(07-03-2014 10:09 PM)smn1256 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.

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.

You can argue this, Tom... but I'll let my years of experience and training guide me as well.

It doesn't serve your argument well to insist that people's life experiences are wrong, and your 'fantasy' is correct.

I'd love a link to the laws you say exist, and more importantly, I'd love to see a court case where what you say happened, happened.

Macy's case... narrow or not... certainly would be in direct violation of the laws you say exist.

(07-04-2014 07:36 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  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 if the laws in Mississippi are like the ones in South Carolina (and I imagine they are) he would be right. In SC Sheriffs (and every other local elected official) can fire you for anything. He could have fired the employee because instead of liking the BASSMASTER fishing series he preferred FLW while the Sheriff was a life member of BASS and there isn't anything you can do about it. When you work for an elected official like that you serve at the convenience of the elected official.

There is good and bad in having a policy like that. The good is it allows a new regime to rid the organization of cancers within the ranks. A prime example of that is when Jim Matthews was elected Sheriff of Kershaw County a few years back. He cut a ton of cancer out of that department and turned around an agency with a reputation where about the best thing you could say about it was that they were lazy.

The bad is the potential for abuse is there and it happens. My uncle had a friend in the SC Guard who worked 20+ years at a nearby Sheriff's Dept and was regarded by anyone who knew him as a damn good cop. His primary job at the time was training and overseeing the special operations team, mainly their bloodhound unit which was a top notch unit. The Sheriff he worked for lost a primary challenge to a disgruntled former employee and because it was pretty much a straight ticket county the disgruntled employee was elected Sheriff and cleaned house of anybody who wasn't one of his cronies. The man who replaced him wasn't even a certified instructor, and the new Sheriff was quoted as saying he was qualified for the job because he had raised coon dogs all his life and knew how to work dogs. As you can imagine the reputation of this agency plummeted, and two Sheriffs later is just starting to get turned around. Luckily, my uncle's friend was able to get hired on at another agency fairly quickly and is now enjoying the mostly retired life working a couple months out the year as an adviser for law enforcement and rescue canine teams.


Now, I was directly involved in hiring for a SC governmental agency who did not directly work for an elected official and I can assure you that when I starting working in the hiring process in the late 1990's we were told that under no circumstances could we ask about someone's sexual preferences, and if they tried to bring it up we were to stop the interviewee at once and not include any mention of it in our reports.

(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.

When are you going to come out... as johny0?

(07-06-2014 02:00 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(07-04-2014 07:36 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  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 if the laws in Mississippi are like the ones in South Carolina (and I imagine they are) he would be right. In SC Sheriffs (and every other local elected official) can fire you for anything. He could have fired the employee because instead of liking the BASSMASTER fishing series he preferred FLW while the Sheriff was a life member of BASS and there isn't anything you can do about it. When you work for an elected official like that you serve at the convenience of the elected official.

There is good and bad in having a policy like that. The good is it allows a new regime to rid the organization of cancers within the ranks. A prime example of that is when Jim Matthews was elected Sheriff of Kershaw County a few years back. He cut a ton of cancer out of that department and turned around an agency with a reputation where about the best thing you could say about it was that they were lazy.

The bad is the potential for abuse is there and it happens. My uncle had a friend in the SC Guard who worked 20+ years at a nearby Sheriff's Dept and was regarded by anyone who knew him as a damn good cop. His primary job at the time was training and overseeing the special operations team, mainly their bloodhound unit which was a top notch unit. The Sheriff he worked for lost a primary challenge to a disgruntled former employee and because it was pretty much a straight ticket county the disgruntled employee was elected Sheriff and cleaned house of anybody who wasn't one of his cronies. The man who replaced him wasn't even a certified instructor, and the new Sheriff was quoted as saying he was qualified for the job because he had raised coon dogs all his life and knew how to work dogs. As you can imagine the reputation of this agency plummeted, and two Sheriffs later is just starting to get turned around. Luckily, my uncle's friend was able to get hired on at another agency fairly quickly and is now enjoying the mostly retired life working a couple months out the year as an adviser for law enforcement and rescue canine teams.


Now, I was directly involved in hiring for a SC governmental agency who did not directly work for an elected official and I can assure you that when I starting working in the hiring process in the late 1990's we were told that under no circumstances could we ask about someone's sexual preferences, and if they tried to bring it up we were to stop the interviewee at once and not include any mention of it in our reports.

