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

[BmorePat87]

(06-20-2016, 03:00 PM)bfine32 Wrote: ..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?

Or something relevant to this thread: employment. If we protect gay people from being fired for being gay, we lose our ability to protect anyone, right?

Maybe I should stop listening to the guy on the soapbox going on about trans people using bathrooms and realize that they don't view refusing to hire people because they're gay as being a form a discrimination.

[Griever]

(06-20-2016, 03:29 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Or something relevant to this thread: employment. If we protect gay people from being fired for being gay, we lose our ability to protect anyone, right?

Maybe I should stop listening to the guy on the soapbox going on about trans people using bathrooms and realize that they don't view refusing to hire people because they're gay as being a form a discrimination.

well the people on the right need someone to make them feel superior too

[*bfine32*]

(06-20-2016, 03:29 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Or something relevant to this thread: employment. If we protect gay people from being fired for being gay, we lose our ability to protect anyone, right?

Maybe I should stop listening to the guy on the soapbox going on about trans people using bathrooms and realize that they don't view refusing to hire people because they're gay as being a form a discrimination.

Hell you were the one that brought up reasonable accommodation and now suddenly, it is not relevant to the thread and gives someone the grounds to make a ridiculous correlation. 

Back to your soapbox. 

[StLucieBengal]

(06-20-2016, 01:51 PM)Griever Wrote: maybe if you work at a church

but anywhere else, i doubt it would be a hinderance

Oh I forgot you know my business better than I know my business.    

[BmorePat87]

(06-20-2016, 04:19 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Hell you were the one that brought up reasonable accommodation and now suddenly, it is not relevant to the thread and gives someone the grounds to make a ridiculous correlation. 

Back to your soapbox. 

I didn't tell you not to use it as an example, but I do find it odd that your interjection in a back and forth about gaps in existing civil rights legislation was "yea, but when they complain about discrimination, they're talking about trans people using bathrooms!" when no one mentioned bathrooms once in this thread.

I understand that you do not believe gay people should be a protected class because of some asinine argument you refused to defend, but let's not imply that this is merely a fight over using a toilet. No federal legislation exists that protects all gay people from being fired from any employer because they're gay, and that is a travesty of our nation's principles. One many like Phil had no clue existed.

[*bfine32*]

(06-20-2016, 11:58 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I didn't tell you not to use it as an example, but I do find it odd that your interjection in a back and forth about gaps in existing civil rights legislation was "yea, but when they complain about discrimination, they're talking about trans people using bathrooms!" when no one mentioned bathrooms once in this thread.

What type of reasonable accommodations were you talking about when you mentioned homosexual and transgender? Smoking area, break room,....

The simple fact is that you brought up reasonable accommodation and transgender; yet when someone addressed it, you come back with "no one mentioned bathrooms". I find it "odd" that someone addressed your exact point, made a logical query, and now you just revert to the bumper sticker talk of "you deny rights". 

[BmorePat87]

(06-21-2016, 01:13 AM)bfine32 Wrote: What type of reasonable accommodations were you talking about when you mentioned homosexual and transgender? Smoking area, break room,....

The simple fact is that you brought up reasonable accommodation and transgender; yet when someone addressed it, you come back with "no one mentioned bathrooms". I find it "odd" that someone addressed your exact point, made a logical query, and now you just revert to the bumper sticker talk of "you deny rights". 

When I said "public accommodations" I was referring to... public accommodations. You know... restaurants, hotels, stores, etc. The stuff covered under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when it outlawed discrimination in... public accommodations. As I said, depending the judge, sexual orientation and gender identity may not be protected as there is not federal protection. Gay and trans people can be denied equal access to the services provided by these public accommodations unless the judge ruling on the case decides that the existing laws do in fact protect them. 

Maybe you're confused because you keep saying "reasonable accommodations". That's a very different concept. 

[*bfine32*]

(06-21-2016, 02:14 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: When I said "public accommodations" I was referring to... public accommodations. You know... restaurants, hotels, stores, etc. The stuff covered under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when it outlawed discrimination in... public accommodations. As I said, depending the judge, sexual orientation and gender identity may not be protected as there is not federal protection. Gay and trans people can be denied equal access to the services provided by these public accommodations unless the judge ruling on the case decides that the existing laws do in fact protect them. 

Maybe you're confused because you keep saying "reasonable accommodations". That's a very different concept. 

Ah, yes my mistake. As the thread was about employment my mind went to reasonable accommodation.

What does public accommodation have to do with employment?

[BmorePat87]

(06-21-2016, 02:22 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Ah, yes my mistake. As the thread was about employment my mind went to reasonable accommodation.

What does public accommodation have to do with employment?

Phil stated that he thought it was illegal to discriminate against people based on sexual orientation. I stated that protection for public accommodations and employment both leave out sexual orientation. He then asked about the Civil Rights Act and I responded again by discussing both areas. He then responded that he didn't realize that these gaps existed. 

This is when you jumped in and made an ass out of yourself. Next time just read the chain you're responding to. It'll hopefully prevent any future incidents when you don't know what two people are talking about.

[*bfine32*]

(06-21-2016, 02:34 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Phil stated that he thought it was illegal to discriminate against people based on sexual orientation. I stated that protection for public accommodations and employment both leave out sexual orientation. He then asked about the Civil Rights Act and I responded again by discussing both areas. He then responded that he didn't realize that these gaps existed. 

This is when you jumped in and made an ass out of yourself. Next time just read the chain you're responding to. It'll hopefully prevent any future incidents when you don't know what two people are talking about.

BmorePat87 Wrote:Or something relevant to this thread: employment. 

My bad.

[BmorePat87]

(06-21-2016, 02:38 AM)bfine32 Wrote: My bad.

It's all good. 

[Griever]

(06-20-2016, 04:24 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Oh I forgot you know my business better than I know my business.    

i seriously doubt having a qualified "flamer" would harm your business

[StLucieBengal]

(06-21-2016, 08:49 AM)Griever Wrote: i seriously doubt having a qualified "flamer" would harm your business

Yeah I couldn't possibly see a scenario where appearance matters.  

[Griever]

(06-21-2016, 09:02 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Yeah I couldn't possibly see a scenario where appearance matters.  

yeah because the homosexual community is not known for on point fashion and style

[BigPapaKain]

(06-21-2016, 09:19 AM)Griever Wrote: yeah because the homosexual community is not known for on point fashion and style

Or hiding their more flamboyant personalities from the public eye for fear of persecution.

[GMDino]

(06-21-2016, 09:19 AM)Griever Wrote: yeah because the homosexual community is not known for on point fashion and style

Understand that Lucy thinks all gay men dress like there are in a parade in Rio and all gay women look like they are in the band Nirvana.

[Rotobeast]

(06-21-2016, 09:39 AM)GMDino Wrote: Understand that Lucy thinks all gay men dress like there are in a parade in Rio and all gay women look like they are in the band Nirvana.

This isn't traditional attire ?

[Griever]

(06-21-2016, 10:51 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: This isn't traditional attire ?

thats weekend attire

not work attire (well for most at least)

[Vas Deferens]

(06-21-2016, 09:02 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Yeah I couldn't possibly see a scenario where appearance matters.  

Unless one is merely fabricating stories and a persona on an online forum.  Then one is free to proudly strut around with ones asshat proudly displayed. 

[Rotobeast]

(06-21-2016, 11:19 AM)Vas Deferens Wrote: Unless one is merely fabricating stories and a persona on an online forum.  Then one is free to proudly strut around with ones asshat proudly displayed. 

Is it breaded ?