-03-2014 06:18 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-03-2014 11:03 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  it is LEGAL to fire someone for being Gay or Gay supportive.

As an employer at various times in my career... this is the FIRST time I have EVER heard this, even in Texas.

I think you are suffering from the position that while discrimination for a variety of reasons USED to be legal, they were declared moot by Federal rulings... so while those laws may still be on the books, they are unenforceable. Kind of like the deed on my Bellaire Texas home from the 30's that said that my outhouse had to be at least 5 feet from the property line and I couldn't sell my home to anyone other than a Caucasian without my neighbor's permission. Both of those lines were still on the deed in 2008, but obviously rendered moot by subsequent laws.

Case in point, the SCOTUS agreed with the EEOC in 2012 that trans-gendered discrimination was made illegal by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, yet all of those sites that talk about it being legal to discriminate against gays in 29 states ALSO talk about it being illegal to discriminate against trans-gendered in 33. Mia Macy was the case in question. Interestingly, she sued Eric Holder.

It doesn't surprise me that Democrats would bother wasting time on passing an entirely symbolic law and that Republicans would not want to waste the time, effort and money. You may choose to read more into it than that... but asked a different way... why would Republicans waste a moment fighting for the uninformed or clearly partisan (over facts) vote? They aren't going to win the emotional vote on the issue by saying yes... and the intellectual vote won't like that they wasted time on a moot issue.

Uh, its LEGAL in Texas to fire someone for being Gay. Its completely legal for some crude 'phobe to literally say "you're fired because you are Gay" under Texas law. Its completely legal in Bellaire to deny housing, employment, and public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation. The EEOC can't do anything unless there's some other second derivative angle to go at.

So the EEOC website is wrong... interesting I guess you should call them to correct.

Quote:Discrimination against an individual because that person is transgender is discrimination because of sex in violation of Title VII. This is also known as gender identity discrimination. In addition, lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals may bring sex discrimination claims. These may include, for example, allegations of sexual harassment or other kinds of sex discrimination, such as adverse actions taken because of the person's non-conformance with sex-stereotypes.

Here's the deal. Tom, as usual like liberals of his ilk, has taken a teeny tiny sliver of truth and made it into a monster of a fib. You can fire an employee for being gay AS LONG AS:
1. You are not the federal government
2. You are not a state government
3. You are not a local government
3. You are not in a state that has banned it for private companies
4. You do not have a federal contract
5. You do not have a state contract that bans it
6. You are not in a city/municipality that bans (eg Austin, Dallas, Ft Worth, Houston for sure ... I think San Antonio is also there)
7. You do not work for a company that doesn't allow this (almost all large companies have these policies)

So yeah, if you work at Bob's Country Bunker or Omar's Persian Palace in Nowhere, TX, then yes, your employer--who probably knew you were gay when they hired you--could fire you for being gay, if they really, really wanted to. Of course, if you decided to become straight, then all bets are off. Regardless, I don't really see this bogeyman scenario happening anytime soon because most people outside of the major cities judge your job performance on doing your job...not who you are banging!

Uh, actually Houston just passed a ENDA ordinance only last month. The Tea Party/GOP will be asking to voters to reauthorize firing people for being Gay in a referendum in November.

The number of persons not covered by employment protections is quite large and accounts, by some estimates, over half the wage earners in the USA. Precisely those living in suburbs like Collin County, Texas or Hattiesburg, Miss. are those that need these protections.

As far as governmental employment goes, I know of at least 3 cases off the top of my head where Gay persons have either been fired or threatened with dismissal simply because they are openly Gay. In at least one case, the Hattiesburg Sheriffs Office (I can't remember which of the two counties it was) said in open court that they don't have to defend the challenge to the dismissal because 'we can fire anyone for being Gay'.

And any protections thin out even further when it comes to private employment in 'at will' states.

Finally, there appear to be little, if any, protections available for persons working in many industries where taxpayer dollars heavily subsidize private businesses masquerading as churches in the provision of higher education, social services, and healthcare.

I stand by my comments. I'll revisit them when Exxon Mobil decides to add sexual orientation to their employee handbook as a protected class.

It is true that many companies have agreed to make themselves accountable to non-discrimination (Exxon Mobil not included). But these protections are rarely about protecting employees who are well educated and presumably have other employment options. Its usually about the worker who finds themselves in a position where they need to be employed in suburban areas or small cities and isn't highly educated. Or is simply transgendered just about anywhere.