Yea, but the Police Chief in Latta, SC was nearly terminated for being a Lesbian. To my utter shock (pleasant), she was reinstated, but not due to any protections under the law.

(07-06-2014 09:46 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 02:00 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(07-04-2014 07:36 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  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 if the laws in Mississippi are like the ones in South Carolina (and I imagine they are) he would be right. In SC Sheriffs (and every other local elected official) can fire you for anything. He could have fired the employee because instead of liking the BASSMASTER fishing series he preferred FLW while the Sheriff was a life member of BASS and there isn't anything you can do about it. When you work for an elected official like that you serve at the convenience of the elected official.

There is good and bad in having a policy like that. The good is it allows a new regime to rid the organization of cancers within the ranks. A prime example of that is when Jim Matthews was elected Sheriff of Kershaw County a few years back. He cut a ton of cancer out of that department and turned around an agency with a reputation where about the best thing you could say about it was that they were lazy.

The bad is the potential for abuse is there and it happens. My uncle had a friend in the SC Guard who worked 20+ years at a nearby Sheriff's Dept and was regarded by anyone who knew him as a damn good cop. His primary job at the time was training and overseeing the special operations team, mainly their bloodhound unit which was a top notch unit. The Sheriff he worked for lost a primary challenge to a disgruntled former employee and because it was pretty much a straight ticket county the disgruntled employee was elected Sheriff and cleaned house of anybody who wasn't one of his cronies. The man who replaced him wasn't even a certified instructor, and the new Sheriff was quoted as saying he was qualified for the job because he had raised coon dogs all his life and knew how to work dogs. As you can imagine the reputation of this agency plummeted, and two Sheriffs later is just starting to get turned around. Luckily, my uncle's friend was able to get hired on at another agency fairly quickly and is now enjoying the mostly retired life working a couple months out the year as an adviser for law enforcement and rescue canine teams.


Now, I was directly involved in hiring for a SC governmental agency who did not directly work for an elected official and I can assure you that when I starting working in the hiring process in the late 1990's we were told that under no circumstances could we ask about someone's sexual preferences, and if they tried to bring it up we were to stop the interviewee at once and not include any mention of it in our reports.

Yea, but the Police Chief in Latta, SC was nearly terminated for being a Lesbian. To my utter shock (pleasant), she was reinstated, but not due to any protections under the law.

Tom, they could have gotten rid of her just by applying the At-Will laws and not even give a reason. Does SC have At-Will laws?

(07-06-2014 09:46 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 02:00 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(07-04-2014 07:36 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  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 if the laws in Mississippi are like the ones in South Carolina (and I imagine they are) he would be right. In SC Sheriffs (and every other local elected official) can fire you for anything. He could have fired the employee because instead of liking the BASSMASTER fishing series he preferred FLW while the Sheriff was a life member of BASS and there isn't anything you can do about it. When you work for an elected official like that you serve at the convenience of the elected official.

There is good and bad in having a policy like that. The good is it allows a new regime to rid the organization of cancers within the ranks. A prime example of that is when Jim Matthews was elected Sheriff of Kershaw County a few years back. He cut a ton of cancer out of that department and turned around an agency with a reputation where about the best thing you could say about it was that they were lazy.

The bad is the potential for abuse is there and it happens. My uncle had a friend in the SC Guard who worked 20+ years at a nearby Sheriff's Dept and was regarded by anyone who knew him as a damn good cop. His primary job at the time was training and overseeing the special operations team, mainly their bloodhound unit which was a top notch unit. The Sheriff he worked for lost a primary challenge to a disgruntled former employee and because it was pretty much a straight ticket county the disgruntled employee was elected Sheriff and cleaned house of anybody who wasn't one of his cronies. The man who replaced him wasn't even a certified instructor, and the new Sheriff was quoted as saying he was qualified for the job because he had raised coon dogs all his life and knew how to work dogs. As you can imagine the reputation of this agency plummeted, and two Sheriffs later is just starting to get turned around. Luckily, my uncle's friend was able to get hired on at another agency fairly quickly and is now enjoying the mostly retired life working a couple months out the year as an adviser for law enforcement and rescue canine teams.


Now, I was directly involved in hiring for a SC governmental agency who did not directly work for an elected official and I can assure you that when I starting working in the hiring process in the late 1990's we were told that under no circumstances could we ask about someone's sexual preferences, and if they tried to bring it up we were to stop the interviewee at once and not include any mention of it in our reports.

