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

[StLucieBengal]

(06-16-2016, 08:44 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The right thing is hiring someone based on their ability to do the job. That's it. I don't know anything about you personally, I just know what I have seen.

As for that last sentence, what do you mean? Whatever race you are you are protected from discrimination by race, male or female you are protected by sex based discrimination. Everyone is protected by anti-discrimination laws. If you hire an African-American because you are afraid of a lawsuit and passed over a white guy with the same or better qualifications you have just violated the anti-discrimination laws.

That last paragraph is the reason why we don't need any of these laws.    They aren't protecting anyone if everyone can claim discrimination.    

I would like to see us roll them all back for 5 years and see what happened.    I'm sure there would be no changes.  

[Belsnickel]

(06-17-2016, 12:08 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: That last paragraph is the reason why we don't need any of these laws.    They aren't protecting anyone if everyone can claim discrimination.    

I really don't know how to respond to the incredible lack of logic exhibited in this post. Good day.

[StLucieBengal]

(06-17-2016, 12:10 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I really don't know how to respond to the incredible lack of logic exhibited in this post. Good day.

If men and woman can claim it then why does the lgbtrstlne need protection?  Why do blacks need protection if it's covered by men and women?  

[BigPapaKain]

(06-16-2016, 09:55 PM)bfine32 Wrote: What makes you think I'm against White Privilege?

Oh I don't think you're against white privilege.

But that's just one problem most people have with you.

[Belsnickel]

(06-17-2016, 12:15 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: If men and woman can claim it then why does the lgbtrstlne need protection?  Why do blacks need protection if it's covered by men and women?  

Because the discrimination may not have occurred because of your sex. Some people don't care what your race is, but they care about your sexuality and so discriminate based on that.

[BigPapaKain]

(06-17-2016, 07:31 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Because the discrimination may not have occurred because of your sex. Some people don't care what your race is, but they care about your sexuality and so discriminate based on that.

Especially the kind of person who use terms like 'token' and 'flamer'.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-15-2016, 11:43 PM)bfine32 Wrote: My point is if you protect every "class" then you protect no class. 

Is that the Army motto?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-16-2016, 02:09 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: 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?   

Did you miss the part where Benton mentioned the guy was the "worst applicant"?

She wasn't hiring for her, she was hiring for the company she worked for and so her bigotry shouldn't influence doing what is in the best interest of her employer.

It's funny you ***** and moan about feelings and safe spaces, but advocate for bigot's feelings so they can have a safe place at work where other people won't make them feel uncomfortable.

[Benton]

(06-17-2016, 09:24 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Did you miss the part where Benton mentioned the guy was the "worst applicant"?

She wasn't hiring for her, she was hiring for the company she worked for and so her bigotry shouldn't influence doing what is in the best interest of her employer.

It's funny you ***** and moan about feelings and safe spaces, but advocate for bigot's feelings so they can have a safe place at work where other people won't make them feel uncomfortable.

The guy being the worst for the job didn't fit Lucie's narrative. The guy made the supervisor comfortable (although he made everyone else uncomfortable quickly by talking about workplace violence, some enough to leave).

But your second sentence there was the big part for me. If she had been the publisher (the big boss) and made the comment, ok. It's his company, I wouldn't agree with it, but I would have understood it more. But it wasn't. She didn't hire the best person for someone else's company and cost him. I don't think anyone who hasn't worked for a larger company can understand that aspect, that the person doing the hiring (and possibly the discriminating) isn't usually the person it directly effects.

[Griever]

(06-16-2016, 08:27 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: It's not illegal here in Florida.   And It's refreshing, I wish we would do away will all anti discrimination laws.   We don't need them, we are going to hire the best people regardless.    The only difference is you have to lie to them if you don't choose them now.   

havent you already said you wouldnt hire a "flamer" even if he was the best person suited for the job

[*PhilHos*]

(06-16-2016, 09:39 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Depends on how you are discriminating. In public accommodations, it depends on how a judge interprets federal law since all states don't provide it and it isn't protected at the federal level. Same with employment. It's illegal in some states, but the only federal protection is for federal employment. This amendment would extend that to contractors who are contracted by the federal government. 

