Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Think Progress)   Today's example of Republican re-branding and outreach to minorities: Rick Rubio says it should be legal for employers to fire someone for being gay   (thinkprogress.org) divider line 196
    More: Asinine, rubio, Republican, Employment Non-Discrimination Act, workplace discrimination, coming out, middle ground, minorities, Alan Keyes  
•       •       •

3380 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 Jun 2013 at 6:48 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



196 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-06-13 05:34:37 PM  
RUBIO: I haven't read the legislation. By and large I think all Americans should be protected but I'm not for any special protections based on orientation.

KEYES: What about on race or gender?

RUBIO: Well that's established law.



What a weasely asshole Rubio is. The level of respect I had for Rubio just went from 0 to -1.

 
2013-06-13 05:36:07 PM  
Wait, let me guess: because Jesus?
 
2013-06-13 05:36:40 PM  
I thought the GOP had classes and workshops that showed them now to NOT be f*cking stupid in front of cameras, reporters or children?  did they just get dumber or something?
 
2013-06-13 05:41:28 PM  
I thought that was a long held position of the Republican Party, heartily embraced by their True Conservative rank and file.

Also note the language used

RUBIO: I haven't read the legislation. By and large I think all Americans should be protected but I'm not for any special protections based on orientation.
KEYES: What about on race or gender?
RUBIO: Well that's established law.


"That's established law", not "yes, I support that".
 
2013-06-13 05:42:13 PM  
Should be legal to fire brown nosing coconuts too.
 
2013-06-13 05:46:10 PM  
So Rubio supports firing straight people?? He said it, right there! Call every voter in Florida and let them know Rubio is attacking straight folks!
 
2013-06-13 05:47:04 PM  

Weaver95: I thought the GOP had classes and workshops that showed them now to NOT be f*cking stupid in front of cameras, reporters or children?  did they just get dumber or something?


I believe that came to the conclusion that they just couldn't do it consistently enough so they decided to continously say stupider and stupider shiat, their hope being to make all of us stupider for having listened to it eventually we will be as dumb as they want us to be
 
2013-06-13 05:47:21 PM  

tallguywithglasseson: I thought that was a long held position of the Republican Party, heartily embraced by their True Conservative rank and file.

Also note the language used

RUBIO: I haven't read the legislation. By and large I think all Americans should be protected but I'm not for any special protections based on orientation.
KEYES: What about on race or gender?
RUBIO: Well that's established law.

"That's established law", not "yes, I support that".


oh it's pretty clear that if the GOP had their way they would strip worker protections down to nothing.  that's not even in doubt.
 
2013-06-13 05:47:40 PM  

Weaver95: I thought the GOP had classes and workshops that showed them now to NOT be f*cking stupid in front of cameras, reporters or children?  did they just get dumber or something?


They're getting increasingly worse it seems. Can't possibly be because of reporting, that'shiat near-peak Internet for a few years now. Just everything they say is awful and yet the ignorant voters continue to see no problems.

/and by voters I mean white people
//and by white people I mean terrible white men and the women they've convinced to not have their own thoughts
 
2013-06-13 05:51:01 PM  
Well at least someone in the GOP is actually talking about jobs...
 
2013-06-13 05:51:51 PM  
Who's Rick Rubio?
 
2013-06-13 05:54:12 PM  

Paris1127: Who's Rick Rubio?


He produced the last Beastie Boys album.
 
2013-06-13 05:55:42 PM  

Paris1127: Who's Rick Rubio?


A Spainish born basketball player, but that's not important right now.
 
2013-06-13 05:59:12 PM  

NuttierThanEver: Weaver95: I thought the GOP had classes and workshops that showed them now to NOT be f*cking stupid in front of cameras, reporters or children?  did they just get dumber or something?

