(10-16-2015 04:36 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(10-16-2015 04:26 PM)bullet Wrote:  Again Tom, you are totally oblivious to any thinking other than your own.

There are reasons to oppose the ordinance besides "hating gays" and besides the bathroom issue.

It puts an additional burden on business. Its an additional cost and makes doing business more difficult and expensive.

Secondly, it almost forces business into people's private lives, in contrast to the trend towards a "right of privacy." Businesses could get sued by a gay person without even knowing they were gay. So should they put a line on employment applications about sexual orientation? I would find that prying by business objectionable. As an employer, I don't care about my employee's sex lives. I don't want to know. I shouldn't know.

So your argument is as follows?

Its vital that Christians be protected from employment discrimination.. But its vital that Christians retain the right to discriminate against those that they don't like.

---

How about this...why not put Christians up on the block for discrimination before you try and argue that it should be legal for Gays to be fired for being Gay.

---

Do you put a line item on your employment applications to note an applicant's religion? No? Why Not? Seriously, employment discrimination based upon an employee's religion is unlawful. Why aren't you asking religious orientation on your applications?

Don't you need that to ensure that you wont get sued for discriminating? No?

Well then what makes adding LGBT persons any different?

---

Employment discrimination claims are VERY hard to prove. You don't need to collect the data, just make sure you aren't discriminating. Bogus claims are rare.

Bogus claims happen ALL the time. I've seen it many times. Even when you win it costs you a ton of money. The most egregious example I saw had us laughing. Some attorney came out claiming his clients were fired because they were Black. They had been stealing tens of thousands of dollars, selling drugs on the job, firing anyone who was honest. It was the supervisors who lead the theft ring who were suing. I think eventually the attorney figured out he had a badly losing hand and let it slip.

I've seen grossly incompetent people sue (who don't realize they are grossly incompetent). But it costs a lot of time and money. If you aren't involved with company attorneys or HR maybe you don't see it. But it happens a LOT.

(10-16-2015 04:36 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  So your argument is as follows?

Ill fix it for you..

Its vital that People be protected from employment discrimination.. But its vital that People retain the right to discriminate against those that they don't like for non emergency services when the platform is a publicly held corporation.

Quote:How about this...why not put Christians up on the block for discrimination before you try and argue that it should be legal for Gays to be fired for being Gay.

If I walked into a small bakery asking for a cake for Christmas and they refused, only offering those services to secular holidays I would not want them sued or shut down.

Quote:Do you put a line item on your employment applications to note an applicant's religion? No? Why Not? Seriously, employment discrimination based upon an employee's religion is unlawful. Why aren't you asking religious orientation on your applications?

So you're saying there is a line on the employment form for sexuality? link please...

(10-16-2015 04:45 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-16-2015 04:25 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Gay Tom you suggest that anyone is against the bill wants to fire Gay Tranny people, that is crazy.

That's what he does... He ask for a mile and if you say no claims you don't want to give him an inch..

I have *no* issues with non closely held corporations being told they can not fire solely on personal issues like faith or sexuality. I do have an issue with the Gaystepo telling a Christian grandma "make our flowers or we will buy you".

The bill outlaws employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, including by the Houston Texans...

The bill does not address bathrooms.

Voting to repeal the law will make employment discrimination LEGAL in Houston. And will allow people to refuse to serve Gay people in commerce.

(10-16-2015 04:48 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-16-2015 04:36 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(10-16-2015 04:26 PM)bullet Wrote:  Again Tom, you are totally oblivious to any thinking other than your own.

There are reasons to oppose the ordinance besides "hating gays" and besides the bathroom issue.

It puts an additional burden on business. Its an additional cost and makes doing business more difficult and expensive.

Secondly, it almost forces business into people's private lives, in contrast to the trend towards a "right of privacy." Businesses could get sued by a gay person without even knowing they were gay. So should they put a line on employment applications about sexual orientation? I would find that prying by business objectionable. As an employer, I don't care about my employee's sex lives. I don't want to know. I shouldn't know.

