DAYS AFTER ORLANDO ATTACK, HOUSE G.O.P. BLOCKS VOTE ON GAY-RIGHTS AMENDMENT

[GMDino]

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/06/house-gop-blocks-vote-lgbt-rights-amendment

Quote:Less than three days after a popular gay club in Orlando became the site of the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history, Republican leaders in the House of Representatives blocked a vote on a proposal that would ensure federal contractors can’t discriminate against employees on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identification. Hours earlier, a number of notable conservative figures had put on a good show of standing in solidarity with the L.G.B.T. community, making the rounds on cable news to stand up for the dozens of gay men and women who died in Sunday’s attack. On Tuesday night, however, it was back to business as usual as the House Rules Committee prevented the amendment from reaching the floor for a vote.

Democrat Sean Patrick Maloney, an openly gay congressman from New York, proposed the amendment, which is currently attached to a Defense Department spending bill that was slated for a vote this week. Should it pass, the proposal would enforce an executive order from 2014 prohibiting discrimination against L.G.B.T. employees, The Hill reports. “It’s hard to imagine any act that is so horrific could lead to anything positive. But if we were going to do anything, it would be a very positive step to say that discrimination has no place in our law and to reaffirm the president’s actions in this area,” Maloney said.

The decision to block a vote on the Defense Department bill comes mere days after a lone gunman opened fire at Florida’s Pulse nightclub, murdering 49 people before being shot and killed by police. The shooting has since been labeled both a terrorist attack and a hate crime. Maloney told The Hill that passing the bill with the attached amendment would be a “pretty basic thing to do” to show support for the L.G.B.T. community targeted in the attack. Previously, the amendment was attached to a Department of Veterans Affairs spending bill and an Energy Department spending bill, both of which failed to pass, due in part to
House Republicans’ opposition to Maloney’s proposal. The failure of the two bills reportedly prompted House Speaker Paul Ryan to limit amendments to appropriations bills.

Maloney drew parallels between the Orlando massacre and the shooting at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina, last year, which led to legislation that restricted how the Confederate flag can be displayed. “Hate has no place in our flags, in our workplace, or in our country,” Maloney argued. “And it should have no place in federal law.”

[StLucieBengal]

Good. Jobs go to the best people that have the best fit. Employers should be able to pass on someone who may not fit in their company. Given there is a diverse amount of employers out there, then finding the right fit shouldn't be an issue.

What the Muslim massacre of Orlando gays has to do with this is beyond me. This is a total side issue.... Unless you are just trying to drum up sympathy to move your agenda forward. That's obviously what this politician was doing. Glad he and you can use these people's death to forward political and social agendas.

[Benton]

The anti-discrimination should be in place anyway, but that has nothing to do with the shooting.

[StLucieBengal]

(06-15-2016, 11:20 PM)Benton Wrote: The anti-discrimination should be in place anyway, but that has nothing to do with the shooting.

All of these anti discrimination laws should be dropped now anyway.   Since we can all identify as whatever we want at any time to suit our needs.   

[BmorePat87]

It's like the AG of Florida. She'll get on TV and call them "victims" today, but a year ago she was saying that they "harm society" as she fought against their right to marry.

These conservatives will treat gay people like humans when they're tools to promote the need to fight wars and block immigration, but when it comes to ensuring they have the same protection as everyone else, they're deem them unworthy of rights.

[*bfine32*]

(06-15-2016, 11:20 PM)Benton Wrote: The anti-discrimination should be in place anyway, but that has nothing to do with the shooting.

Two things:

How far do we take protected classes? If every class is protected; then none are.

Agreed it has zero to do with the shooting. 

[Benton]

(06-15-2016, 11:32 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Two things:

How far do we take protected classes? If every class is protected; then none are.

Agreed it has zero to do with the shooting. 

A person should be judged on their person and ability to do the job. That is all. Unfortunately, many still aren't.

[*bfine32*]

(06-15-2016, 11:37 PM)Benton Wrote: A person should be judged on their person and ability to do the job. That is all. Unfortunately, many still aren't.

I cannot disagree with this, but that is not the case. My point is if you protect every "class" then you protect no class. 

[BmorePat87]

(06-15-2016, 11:43 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I cannot disagree with this, but that is not the case. My point is if you protect every "class" then you protect no class. 

That suggests that protecting one class takes away protection from another class. You can make the argument that protecting classes takes away one's right to run their business unfettered, but I don't think I am alone in wondering how you're backing up your claim. 

[*bfine32*]

(06-15-2016, 11:50 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: That suggests that protecting one class takes away protection from another class. You can make the argument that protecting classes takes away one's right to run their business unfettered, but I don't think I am alone in wondering how you're backing up your claim. 

Example: I'm a 25 year old, Christian white male. I get a job over a handicapped, black female that is 50 years old and Muslim. An investigation is launched and it is determined that her credentials are slightly higher than mine. She claims discrimination.  Guess what I can claim it I say I like dudes.

[BmorePat87]

(06-16-2016, 12:06 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Example: I'm a 25 year old, Christian white male. I get a job over a handicapped, black female that is 50 years old and Muslim. An investigation is launched and it is determined that her credentials are slightly higher than mine. She claims discrimination.  Guess what I can claim it I say I like dudes.