I believe that came to the conclusion that they just couldn't do it consistently enough so they decided to continously say stupider and stupider shiat, their hope being to make all of us stupider for having listened to it eventually we will be as dumb as they want us to be


www.lobshots.com

Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having listened to Rubio
 
2013-06-13 06:04:39 PM  
I'm sorry Mr. Rubio, but management doesn't believe that someone who chooses to live a Cuban lifestyle is compatible with the morals and values of our company. If you want to listen to salsa music and eat black beans, we believe you should have the right to do it, but we can't have it associated with Togib, Inc.
 
2013-06-13 06:08:36 PM  
What does Marco Santorum think?
 
2013-06-13 06:45:14 PM  

Paris1127: Who's Rick Rubio?


Volton-esque amalgamation of Rick Perry and Marco Rubio.
 
2013-06-13 06:51:15 PM  

Weaver95: I thought the GOP had classes and workshops that showed them now to NOT be f*cking stupid in front of cameras, reporters or children?  did they just get dumber or something?


No there workshop was them telling themselves that everyone else was being stupid and they are right.
 
2013-06-13 06:51:42 PM  

Paris1127: Who's Rick Rubio?


Big music producer.  Founded Def Jam.  Very influential.
 
2013-06-13 06:53:01 PM  
Republicans: We support protections of minorities!!! *

* - only after they have been established for 50 years and then it's sort of tenuous.
 
2013-06-13 06:55:37 PM  
Rick Rubio? THE BASKETBALL PLAYER?
I suppose the Secretary of Defense is Serge Ibaka!
 
2013-06-13 06:55:41 PM  

Weaver95: I thought the GOP had classes and workshops that showed them now to NOT be f*cking stupid in front of cameras, reporters or children?  did they just get dumber or something?


WHAT, the last five years, could have POSSIBLY convinced you of this?

This has been a half-decade of UNPRECEDENTED brutal honesty from these bigots! It'd be refreshing of more of them just owned it instead of back pedaling faster than a fixie on a steep decline.
 
2013-06-13 06:57:26 PM  
imageshack.us
RIP Rick Rubio
 
2013-06-13 06:57:50 PM  
Your perversions aren't protected, Democrat.
 
2013-06-13 06:58:02 PM  
Wouldn't this also not allow someone to be fired for being heterosexual?

So how is it a "special" entitlement since everyone would get it for whatever sexual orientation they are.
 
2013-06-13 07:00:52 PM  
The current version of the bill under consideration in Congress prohibits private employers with more than 15 employees from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

Like I said it doesn't give a "special right" it protects everyone from being fired based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Not just homosexuals.

He is lying.
 
2013-06-13 07:04:00 PM  

shanrick: [imageshack.us image 400x500]
RIP Rick Rubio


I love you.
 
2013-06-13 07:07:03 PM  
I never really "liked" Rubio, but I thought he was OK...and pretty good compared to his GOP colleagues.  But every time this f*ckstick opens his mouth on any subject whatsoever, he proves that he is just another fkn pathetic piece of shiat Republican asshole dickhead.

F*ck you, Rubio.
 
2013-06-13 07:09:04 PM  
Wouldn't that mean it's also OK to fire someone for being straight?
 
2013-06-13 07:10:50 PM  

tallguywithglasseson: I thought that was a long held position of the Republican Party, heartily embraced by their True Conservative rank and file.

Also note the language used

RUBIO: I haven't read the legislation. By and large I think all Americans should be protected but I'm not for any special protections based on orientation.
KEYES: What about on race or gender?
RUBIO: Well that's established law.

"That's established law", not "yes, I support that".


I really, really want to know why the guy doing that interview didn't point out that Rubio is one of those guys who writes new laws.  If his only objection is that it isn't in the books already, then why not fix it?
 
2013-06-13 07:11:38 PM  

Noam Chimpsky: Your perversions aren't protected, Democrat.


1/10 - you get a point for brevity, but that was amateurish.
 
2013-06-13 07:12:29 PM  

Weaver95: oh it's pretty clear that if the GOP had their way they would strip worker protections down to nothing.  that's not even in doubt.


No, no, no.  Didn't you hear him?  He explicitly affirmed he wants workers to be "protected".  Not from anything specific or useful, just "protected" in general.  Like, from aliens and zombies probably.
 