So your argument is as follows?

Its vital that Christians be protected from employment discrimination.. But its vital that Christians retain the right to discriminate against those that they don't like.

---

How about this...why not put Christians up on the block for discrimination before you try and argue that it should be legal for Gays to be fired for being Gay.

---

Do you put a line item on your employment applications to note an applicant's religion? No? Why Not? Seriously, employment discrimination based upon an employee's religion is unlawful. Why aren't you asking religious orientation on your applications?

Don't you need that to ensure that you wont get sued for discriminating? No?

Well then what makes adding LGBT persons any different?

---

Employment discrimination claims are VERY hard to prove. You don't need to collect the data, just make sure you aren't discriminating. Bogus claims are rare.

Bogus claims happen ALL the time. I've seen it many times. Even when you win it costs you a ton of money. The most egregious example I saw had us laughing. Some attorney came out claiming his clients were fired because they were Black. They had been stealing tens of thousands of dollars, selling drugs on the job, firing anyone who was honest. It was the supervisors who lead the theft ring who were suing. I think eventually the attorney figured out he had a badly losing hand and let it slip.

I've seen grossly incompetent people sue (who don't realize they are grossly incompetent). But it costs a lot of time and money. If you aren't involved with company attorneys or HR maybe you don't see it. But it happens a LOT.

So where are you keeping all the data on the religious preference of your employees?

Why do you not need that info, but would need it for LGBT persons?

Valid claims of discrimination are very hard to prove.

----

Again, why should Gay people not be able to fire someone for being Baptist, but a Baptist should be able to fire an employee for coming out?

----

(10-16-2015 04:49 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-16-2015 04:36 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  So your argument is as follows?

Ill fix it for you..

Its vital that People be protected from employment discrimination.. But its vital that People retain the right to discriminate against those that they don't like for non emergency services when the platform is a publicly held corporation.

Quote:How about this...why not put Christians up on the block for discrimination before you try and argue that it should be legal for Gays to be fired for being Gay.

If I walked into a small bakery asking for a cake for Christmas and they refused, only offering those services to secular holidays I would not want them sued or shut down.

Quote:Do you put a line item on your employment applications to note an applicant's religion? No? Why Not? Seriously, employment discrimination based upon an employee's religion is unlawful. Why aren't you asking religious orientation on your applications?

So you're saying there is a line on the employment form for sexuality? link please...

Right after people can fire people for being Christian..you can try and change the game.

I'll take whatever protections accrue to the Southern Baptist Church and its' followers thankyouverymuch.

(10-16-2015 04:51 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(10-16-2015 04:45 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-16-2015 04:25 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Gay Tom you suggest that anyone is against the bill wants to fire Gay Tranny people, that is crazy.

That's what he does... He ask for a mile and if you say no claims you don't want to give him an inch..

I have *no* issues with non closely held corporations being told they can not fire solely on personal issues like faith or sexuality. I do have an issue with the Gaystepo telling a Christian grandma "make our flowers or we will buy you".

The bill outlaws employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, including by the Houston Texans...

The bill does not address bathrooms.

Voting to repeal the law will make employment discrimination LEGAL in Houston. And will allow people to refuse to serve Gay people in commerce.

(10-16-2015 10:43 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  The term "Redskin" is not a race. It is a racial slur. Its use is usually racist.

Redskin here. Don't speak for me. Or other injuns. Keep to your alphabet stew.

(10-16-2015 04:57 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(10-16-2015 04:51 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(10-16-2015 04:45 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-16-2015 04:25 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Gay Tom you suggest that anyone is against the bill wants to fire Gay Tranny people, that is crazy.

That's what he does... He ask for a mile and if you say no claims you don't want to give him an inch..

I have *no* issues with non closely held corporations being told they can not fire solely on personal issues like faith or sexuality. I do have an issue with the Gaystepo telling a Christian grandma "make our flowers or we will buy you".