I thought the discrimination legislation originated with the civil rights act. If you're right, I see no reason why discrimination should remain legal.

[StLucieBengal]

(06-20-2016, 10:02 AM)Griever Wrote: havent you already said you wouldnt hire a "flamer" even if he was the best person suited for the job

Yes.    I also said that I would hire a normal gay man.   

[Griever]

(06-20-2016, 01:32 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Yes.    I also said that I would hire a normal gay man.   

so you'll hire the best person available, but what if the best person available is as you put it, a "flamer"

[StLucieBengal]

(06-17-2016, 09:24 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Did you miss the part where Benton mentioned the guy was the "worst applicant"?

She wasn't hiring for her, she was hiring for the company she worked for and so her bigotry shouldn't influence doing what is in the best interest of her employer.

It's funny you ***** and moan about feelings and safe spaces, but advocate for bigot's feelings so they can have a safe place at work where other people won't make them feel uncomfortable.

Benton thinks he was the worst applicant.   Obviously she didn't ....  

[StLucieBengal]

(06-20-2016, 01:34 PM)Griever Wrote: so you'll hire the best person available, but what if the best person available is as you put it, a "flamer"

Presentation matters, so a flamer wouldn't be the best fit.    

[Griever]

(06-20-2016, 01:49 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Presentation matters, so a flamer wouldn't be the best fit.    

maybe if you work at a church

but anywhere else, i doubt it would be a hinderance

[BmorePat87]

(06-20-2016, 10:14 AM)PhilHos Wrote: I thought the discrimination legislation originated with the civil rights act. If you're right, I see no reason why discrimination should remain legal.

Discrimination legislation in general or the one referenced in the OP?

The various Civil Rights Acts only prevent discrimination in certain areas to certain classes. Federal protection still does not exist in areas like employment discrimination and public accommodations discrimination for sexual orientation and gender identity. This is why gay marriage was far from the end game for the fight for Civil Rights in the LGBT community. 

[*PhilHos*]

(06-20-2016, 01:52 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Discrimination legislation in general or the one referenced in the OP?

The various Civil Rights Acts only prevent discrimination in certain areas to certain classes. Federal protection still does not exist in areas like employment discrimination and public accommodations discrimination for sexual orientation and gender identity. This is why gay marriage was far from the end game for the fight for Civil Rights in the LGBT community. 

This is what I get for just listening to the media and society in general. I honestly thought discrimination in general was outlawed. Like no one in the country could discriminate against anyone for anything on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. After I read your post, I did a quick Google search and, yep, turns out the original civil rights act only outlawed discrimination in various areas, not for everything in the whole country.

[BmorePat87]

(06-20-2016, 02:40 PM)PhilHos Wrote: This is what I get for just listening to the media and society in general. I honestly thought discrimination in general was outlawed. Like no one in the country could discriminate against anyone for anything on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. After I read your post, I did a quick Google search and, yep, turns out the original civil rights act only outlawed discrimination in various areas, not for everything in the whole country.

Political ideology is another grey area with regards to protected classes.

[*bfine32*]

(06-20-2016, 02:40 PM)PhilHos Wrote: This is what I get for just listening to the media and society in general. I honestly thought discrimination in general was outlawed. Like no one in the country could discriminate against anyone for anything on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. After I read your post, I did a quick Google search and, yep, turns out the original civil rights act only outlawed discrimination in various areas, not for everything in the whole country.

..and you also must consider what someone views as discrimanation instead of just listening to the dude yelling from the soapbox. For instance; if I don't let a male use the female facilities at my place of employment am I discriminating if I have provided that employee a place to go that matches his or her biological make up?