2013-06-13 07:13:33 PM  

winterbraid: Noam Chimpsky: Your perversions aren't protected, Democrat.

1/10 - you get a point for brevity, but that was amateurish.


You're being generous.  It was fkn pathetic.
 
2013-06-13 07:13:50 PM  

Corvus: The current version of the bill under consideration in Congress prohibits private employers with more than 15 employees from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

Like I said it doesn't give a "special right" it protects everyone from being fired based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Not just homosexuals.

He is lying.


Shows what you know, libtard.  No one has ever fired a heterosexual because they were a heterosexual.  This bill is OBVIOUISLOYUTYLY being put forth to help shove the gay agenda down the throats of viral real red blooded able bodied American men.  Right.  Down.  Their.  Throats.  All the way down, over and over until the end.
 
2013-06-13 07:14:43 PM  
RUBIO: Well that's established law.

So is Obamacare and Roe vs. Wade
 
2013-06-13 07:16:10 PM  

Karac: Wouldn't that mean it's also OK to fire someone for being straight?


Yup - if the drag bar you DJ at finds out you're straight - out you go.
 
2013-06-13 07:17:34 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: I never really "liked" Rubio, but I thought he was OK...and pretty good compared to his GOP colleagues.  But every time this f*ckstick opens his mouth on any subject whatsoever, he proves that he is just another fkn pathetic piece of shiat Republican asshole dickhead.


He's probably just practicing for the 2016 primaries.  He's learning how hard it is to fake being insane and bigoted while not necessarily really being so.  Romney found out how tough it was, but thanks to a million lucky breaks and an assload of cash managed to bluff his way to the nomination anyway.
 
2013-06-13 07:24:38 PM  
Wait.

I thought it was perfectly legal for a private business to fire you for any reason they damn well like. The only protection offered is for government employees (or businesses that receive government grants)?
 
2013-06-13 07:24:41 PM  
They'll start scratching their heads when they realize there's also heathens amongst the youn Latinamerican community.
 
2013-06-13 07:25:52 PM  

Karac: Wouldn't that mean it's also OK to fire someone for being straight?


Yes, and the fact that this is not an issue proves how disingenuous these farks really are. If there were not systemic imbalances, then these laws would protect everyone equally. The fact that they can be presented as "special rights" is itself prima facie evidence that these protections are needed.
 
2013-06-13 07:27:19 PM  
The Mexicans and other assorted S. Americans outnumber gays by a fair margin, so it's a safe move.
They're pretty farkin' religious.
 
2013-06-13 07:28:54 PM  

God-is-a-Taco: The Mexicans and other assorted S. Americans outnumber gays by a fair margin, so it's a safe move.
They're pretty farkin' religious.


Well, I'm not.
 
2013-06-13 07:30:37 PM  
i.usatoday.net

Was that wrong? Should I not have said that?
 
2013-06-13 07:31:06 PM  
Dear GOP,

This is why the current & subsequent generations will bury your memory.

Sincerely,
Progress
 
2013-06-13 07:33:33 PM  

Shostie: Paris1127: Who's Rick Rubio?

Volton-esque amalgamation of Rick Perry and Marco Rubio.


Why not? Mentally, they're indistinguishable anyway.
 
2013-06-13 07:34:06 PM  
Don't you think he looks thirsty?
 
2013-06-13 07:34:31 PM  

Lackofname: Wait.

I thought it was perfectly legal for a private business to fire you for any reason they damn well like.


Nope.  That's only true if you're part of the privileged majority.

For instance:
Firing a Christian guy for failing a drug test? No problem.  Fire an American Indian for doing psychedelic mushrooms as a part of a bizarre 'religious exercise'? That's a Supreme Courtin'.

Refuse to hire a man to become a firefighter because he can't pass a physical test that requires the firefighter to be able to lift dead weight equal to a smoke inhalation victim? No problem.  Refuse to hire a woman for the same reason? That's a Supreme Courtin'.