The bill outlaws employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, including by the Houston Texans...

The bill does not address bathrooms.

Voting to repeal the law will make employment discrimination LEGAL in Houston. And will allow people to refuse to serve Gay people in commerce.

Again,

Your vote will do nothing to change any laws on bathrooms.

What it will do is allow the Texans to discriminate in employment against Gay persons. And everyone else to discriminate against LGBT persons.

When looking at the impact of a law, one should ask..what does this change? Well on the issue of enabling bathroom rape, the answer is .. "nothing"

On the issue of enabling employment discrimination against Gays, the answer is, "Changes the law to enable direct and overt employment discrimination against LGBT persons"

Feel free to respond back with a bunch of check marks. But note that its already been noted that you will be voting to not change bathroom misconduct laws and to allow for discrimination against LGBT persons.

(10-16-2015 04:51 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(10-16-2015 04:45 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-16-2015 04:25 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Gay Tom you suggest that anyone is against the bill wants to fire Gay Tranny people, that is crazy.

That's what he does... He ask for a mile and if you say no claims you don't want to give him an inch..

I have *no* issues with non closely held corporations being told they can not fire solely on personal issues like faith or sexuality. I do have an issue with the Gaystepo telling a Christian grandma "make our flowers or we will buy you".

The bill outlaws employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation

AND DOES OTHER THINGS! Stop being purposefully obtuse here.

Quote:The bill does not address bathrooms.

Restrooms are considered a public accommodation, this bill covers public accommodations, therefore this bill still covers restrooms.

Quote:Voting to repeal the law will make employment discrimination LEGAL in Houston. And will allow people to refuse to serve Gay people in commerce.

If only the law was not so pornographically overreaching.

(10-16-2015 05:23 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(10-16-2015 04:57 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(10-16-2015 04:51 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(10-16-2015 04:45 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-16-2015 04:25 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Gay Tom you suggest that anyone is against the bill wants to fire Gay Tranny people, that is crazy.

That's what he does... He ask for a mile and if you say no claims you don't want to give him an inch..

I have *no* issues with non closely held corporations being told they can not fire solely on personal issues like faith or sexuality. I do have an issue with the Gaystepo telling a Christian grandma "make our flowers or we will buy you".

The bill outlaws employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, including by the Houston Texans...

The bill does not address bathrooms.

Voting to repeal the law will make employment discrimination LEGAL in Houston. And will allow people to refuse to serve Gay people in commerce.

Again,

Your vote will do nothing to change any laws on bathrooms.

What it will do is allow the Texans to discriminate in employment against Gay persons. And everyone else to discriminate against LGBT persons.

When looking at the impact of a law, one should ask..what does this change? Well on the issue of enabling bathroom rape, the answer is .. "nothing"

On the issue of enabling employment discrimination against Gays, the answer is, "Changes the law to enable direct and overt employment discrimination against LGBT persons"

Feel free to respond back with a bunch of check marks. But note that its already been noted that you will be voting to not change bathroom misconduct laws and to allow for discrimination against LGBT persons.

Sent from #ClutchCity using Tapatalk

What is a second baptist?

(10-16-2015 09:00 PM)dfarr Wrote:  What is a second baptist?

Second Baptist is a Houston Baptist Mega-Church. Huge Sanctuary- easily holds a couple of thousand. Pastor Ed Young is pretty mainstream.

He's not a nut like Joel Osteen

(10-17-2015 04:23 AM)WMD Owl Wrote:  

(10-16-2015 09:00 PM)dfarr Wrote:  What is a second baptist?

Second Baptist is a Houston Baptist Mega-Church. Huge Sanctuary- easily holds a couple of thousand. Pastor Ed Young is pretty mainstream.

He's not a nut like Joel Osteen

Thanks. I thought it was some weird denomination or some slang term used by the gays.