This isn't affirmative action. She would have to prove that she was discriminated against on the basis of her sex, age, race, or religion. Simply not being as well liked as another candidate isn't grounds for filing against an employer. 

[Benton]

(06-16-2016, 12:06 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Example: I'm a 25 year old, Christian white male. I get a job over a handicapped, black female that is 50 years old and Muslim. An investigation is launched and it is determined that her credentials are slightly higher than mine. She claims discrimination.  Guess what I can claim it I say I like dudes.

Something less hypothetical but more anecdotal. My last job as an editor before I started doing the hiring, I sat through all the interviews with my gm. We got done, she asked my opinion and I told her. Her first words: "he's too gay to be a sports reporter."

He was the most qualified, the most interested and got along well the the staff he had met. But she was afraid hiring a gay guy would hurt the business.

If a protection could have been afforded that would have at least made her stop and consider it, maybe he would have had a chance.

Side note, the guy who got hired was super straight. Six months later he told most of his coworkers he didn't go a day without thinking about shooting them. Made for much better moral than having a gay guy.

[*bfine32*]

(06-16-2016, 12:24 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: This isn't affirmative action. She would have to prove that she was discriminated against on the basis of her sex, age, race, or religion. Simply not being as well liked as another candidate isn't grounds for filing against an employer. 

..and if I kept hiring the white Christian boys that "liked dudes" over other minorities? 

I will defer to your expertise on employment law. 

[StLucieBengal]

(06-16-2016, 12:33 AM)Benton Wrote: Something less hypothetical but more anecdotal. My last job as an editor before I started doing the hiring, I sat through all the interviews with my gm. We got done, she asked my opinion and I told her. Her first words: "he's too gay to be a sports reporter."

He was the most qualified, the most interested and got along well the the staff he had met. But she was afraid hiring a gay guy would hurt the business.

If a protection could have been afforded that would have at least made her stop and consider it, maybe he would have had a chance.

Side note, the guy who got hired was super straight. Six months later he told most of his coworkers he didn't go a day without thinking about shooting them. Made for much better moral than having a gay guy.

How would that gay guy had felt had he known he was hired by someone who didn't want him because she thought he wouldn't fit what she wanted at that job?  Taking a job is a big deal and you should know your boss didn't hire you because they were afraid of a lawsuit.   

Personally I would love to have a gay guy on staff.   That's a nice market that buys and sells within their community.   Any employee though must be a good fit, for both sides.  

[*bfine32*]

(06-16-2016, 12:33 AM)Benton Wrote: Something less hypothetical but more anecdotal. My last job as an editor before I started doing the hiring, I sat through all the interviews with my gm. We got done, she asked my opinion and I told her. Her first words: "he's too gay to be a sports reporter."

He was the most qualified, the most interested and got along well the the staff he had met. But she was afraid hiring a gay guy would hurt the business.

If a protection could have been afforded that would have at least made her stop and consider it, maybe he would have had a chance.

Side note, the guy who got hired was super straight. Six months later he told most of his coworkers he didn't go a day without thinking about shooting them. Made for much better moral than having a gay guy.

How  did I know how the story would go before I started reading?

You should have demanded to speak with the HR Manager at your business and told him/her what you were told by the hiring official. 

[Benton]

(06-16-2016, 12:43 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: How would that gay guy had felt had he known he was hired by someone who didn't want him because she thought he wouldn't fit what she wanted at that job?  Taking a job is a big deal and you should know your boss didn't hire you because they were afraid of a lawsuit.   

Personally I would love to have a gay guy on staff.   That's a nice market that buys and sells within their community.   Any employee though must be a good fit, for both sides.  

Compared to the guy getting hired simply because he was the only straight male applicant?

Come on, dont try to play like she wad doing the guy a favor. She hired the worst applicant because he was a straight guy.

[Aquapod770]

Somehow I doubt that's not all that was in the amendment, but the all caps was a nice touch.

[Benton]

(06-16-2016, 12:50 AM)bfine32 Wrote: How  did I know how the story would go before I started reading?

You should have demanded to speak with the HR Manager at your business and told him/her what you were told by the hiring official. 

... Which would do nothing under current law.

I'm not sure if you understand the op in that regard. There is no protection. If I went to hr, they would have said something along the lines of "that's their choice."

[StLucieBengal]

(06-16-2016, 01:33 AM)Benton Wrote: Compared to the guy getting hired simply because he was the only straight male applicant?

Come on, dont try to play like she wad doing the guy a favor. She hired the worst applicant because he was a straight guy.

She hired the best guy for her.   Right or wrong the one hiring needs to feel comfortable.   For both their sake and the new employee.    

Do you want a job because your boss was afraid to not hire you over some potential lawsuit?   

[StLucieBengal]

(06-16-2016, 01:38 AM)Benton Wrote: ... Which would do nothing under current law.

I'm not sure if you understand the op in that regard. There is no protection. If I went to hr, they would have said something along the lines of "that's their choice."

This should the response every time.   We need to drop all the protected classes.