Fire a guy for heterosexual sexual harrassment? No problem.  Fire guy for homosexual sexual harrassment?  That's a lawsuit.

Et cetera, et cetera.  Contract law is a joke when it comes to employment.  Like housing, the benefit of the doubt is given to the little guy to such an extent that it behooves pretty much everyone to claim discrimination the second they get fired.  If nothing else, it will gum up the works long enough that they will actually keep a paycheck while the courts are battling each other over whether or not "people with big feet" is a protected class or not.
 
2013-06-13 07:35:58 PM  
Hah! can't even answer a simple question, it appears that whoever is prepping Rubio got the message through, don't say anything definitive regarding our party stance in public, keep it vague, use distractions, look a bird!

for the simple reason that they will have no support if they did otherwise.  And i've always been told it's the (D)'s who have no "ball", hell, even Farkers manage to voice their opinions regardless of backlash or disdain.

I won't vote for someone who isn't willing to say it like it is or how they think it should be.
 
2013-06-13 07:37:45 PM  
Lackofname: muh freedums!

Nope.
 
2013-06-13 07:39:55 PM  

Isitoveryet: Hah! can't even answer a simple question, it appears that whoever is prepping Rubio got the message through, don't say anything definitive regarding our party stance in public, keep it vague, use distractions, look a bird!


They forgot to tell him the most important part: Never grant interviews to any reporters who might challenge your positions or call you on your bullshiat.
 
2013-06-13 07:44:07 PM  

dookdookdook: Lackofname: muh freedums!

Nope.


Why did you put "muh freedums"?

I'm not for firing gay people. :|
 
2013-06-13 07:47:13 PM  
that's cause Ricky takes secretly takes it up the arse.
 
2013-06-13 07:48:26 PM  

Lackofname: dookdookdook: Lackofname: muh freedums!

Nope.

Why did you put "muh freedums"?

I'm not for firing gay people. :|


Ah.  Pardon the misunderstanding then.
 
2013-06-13 07:50:01 PM  

Shaggy_C: Lackofname: Wait.

I thought it was perfectly legal for a private business to fire you for any reason they damn well like.

Nope.  That's only true if you're part of the privileged majority.

For instance:
Firing a Christian guy for failing a drug test? No problem.  Fire an American Indian for doing psychedelic mushrooms as a part of a bizarre 'religious exercise'? That's a Supreme Courtin'.

Refuse to hire a man to become a firefighter because he can't pass a physical test that requires the firefighter to be able to lift dead weight equal to a smoke inhalation victim? No problem.  Refuse to hire a woman for the same reason? That's a Supreme Courtin'.

Fire a guy for heterosexual sexual harrassment? No problem.  Fire guy for homosexual sexual harrassment?  That's a lawsuit.

Et cetera, et cetera.  Contract law is a joke when it comes to employment.  Like housing, the benefit of the doubt is given to the little guy to such an extent that it behooves pretty much everyone to claim discrimination the second they get fired.  If nothing else, it will gum up the works long enough that they will actually keep a paycheck while the courts are battling each other over whether or not "people with big feet" is a protected class or not.


i have two questions for you:

1.  Is your safety helmet securely strapped on?
2.  Is a responsible adult anywhere in your general vicinity?
 
2013-06-13 07:50:33 PM  

God-is-a-Taco: The Mexicans and other assorted S. Americans outnumber gays by a fair margin, so it's a safe move.
They're pretty farkin' religious.


And "religious" for them often means being on the left politically with things like liberation theology.  And at least on the books, there are several areas in Latin America that give gays more rights than in the USA.
 
2013-06-13 07:51:34 PM  

whither_apophis: Paris1127: Who's Rick Rubio?

A Spainish born basketball player, but that's not important right now.


Would be awesome if the Timberpups signed Jason Collins. "I like penetrating defenses, then passing to Jason so he can finish at the rim."
 
2013-06-13 07:54:41 PM  

dookdookdook: Lackofname: dookdookdook: Lackofname: muh freedums!

Nope.

Why did you put "muh freedums"?