(10-17-2015 06:26 AM)dfarr Wrote:  

(10-17-2015 04:23 AM)WMD Owl Wrote:  

(10-16-2015 09:00 PM)dfarr Wrote:  What is a second baptist?

Second Baptist is a Houston Baptist Mega-Church. Huge Sanctuary- easily holds a couple of thousand. Pastor Ed Young is pretty mainstream.

He's not a nut like Joel Osteen

Thanks. I thought it was some weird denomination or some slang term used by the gays.

Like tranny?

(10-17-2015 06:26 AM)dfarr Wrote:  

(10-17-2015 04:23 AM)WMD Owl Wrote:  

(10-16-2015 09:00 PM)dfarr Wrote:  What is a second baptist?

Second Baptist is a Houston Baptist Mega-Church. Huge Sanctuary- easily holds a couple of thousand. Pastor Ed Young is pretty mainstream.

He's not a nut like Joel Osteen

Thanks. I thought it was some weird denomination or some slang term used by the gays.

Progressives think "Baptist" is a pejorative term.
The church has about 20,000 members. Houston has a lot of mega-churches. 1st Baptist is nearly as big. Windsor Park United Methodist, a predominately Black congregation has about 20,000 members.

Joel Osteen isn't a nut. He just doesn't have a typical Christian church. Preaching is very different from a denominational church. I'm not a fan of his or what he does at all, but I don't know how you can call him a nut.

(10-17-2015 04:23 AM)WMD Owl Wrote:  

(10-16-2015 09:00 PM)dfarr Wrote:  What is a second baptist?

Second Baptist is a Houston Baptist Mega-Church. Huge Sanctuary- easily holds a couple of thousand. Pastor Ed Young is pretty mainstream.

He's not a nut like Joel Osteen

Second Baptist is a political church that is virulently anti-Gay. He got the legislature to write a bill so he wouldn't have to pay for his sewer bills. He also doesn't pay property taxes on his shopping centers. Young appears to be a GOP activist first, and a pastor second. He's always campaigning for the GOP it seems. They used to take time off from non-stop political campaigning to make fun of people dying of AIDS at their hell house, but I'm not sure if they still try to make fun of Gay people dying of AIDS anymore.

Second Baptist also has a problem with its youth pastors raping kids (male pastor on 11 year old girl)...but that won't stop Ed Young from trying to equate Gay rights with sexual assault of children. http://watchkeep.blogspot.com/2011/12/ch...ptist.html

Your kids are far safer in a restroom with a transgendered person than they are at Second Baptist. You see, there's NEVER been a case of a transgendered person sexually assaulting someone in the restroom. There has been a case of Second Baptist employee raping a little girl.

So Second Baptist is 1) primarily political 2) a tax dodge 3) a source of massive tax free money for the owner and 4) has problems with sexual assualt.

Joel Osteen is much better. He at least drops 1 and 4.

And Ed Young's son is even worse of 'bling' pastor than Osteen.

So here is what I got out of this thread:

Tom was apparently an NFL scout in a past life and saw something in Michael Sam that no one else did. That today's NFL scouts took his height, weight, speed, combine scores, first 3 years of his college career and decided although he is a shoe in Hall of Famer, he was denied a chance at the NFL soley because he is Gay (cue 35,000 players no gays rant). It couldn't possibly be because he didn't have the talent. Every team has players at every position. The goal of the person being drafted (or signed as a FA) is to show you are better than the person on the roster already. But despite Sam's obvious below standard measureables, the only reason he didn't make the team was because he was Gay. Being Gay does not give you super powers. You either get the job done or you don't in Pro Sports

It also raised a few questions:
Would it be acceptable for a Gay baker to refuse a Baptist cake service?
What if some Homosexuals don't want to be a part of the 'Gay Comminity'? Why should they be forced to or discounted if they are not?
How many Gay players must be on an NFL roster to be compliant?

(10-17-2015 04:36 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

Ol' Tom has (literally) got his panties in a wad over this!