Yea, but the Police Chief in Latta, SC was nearly terminated for being a Lesbian. To my utter shock (pleasant), she was reinstated, but not due to any protections under the law.

It was the same case as if she worked for a Sheriff. At the time Latta used the Strong Mayor/Weak Council form of government, so Moore answered directly to the Mayor, an elected official. She wasn't reinstated, she was rehired after Latta held a referendum and changed their form of government to Strong Council/Weak Mayor, thus making her and every other department head in Latta employees of the council.

(07-06-2014 10:35 AM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 09:46 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 02:00 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(07-04-2014 07:36 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  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 if the laws in Mississippi are like the ones in South Carolina (and I imagine they are) he would be right. In SC Sheriffs (and every other local elected official) can fire you for anything. He could have fired the employee because instead of liking the BASSMASTER fishing series he preferred FLW while the Sheriff was a life member of BASS and there isn't anything you can do about it. When you work for an elected official like that you serve at the convenience of the elected official.

There is good and bad in having a policy like that. The good is it allows a new regime to rid the organization of cancers within the ranks. A prime example of that is when Jim Matthews was elected Sheriff of Kershaw County a few years back. He cut a ton of cancer out of that department and turned around an agency with a reputation where about the best thing you could say about it was that they were lazy.

The bad is the potential for abuse is there and it happens. My uncle had a friend in the SC Guard who worked 20+ years at a nearby Sheriff's Dept and was regarded by anyone who knew him as a damn good cop. His primary job at the time was training and overseeing the special operations team, mainly their bloodhound unit which was a top notch unit. The Sheriff he worked for lost a primary challenge to a disgruntled former employee and because it was pretty much a straight ticket county the disgruntled employee was elected Sheriff and cleaned house of anybody who wasn't one of his cronies. The man who replaced him wasn't even a certified instructor, and the new Sheriff was quoted as saying he was qualified for the job because he had raised coon dogs all his life and knew how to work dogs. As you can imagine the reputation of this agency plummeted, and two Sheriffs later is just starting to get turned around. Luckily, my uncle's friend was able to get hired on at another agency fairly quickly and is now enjoying the mostly retired life working a couple months out the year as an adviser for law enforcement and rescue canine teams.


Now, I was directly involved in hiring for a SC governmental agency who did not directly work for an elected official and I can assure you that when I starting working in the hiring process in the late 1990's we were told that under no circumstances could we ask about someone's sexual preferences, and if they tried to bring it up we were to stop the interviewee at once and not include any mention of it in our reports.

Yea, but the Police Chief in Latta, SC was nearly terminated for being a Lesbian. To my utter shock (pleasant), she was reinstated, but not due to any protections under the law.

Tom, they could have gotten rid of her just by applying the At-Will laws and not even give a reason. Does SC have At-Will laws?

Which is precisely what ENDA does to protect LGBT persons in employment. Gives those terminated or discriminated against, even using at-will contracts an avenue to press grievances.

(07-06-2014 11:52 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 10:35 AM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 09:46 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 02:00 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(07-04-2014 07:36 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  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 if the laws in Mississippi are like the ones in South Carolina (and I imagine they are) he would be right. In SC Sheriffs (and every other local elected official) can fire you for anything. He could have fired the employee because instead of liking the BASSMASTER fishing series he preferred FLW while the Sheriff was a life member of BASS and there isn't anything you can do about it. When you work for an elected official like that you serve at the convenience of the elected official.

There is good and bad in having a policy like that. The good is it allows a new regime to rid the organization of cancers within the ranks. A prime example of that is when Jim Matthews was elected Sheriff of Kershaw County a few years back. He cut a ton of cancer out of that department and turned around an agency with a reputation where about the best thing you could say about it was that they were lazy.

The bad is the potential for abuse is there and it happens. My uncle had a friend in the SC Guard who worked 20+ years at a nearby Sheriff's Dept and was regarded by anyone who knew him as a damn good cop. His primary job at the time was training and overseeing the special operations team, mainly their bloodhound unit which was a top notch unit. The Sheriff he worked for lost a primary challenge to a disgruntled former employee and because it was pretty much a straight ticket county the disgruntled employee was elected Sheriff and cleaned house of anybody who wasn't one of his cronies. The man who replaced him wasn't even a certified instructor, and the new Sheriff was quoted as saying he was qualified for the job because he had raised coon dogs all his life and knew how to work dogs. As you can imagine the reputation of this agency plummeted, and two Sheriffs later is just starting to get turned around. Luckily, my uncle's friend was able to get hired on at another agency fairly quickly and is now enjoying the mostly retired life working a couple months out the year as an adviser for law enforcement and rescue canine teams.