I'm not for firing gay people. :|

Ah.  Pardon the misunderstanding then.


My confusion was that I was under the impression NO ONE was protected.

I do know some businesses can fire you without stating a reason. And that it's legal for businesses to deny service to anyone they decide (it is not, however, WISE to do so because it results in public outcry).
 
2013-06-13 07:55:30 PM  

Shaggy_C: Lackofname: Wait.

I thought it was perfectly legal for a private business to fire you for any reason they damn well like.

Nope.  That's only true if you're part of the privileged majority.

For instance:
Firing a Christian guy for failing a drug test? No problem.  Fire an American Indian for doing psychedelic mushrooms as a part of a bizarre 'religious exercise'? That's a Supreme Courtin'.

Refuse to hire a man to become a firefighter because he can't pass a physical test that requires the firefighter to be able to lift dead weight equal to a smoke inhalation victim? No problem.  Refuse to hire a woman for the same reason? That's a Supreme Courtin'.

Fire a guy for heterosexual sexual harrassment? No problem.  Fire guy for homosexual sexual harrassment?  That's a lawsuit.

Et cetera, et cetera.  Contract law is a joke when it comes to employment.  Like housing, the benefit of the doubt is given to the little guy to such an extent that it behooves pretty much everyone to claim discrimination the second they get fired.  If nothing else, it will gum up the works long enough that they will actually keep a paycheck while the courts are battling each other over whether or not "people with big feet" is a protected class or not.


You know, I wouldn't have thought it possible to tell so many lies in so few words. Congrats, I guess.
 
2013-06-13 07:58:43 PM  

Lackofname: Wait.

I thought it was perfectly legal for a private business to fire you for any reason they damn well like. The only protection offered is for government employees (or businesses that receive government grants)?


I had a discussion last evening with a CEO. Apparently, white males are the most desired in hiring not because they're better at anything, but because it's easiest to fire them when needed. If you hired a female or one from a minority race, you could get into a lot of legal issues when firing someone like that, just because the person would play the discrimination card. Kinda twisted everything around.
 
2013-06-13 08:00:15 PM  

Lackofname: dookdookdook: Lackofname: dookdookdook: Lackofname: muh freedums!

Nope.

Why did you put "muh freedums"?

I'm not for firing gay people. :|

Ah.  Pardon the misunderstanding then.

My confusion was that I was under the impression NO ONE was protected.

I do know some businesses can fire you without stating a reason. And that it's legal for businesses to deny service to anyone they decide (it is not, however, WISE to do so because it results in public outcry).


No. No business in America can fire an employee due to one's membership in a protected class. The thing is, everyone belongs to a protected class. You cannot be fired just because you happen to be white, or male, or what have you.

Also, businesses may not discriminate on the basis of a customer's membership in a protected class. See the Heart of Atlanta Hotel case.
 
2013-06-13 08:03:26 PM  

dericwater: Lackofname: Wait.

I thought it was perfectly legal for a private business to fire you for any reason they damn well like. The only protection offered is for government employees (or businesses that receive government grants)?

I had a discussion last evening with a CEO. Apparently, white males are the most desired in hiring not because they're better at anything, but because it's easiest to fire them when needed. If you hired a female or one from a minority race, you could get into a lot of legal issues when firing someone like that, just because the person would play the discrimination card. Kinda twisted everything around.


I'm guessing that CEO is either A. The "CEO" of Bubba's Freedom Eagle Gun Shop and Salvage Yard in Birmingham Alabama, B. A moron or C. Taco Shell Girl.
 
2013-06-13 08:04:32 PM  
Like housing, the benefit of the doubt is given to the little guy

Shaggy, does it really never occur to you that YOU might be one of the little guys...?

Or do you really prefer that people with less economic ability ought to just...vanish somehow and quit "oppressing" the whoever-you-think-are-normal people?
 
2013-06-13 08:06:18 PM  

BMulligan: Lackofname: dookdookdook: Lackofname: dookdookdook: Lackofname: muh freedums!