It remains to be seen how much teeth Obama's very recent executive order will take regarding government contracting. But even if it has teeth, it will probably be the first EO repealed by any potential Republican administration, which was the case in Ohio and Virginia when GOP Governors took over.

(07-04-2014 07:36 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-04-2014 12:47 AM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(07-03-2014 06:43 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(07-03-2014 06:38 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-03-2014 06:18 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  As an employer at various times in my career... this is the FIRST time I have EVER heard this, even in Texas.

I think you are suffering from the position that while discrimination for a variety of reasons USED to be legal, they were declared moot by Federal rulings... so while those laws may still be on the books, they are unenforceable. Kind of like the deed on my Bellaire Texas home from the 30's that said that my outhouse had to be at least 5 feet from the property line and I couldn't sell my home to anyone other than a Caucasian without my neighbor's permission. Both of those lines were still on the deed in 2008, but obviously rendered moot by subsequent laws.

Case in point, the SCOTUS agreed with the EEOC in 2012 that trans-gendered discrimination was made illegal by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, yet all of those sites that talk about it being legal to discriminate against gays in 29 states ALSO talk about it being illegal to discriminate against trans-gendered in 33. Mia Macy was the case in question. Interestingly, she sued Eric Holder.

It doesn't surprise me that Democrats would bother wasting time on passing an entirely symbolic law and that Republicans would not want to waste the time, effort and money. You may choose to read more into it than that... but asked a different way... why would Republicans waste a moment fighting for the uninformed or clearly partisan (over facts) vote? They aren't going to win the emotional vote on the issue by saying yes... and the intellectual vote won't like that they wasted time on a moot issue.

Uh, its LEGAL in Texas to fire someone for being Gay. Its completely legal for some crude 'phobe to literally say "you're fired because you are Gay" under Texas law. Its completely legal in Bellaire to deny housing, employment, and public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation. The EEOC can't do anything unless there's some other second derivative angle to go at.

So the EEOC website is wrong... interesting I guess you should call them to correct.

Quote:Discrimination against an individual because that person is transgender is discrimination because of sex in violation of Title VII. This is also known as gender identity discrimination. In addition, lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals may bring sex discrimination claims. These may include, for example, allegations of sexual harassment or other kinds of sex discrimination, such as adverse actions taken because of the person's non-conformance with sex-stereotypes.

Here's the deal. Tom, as usual like liberals of his ilk, has taken a teeny tiny sliver of truth and made it into a monster of a fib. You can fire an employee for being gay AS LONG AS:
1. You are not the federal government
2. You are not a state government
3. You are not a local government
3. You are not in a state that has banned it for private companies
4. You do not have a federal contract
5. You do not have a state contract that bans it
6. You are not in a city/municipality that bans (eg Austin, Dallas, Ft Worth, Houston for sure ... I think San Antonio is also there)
7. You do not work for a company that doesn't allow this (almost all large companies have these policies)

So yeah, if you work at Bob's Country Bunker or Omar's Persian Palace in Nowhere, TX, then yes, your employer--who probably knew you were gay when they hired you--could fire you for being gay, if they really, really wanted to. Of course, if you decided to become straight, then all bets are off. Regardless, I don't really see this bogeyman scenario happening anytime soon because most people outside of the major cities judge your job performance on doing your job...not who you are banging!

Uh, actually Houston just passed a ENDA ordinance only last month. The Tea Party/GOP will be asking to voters to reauthorize firing people for being Gay in a referendum in November.

The number of persons not covered by employment protections is quite large and accounts, by some estimates, over half the wage earners in the USA. Precisely those living in suburbs like Collin County, Texas or Hattiesburg, Miss. are those that need these protections.

As far as governmental employment goes, I know of at least 3 cases off the top of my head where Gay persons have either been fired or threatened with dismissal simply because they are openly Gay. In at least one case, the Hattiesburg Sheriffs Office (I can't remember which of the two counties it was) said in open court that they don't have to defend the challenge to the dismissal because 'we can fire anyone for being Gay'.

And any protections thin out even further when it comes to private employment in 'at will' states.

Finally, there appear to be little, if any, protections available for persons working in many industries where taxpayer dollars heavily subsidize private businesses masquerading as churches in the provision of higher education, social services, and healthcare.