Now, I was directly involved in hiring for a SC governmental agency who did not directly work for an elected official and I can assure you that when I starting working in the hiring process in the late 1990's we were told that under no circumstances could we ask about someone's sexual preferences, and if they tried to bring it up we were to stop the interviewee at once and not include any mention of it in our reports.

Yea, but the Police Chief in Latta, SC was nearly terminated for being a Lesbian. To my utter shock (pleasant), she was reinstated, but not due to any protections under the law.

Tom, they could have gotten rid of her just by applying the At-Will laws and not even give a reason. Does SC have At-Will laws?

Which is precisely what ENDA does to protect LGBT persons in employment. Gives those terminated or discriminated against, even using at-will contracts an avenue to press grievances.

Are you saying ENDA gives LGBT people a protection against At-Will laws that other people don't have? Isn't that discrimination?

This is what I mean when I say that special interest groups aren't really interested in equality, they want to surpass that and be treated better than us peons. If I worked for a gay company what protections do I have if I get fired for being straight?

(07-02-2014 05:10 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

Quote:Each year JP Morgan Chase sends its employees a survey asking questions related to management and other non-controversial issues. A longtime Chase employee told Professor Robert George of Princeton that the survey this year included the following questions for the first time:


Are you:

1) A person with disabilities;

2) A person with children with disabilities;

3) A person with a spouse/domestic partner with disabilities;

4) A member of the LGBT community.

5) An ally of the LGBT community, but not personally identifying as LGBT.

I'm not sure how any of these questions are legal, but certainly point to inappropriate conduct by JPM management.

No Agenda here

I guess the days of the homophobe are numbered.

(07-06-2014 12:02 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-02-2014 05:10 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

Quote:Each year JP Morgan Chase sends its employees a survey asking questions related to management and other non-controversial issues. A longtime Chase employee told Professor Robert George of Princeton that the survey this year included the following questions for the first time:


Are you:

1) A person with disabilities;

2) A person with children with disabilities;

3) A person with a spouse/domestic partner with disabilities;

4) A member of the LGBT community.

5) An ally of the LGBT community, but not personally identifying as LGBT.

I'm not sure how any of these questions are legal, but certainly point to inappropriate conduct by JPM management.

No Agenda here

I guess the days of the homophobe are numbered.

So you're okay with reverse discrimination? Because that's what's coming, and there's nothing you can do to stop it.

(07-06-2014 11:59 AM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 11:52 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 10:35 AM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 09:46 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 02:00 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  And if the laws in Mississippi are like the ones in South Carolina (and I imagine they are) he would be right. In SC Sheriffs (and every other local elected official) can fire you for anything. He could have fired the employee because instead of liking the BASSMASTER fishing series he preferred FLW while the Sheriff was a life member of BASS and there isn't anything you can do about it. When you work for an elected official like that you serve at the convenience of the elected official.

There is good and bad in having a policy like that. The good is it allows a new regime to rid the organization of cancers within the ranks. A prime example of that is when Jim Matthews was elected Sheriff of Kershaw County a few years back. He cut a ton of cancer out of that department and turned around an agency with a reputation where about the best thing you could say about it was that they were lazy.

The bad is the potential for abuse is there and it happens. My uncle had a friend in the SC Guard who worked 20+ years at a nearby Sheriff's Dept and was regarded by anyone who knew him as a damn good cop. His primary job at the time was training and overseeing the special operations team, mainly their bloodhound unit which was a top notch unit. The Sheriff he worked for lost a primary challenge to a disgruntled former employee and because it was pretty much a straight ticket county the disgruntled employee was elected Sheriff and cleaned house of anybody who wasn't one of his cronies. The man who replaced him wasn't even a certified instructor, and the new Sheriff was quoted as saying he was qualified for the job because he had raised coon dogs all his life and knew how to work dogs. As you can imagine the reputation of this agency plummeted, and two Sheriffs later is just starting to get turned around. Luckily, my uncle's friend was able to get hired on at another agency fairly quickly and is now enjoying the mostly retired life working a couple months out the year as an adviser for law enforcement and rescue canine teams.