Nope.

Why did you put "muh freedums"?

I'm not for firing gay people. :|

Ah.  Pardon the misunderstanding then.

My confusion was that I was under the impression NO ONE was protected.

I do know some businesses can fire you without stating a reason. And that it's legal for businesses to deny service to anyone they decide (it is not, however, WISE to do so because it results in public outcry).

No. No business in America can fire an employee due to one's membership in a protected class. The thing is, everyone belongs to a protected class. You cannot be fired just because you happen to be white, or male, or what have you.

Also, businesses may not discriminate on the basis of a customer's membership in a protected class. See the Heart of Atlanta Hotel case.


Then how can you have businesses like Curves, which are Women Only gyms? Gender is a protected class.
 
2013-06-13 08:09:43 PM  

God-is-a-Taco: The Mexicans and other assorted S. Americans outnumber gays by a fair margin, so it's a safe move.
They're pretty farkin' religious.


S. Americans? Super Americans, Straight Americans, Special Americans, Southern Americans, Sexy Americans, Swallowing Americans, Stereotypical Amerians?

Help me out, here.
 
2013-06-13 08:11:05 PM  

Kittypie070: Shaggy, does it really never occur to you that YOU might be one of the little guys...?


I absolutely am a "little guy".  Not sure what difference that makes - I was just telling it like it is.  Employment and housing are two areas where the "big guy" is hamstrung to an almost silly degree due to the protections for the employee/lessee.  Just look up your local codes around evictions for non-payment.

BMulligan: You know, I wouldn't have thought it possible to tell so many lies in so few words. Congrats, I guess.


Those weren't lies - those are legitimate legal issues taken up in the last few years.  The second (around different testing for female firefighters) was actually from Canada but I'm pretty sure there was a similar disparate impact suit around firefighters here in Chicago around the written tests that they had to go through.  The homosexual harrassment one was hypothetical - a case hasn't made it to a Supreme Court (yet).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Division_v._Smith

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Columbia_%28PSERC%29_v._BCGSEU
 
2013-06-13 08:13:25 PM  
Dear GOP,

You do know that if LBGT voters voted the same as non-LBGT voters that Mitt would be president right now.   You also know that anti-gay bigotry turns off young voters.   Voters, more often then not, tend to get set for who they vote for when young.  Naturally you are driving millions and millions of young voters away from you while those pleased by such bigotry are dying off from the usual process of the young replacing the old.   But heck, there are some old people converting away from bigotry even before they die.

You can't say that you are not warned.   No whining when you weep what you sow, please.  You will get no sympathy.
 
2013-06-13 08:16:00 PM  

Lackofname: My confusion was that I was under the impression NO ONE was protected.

I do know some businesses can fire you without stating a reason. And that it's legal for businesses to deny service to anyone they decide (it is not, however, WISE to do so because it results in public outcry).


Here's the thing; the same people who are asshole enough to fire someone for their skin color, religion, sexual orientation, etc etc, are usually also stupid enough to also tell people and document that they're bigots/racists/whatever.

It's almost that being stupid goes hand and hand with being a bigot/racist.
 
2013-06-13 08:16:11 PM  

BMulligan: Shaggy_C: Lackofname: Wait.

I thought it was perfectly legal for a private business to fire you for any reason they damn well like.

Nope.  That's only true if you're part of the privileged majority.

For instance:
Firing a Christian guy for failing a drug test? No problem.  Fire an American Indian for doing psychedelic mushrooms as a part of a bizarre 'religious exercise'? That's a Supreme Courtin'.

Refuse to hire a man to become a firefighter because he can't pass a physical test that requires the firefighter to be able to lift dead weight equal to a smoke inhalation victim? No problem.  Refuse to hire a woman for the same reason? That's a Supreme Courtin'.

Fire a guy for heterosexual sexual harrassment? No problem.  Fire guy for homosexual sexual harrassment?  That's a lawsuit.