I stand by my comments. I'll revisit them when Exxon Mobil decides to add sexual orientation to their employee handbook as a protected class.

It is true that many companies have agreed to make themselves accountable to non-discrimination (Exxon Mobil not included). But these protections are rarely about protecting employees who are well educated and presumably have other employment options. Its usually about the worker who finds themselves in a position where they need to be employed in suburban areas or small cities and isn't highly educated. Or is simply transgendered just about anywhere.

It remains to be seen how much teeth Obama's very recent executive order will take regarding government contracting. But even if it has teeth, it will probably be the first EO repealed by any potential Republican administration, which was the case in Ohio and Virginia when GOP Governors took over.

Personally, I do not see a need for these laws at all. Very rarely is someone actually fired for being a part of any of these groups. Usually the person is a crappy employee or just an obnoxious idiot and they are fired. Because they are gay, a woman, a minority, etc is the reason why they sue because they know that's easiest way to try and get money. But, the reality is that no one actually cared about that stuff.

(07-04-2014 11:47 AM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(07-04-2014 07:36 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-04-2014 12:47 AM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(07-03-2014 06:43 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(07-03-2014 06:38 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Uh, its LEGAL in Texas to fire someone for being Gay. Its completely legal for some crude 'phobe to literally say "you're fired because you are Gay" under Texas law. Its completely legal in Bellaire to deny housing, employment, and public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation. The EEOC can't do anything unless there's some other second derivative angle to go at.

So the EEOC website is wrong... interesting I guess you should call them to correct.

Quote:Discrimination against an individual because that person is transgender is discrimination because of sex in violation of Title VII. This is also known as gender identity discrimination. In addition, lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals may bring sex discrimination claims. These may include, for example, allegations of sexual harassment or other kinds of sex discrimination, such as adverse actions taken because of the person's non-conformance with sex-stereotypes.

Here's the deal. Tom, as usual like liberals of his ilk, has taken a teeny tiny sliver of truth and made it into a monster of a fib. You can fire an employee for being gay AS LONG AS:
1. You are not the federal government
2. You are not a state government
3. You are not a local government
3. You are not in a state that has banned it for private companies
4. You do not have a federal contract
5. You do not have a state contract that bans it
6. You are not in a city/municipality that bans (eg Austin, Dallas, Ft Worth, Houston for sure ... I think San Antonio is also there)
7. You do not work for a company that doesn't allow this (almost all large companies have these policies)

So yeah, if you work at Bob's Country Bunker or Omar's Persian Palace in Nowhere, TX, then yes, your employer--who probably knew you were gay when they hired you--could fire you for being gay, if they really, really wanted to. Of course, if you decided to become straight, then all bets are off. Regardless, I don't really see this bogeyman scenario happening anytime soon because most people outside of the major cities judge your job performance on doing your job...not who you are banging!

Uh, actually Houston just passed a ENDA ordinance only last month. The Tea Party/GOP will be asking to voters to reauthorize firing people for being Gay in a referendum in November.

The number of persons not covered by employment protections is quite large and accounts, by some estimates, over half the wage earners in the USA. Precisely those living in suburbs like Collin County, Texas or Hattiesburg, Miss. are those that need these protections.

As far as governmental employment goes, I know of at least 3 cases off the top of my head where Gay persons have either been fired or threatened with dismissal simply because they are openly Gay. In at least one case, the Hattiesburg Sheriffs Office (I can't remember which of the two counties it was) said in open court that they don't have to defend the challenge to the dismissal because 'we can fire anyone for being Gay'.

And any protections thin out even further when it comes to private employment in 'at will' states.

Finally, there appear to be little, if any, protections available for persons working in many industries where taxpayer dollars heavily subsidize private businesses masquerading as churches in the provision of higher education, social services, and healthcare.

I stand by my comments. I'll revisit them when Exxon Mobil decides to add sexual orientation to their employee handbook as a protected class.

It is true that many companies have agreed to make themselves accountable to non-discrimination (Exxon Mobil not included). But these protections are rarely about protecting employees who are well educated and presumably have other employment options. Its usually about the worker who finds themselves in a position where they need to be employed in suburban areas or small cities and isn't highly educated. Or is simply transgendered just about anywhere.