Now, I was directly involved in hiring for a SC governmental agency who did not directly work for an elected official and I can assure you that when I starting working in the hiring process in the late 1990's we were told that under no circumstances could we ask about someone's sexual preferences, and if they tried to bring it up we were to stop the interviewee at once and not include any mention of it in our reports.

Yea, but the Police Chief in Latta, SC was nearly terminated for being a Lesbian. To my utter shock (pleasant), she was reinstated, but not due to any protections under the law.

Tom, they could have gotten rid of her just by applying the At-Will laws and not even give a reason. Does SC have At-Will laws?

Which is precisely what ENDA does to protect LGBT persons in employment. Gives those terminated or discriminated against, even using at-will contracts an avenue to press grievances.

Are you saying ENDA gives LGBT people a protection against At-Will laws that other people don't have? Isn't that discrimination?

This is what I mean when I say that special interest groups aren't really interested in equality, they want to surpass that and be treated better than us peons. If I worked for a gay company what protections do I have if I get fired for being straight?

As a result of Federal legislation, you cannot use At-Will rules to fire people because of their race, religion, etc. All ENDA would do is add sexual orientation and perhaps gender identity to that list.

(07-06-2014 12:07 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 12:02 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-02-2014 05:10 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

Quote:Each year JP Morgan Chase sends its employees a survey asking questions related to management and other non-controversial issues. A longtime Chase employee told Professor Robert George of Princeton that the survey this year included the following questions for the first time:


Are you:

1) A person with disabilities;

2) A person with children with disabilities;

3) A person with a spouse/domestic partner with disabilities;

4) A member of the LGBT community.

5) An ally of the LGBT community, but not personally identifying as LGBT.

I'm not sure how any of these questions are legal, but certainly point to inappropriate conduct by JPM management.

No Agenda here

I guess the days of the homophobe are numbered.

So you're okay with reverse discrimination? Because that's what's coming, and there's nothing you can do to stop it.

I'm not okay with it, I just know that there is no other way around it.

People cannot oppress one another without consequences.

(07-06-2014 12:09 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 12:07 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 12:02 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-02-2014 05:10 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

Quote:Each year JP Morgan Chase sends its employees a survey asking questions related to management and other non-controversial issues. A longtime Chase employee told Professor Robert George of Princeton that the survey this year included the following questions for the first time:


Are you:

1) A person with disabilities;

2) A person with children with disabilities;

3) A person with a spouse/domestic partner with disabilities;

4) A member of the LGBT community.

5) An ally of the LGBT community, but not personally identifying as LGBT.

I'm not sure how any of these questions are legal, but certainly point to inappropriate conduct by JPM management.

No Agenda here

I guess the days of the homophobe are numbered.

So you're okay with reverse discrimination? Because that's what's coming, and there's nothing you can do to stop it.

I'm not okay with it, I just know that there is no other way around it.

People cannot oppress one another without consequences.

Well, someone needs to tell the gay community. Because they want to impose reverse discrimination. People like JD and John-boy support that stance, yet they'll be the first to complain when it affects them. Irony at its finest, IMO.

(07-06-2014 12:18 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 12:09 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 12:07 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 12:02 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-02-2014 05:10 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  I'm not sure how any of these questions are legal, but certainly point to inappropriate conduct by JPM management.

No Agenda here

I guess the days of the homophobe are numbered.

So you're okay with reverse discrimination? Because that's what's coming, and there's nothing you can do to stop it.

I'm not okay with it, I just know that there is no other way around it.

People cannot oppress one another without consequences.

Well, someone needs to tell the gay community. Because they want to impose reverse discrimination. People like JD and John-boy support that stance, yet they'll be the first to complain when it affects them. Irony at its finest, IMO.

Of course they do. They've been on the wrong end of discrimination for centuries. Does it really surprise you that they want revenge?

(07-06-2014 12:02 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-02-2014 05:10 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

Quote:Each year JP Morgan Chase sends its employees a survey asking questions related to management and other non-controversial issues. A longtime Chase employee told Professor Robert George of Princeton that the survey this year included the following questions for the first time:


Are you:

1) A person with disabilities;

2) A person with children with disabilities;

3) A person with a spouse/domestic partner with disabilities;

4) A member of the LGBT community.