It remains to be seen how much teeth Obama's very recent executive order will take regarding government contracting. But even if it has teeth, it will probably be the first EO repealed by any potential Republican administration, which was the case in Ohio and Virginia when GOP Governors took over.

Personally, I do not see a need for these laws at all. Very rarely is someone actually fired for being a part of any of these groups. Usually the person is a crappy employee or just an obnoxious idiot and they are fired. Because they are gay, a woman, a minority, etc is the reason why they sue because they know that's easiest way to try and get money. But, the reality is that no one actually cared about that stuff.

Except GayTom and his brethren.

Pretty soon you will see a gay guy sue his employer for not providing a private area for the gay guy
to have sex, during a work break. Since being promiscuous is part and parcel of gay the employer is
discriminating against the gay employee.

Pretty soon Superfly will post something that makes any logical sense. Not holding my breath though.

(07-04-2014 12:20 PM)Cali_Cat Wrote:  Pretty soon Superfly will post something that makes any logical sense. Not holding my breath though.

Dude, what he's saying is the gays (and other minorities) complain about not being treated like everyone else and then don't want to be treated like everyone else - the want to be treated better.

If people want to act different they shouldn't ***** when they're treated different.

(07-04-2014 12:24 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(07-04-2014 12:20 PM)Cali_Cat Wrote:  Pretty soon Superfly will post something that makes any logical sense. Not holding my breath though.

Dude, what he's saying is the gays (and other minorities) complain about not being treated like everyone else and then don't want to be treated like everyone else - the want to be treated better.

If people want to act different they shouldn't ***** when they're treated different.

And, let's say not all gays and minorities. You have to separate out the people that just want to live their lives from the activists that want to shove their lives down your throat.

(07-04-2014 01:35 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(07-04-2014 12:24 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(07-04-2014 12:20 PM)Cali_Cat Wrote:  Pretty soon Superfly will post something that makes any logical sense. Not holding my breath though.

Dude, what he's saying is the gays (and other minorities) complain about not being treated like everyone else and then don't want to be treated like everyone else - the want to be treated better.

If people want to act different they shouldn't ***** when they're treated different.

And, let's say not all gays and minorities. You have to separate out the people that just want to live their lives from the activists that want to shove their lives down your throat.

This

It's a huge disservice to the black community to liken this to the civil rights movement in any way shape or form.

(07-04-2014 12:20 PM)Cali_Cat Wrote:  Pretty soon Superfly will post something that makes any logical sense. Not holding my breath though.

You mean like this,

Crosses in every room at Washingon D.C.’s Catholic University of America are a human rights violation that prevent Muslim students from praying.

That’s the complaint to the Washington, D.C. Office of Human Rights filed by a professor from rival George Washington University across town.

Read more at http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/news...Ufo5X0M.99

By Oren Dorell, USA TODAY
Some public schools and universities are granting Muslim requests for prayer times, prayer rooms and ritual foot baths, prompting a debate on whether Islam is being given preferential treatment over other religions.

The University of Michigan at Dearborn is planning to build foot baths for Muslim students who wash their feet before prayer. An elementary school in San Diego created an extra recess period for Muslim pupils to pray.

At George Mason University in Fairfax, Va., Muslim students using a "meditation space" laid out Muslim prayer rugs and separated men and women in accordance with their Islamic beliefs.

Critics see a double standard and an organized attempt to push public conformance with Islamic law.

"What (school officials) are doing … is to give Muslim students religious benefits that they do not give any other religion right now," says Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel at the Thomas More Law Center, an advocacy group for Christians.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nati...ools_N.htm

'Flamboyant' ex-CNN employee who wore mariachi suits to work launches $60 million discrimination lawsuit claiming he was fired for being gay - See more at: http://www.manewsday.com/national/57429-...DlFXG.dpuf

Sounds like it's time to break up the banks.

(07-04-2014 01:35 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(07-04-2014 12:24 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(07-04-2014 12:20 PM)Cali_Cat Wrote:  Pretty soon Superfly will post something that makes any logical sense. Not holding my breath though.

Dude, what he's saying is the gays (and other minorities) complain about not being treated like everyone else and then don't want to be treated like everyone else - the want to be treated better.

If people want to act different they shouldn't ***** when they're treated different.

And, let's say not all gays and minorities. You have to separate out the people that just want to live their lives from the activists that want to shove their lives down your throat.

You're correct, not every minority is a loon. Some of them are quite respectable.