5) An ally of the LGBT community, but not personally identifying as LGBT.

I'm not sure how any of these questions are legal, but certainly point to inappropriate conduct by JPM management.

No Agenda here

I guess the days of the homophobe are numbered.

So if you are not PRO-homosexual, you're a homophobe? By your standard, anyone not contributing to the NAACP is a RACIST. I guess I'll never get liberal logic.

(07-06-2014 12:20 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 12:18 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 12:09 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 12:07 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 12:02 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I guess the days of the homophobe are numbered.

So you're okay with reverse discrimination? Because that's what's coming, and there's nothing you can do to stop it.

I'm not okay with it, I just know that there is no other way around it.

People cannot oppress one another without consequences.

Well, someone needs to tell the gay community. Because they want to impose reverse discrimination. People like JD and John-boy support that stance, yet they'll be the first to complain when it affects them. Irony at its finest, IMO.

Of course they do. They've been on the wrong end of discrimination for centuries. Does it really surprise you that they want revenge?

Hell hath no fury like a Gay throwing a hissy fit.

(07-06-2014 12:09 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 11:59 AM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 11:52 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 10:35 AM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 09:46 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Yea, but the Police Chief in Latta, SC was nearly terminated for being a Lesbian. To my utter shock (pleasant), she was reinstated, but not due to any protections under the law.

Tom, they could have gotten rid of her just by applying the At-Will laws and not even give a reason. Does SC have At-Will laws?

Which is precisely what ENDA does to protect LGBT persons in employment. Gives those terminated or discriminated against, even using at-will contracts an avenue to press grievances.

Are you saying ENDA gives LGBT people a protection against At-Will laws that other people don't have? Isn't that discrimination?

This is what I mean when I say that special interest groups aren't really interested in equality, they want to surpass that and be treated better than us peons. If I worked for a gay company what protections do I have if I get fired for being straight?

As a result of Federal legislation, you cannot use At-Will rules to fire people because of their race, religion, etc. All ENDA would do is add sexual orientation and perhaps gender identity to that list.

Who in their right mind would tell a guy he's being fired because he's gay? They would just at-will them out the door and be done with it. I don't know much about ENDA but it looks like it's trying to legislate stupidity.

(07-06-2014 12:50 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 12:20 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 12:18 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 12:09 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 12:07 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  So you're okay with reverse discrimination? Because that's what's coming, and there's nothing you can do to stop it.

I'm not okay with it, I just know that there is no other way around it.

People cannot oppress one another without consequences.

Well, someone needs to tell the gay community. Because they want to impose reverse discrimination. People like JD and John-boy support that stance, yet they'll be the first to complain when it affects them. Irony at its finest, IMO.

Of course they do. They've been on the wrong end of discrimination for centuries. Does it really surprise you that they want revenge?

Hell hath no fury like a Gay throwing a hissy fit.

Exactly. Even "the gays" can feel revenge.

(07-06-2014 12:56 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 12:50 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 12:20 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 12:18 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 12:09 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I'm not okay with it, I just know that there is no other way around it.

People cannot oppress one another without consequences.

Well, someone needs to tell the gay community. Because they want to impose reverse discrimination. People like JD and John-boy support that stance, yet they'll be the first to complain when it affects them. Irony at its finest, IMO.

Of course they do. They've been on the wrong end of discrimination for centuries. Does it really surprise you that they want revenge?

Hell hath no fury like a Gay throwing a hissy fit.

Exactly. Even "the gays" can feel revenge.

Does seeking revenge apply to everyone?

(07-06-2014 01:01 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 12:56 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 12:50 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 12:20 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 12:18 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  Well, someone needs to tell the gay community. Because they want to impose reverse discrimination. People like JD and John-boy support that stance, yet they'll be the first to complain when it affects them. Irony at its finest, IMO.

Of course they do. They've been on the wrong end of discrimination for centuries. Does it really surprise you that they want revenge?

Hell hath no fury like a Gay throwing a hissy fit.

Exactly. Even "the gays" can feel revenge.

Does seeking revenge apply to everyone?

I think it is human nature for people who are oppressed to seek revenge.

There are only a few people...Jesus, Gahndi, Martin Luther King and Cesar Chavez who preached turning the other cheek.

"The Gays" haven't got that kind of person yet.