Et cetera, et cetera.  Contract law is a joke when it comes to employment.  Like housing, the benefit of the doubt is given to the little guy to such an extent that it behooves pretty much everyone to claim discrimination the second they get fired.  If nothing else, it will gum up the works long enough that they will actually keep a paycheck while the courts are battling each other over whether or not "people with big feet" is a protected class or not.

You know, I wouldn't have thought it possible to tell so many lies in so few words. Congrats, I guess.


Technically, it's only a lie if they don't believe it when they say it. Thing is, this kind of crap is what conservatives actually believe.
 
2013-06-13 08:17:01 PM  

Paris1127: Who's Rick Rubio?


He's the star of  The Legend of Creepy Swallow*.

*stole that from another farker, but don't remember who it was.
 
2013-06-13 08:17:31 PM  

Weaver95: I thought the GOP had classes and workshops that showed them now to NOT be f*cking stupid in front of cameras, reporters or children?  did they just get dumber or something?


It's like what happens when you stand near the edge of a cliff. You don't have any desire to kill yourself, and no possible reason to want to jump, but then a mental hysteresis kicks in. Your brain was screaming so loud to stay away from the edge, and you do, so it stops screaming "stay away from the edge", and in the silence in the wake of the screams ending a small voice says step closer to the edge, one more step ... just an off-handed remark about gays, or rape, or women being naturally subservient to men.
 
2013-06-13 08:20:48 PM  

12349876: God-is-a-Taco: The Mexicans and other assorted S. Americans outnumber gays by a fair margin, so it's a safe move.
They're pretty farkin' religious.

And "religious" for them often means being on the left politically with things like liberation theology.  And at least on the books, there are several areas in Latin America that give gays more rights than in the USA.


no, it doesn't. That's what you wish it would mean but it's really not the case for the vast majority of Mexican peasants who are coming here for work.
 
2013-06-13 08:20:59 PM  

Triple Oak: Just everything they say is awful and yet the ignorant voters continue to see no problems.

/and by voters I mean white people
//and by white people I mean terrible white men and the women they've convinced to not have their own thoughts


Why do you think the GOP has such a push to privatize every aspect of government, and lauding the idea of "running a government like a business"?  Who picks the leaders of a large company?  Hint: it's not the workers.
 
2013-06-13 08:24:47 PM  

Shaggy_C: Kittypie070: Shaggy, does it really never occur to you that YOU might be one of the little guys...?

I absolutely am a "little guy".  Not sure what difference that makes - I was just telling it like it is.  Employment and housing are two areas where the "big guy" is hamstrung to an almost silly degree due to the protections for the employee/lessee.  Just look up your local codes around evictions for non-payment.

BMulligan: You know, I wouldn't have thought it possible to tell so many lies in so few words. Congrats, I guess.

Those weren't lies - those are legitimate legal issues taken up in the last few years.  The second (around different testing for female firefighters) was actually from Canada but I'm pretty sure there was a similar disparate impact suit around firefighters here in Chicago around the written tests that they had to go through.  The homosexual harrassment one was hypothetical - a case hasn't made it to a Supreme Court (yet).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Division_v._Smith

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Columbia_%28PSERC%29_v._BCGSEU


SCOTUS ruled against the peyote smokers, so pretty much no dice there.  And are you seriously citing Canadian law in US Employment law?  Really?
 
2013-06-13 08:24:58 PM  
Shaggy_C:

I absolutely am a "little guy".  Not sure what difference that makes - I was just telling it like it is.  Employment and housing are two areas where the "big guy" is hamstrung to an almost silly degree due to the protections for the employee/lessee.  Just look up your local codes around evictions for non-payment.

And WHY were those laws put into place? Massive systematic abuse of those with limited resources or who are minorities by those with resources and influence and in the majority. People were/are routinely evicted/ripped off/robbed/fired/exploited by landlords/employers who simply SAY they didn't pay or they broke the lease or that they 'agreed' to the employment terms or whatever. The only recourse is far too late/expensive/impossible to navigate. The big guy can absolutely not ever be trusted to do the right thing without oversight and rules.

To look at those laws in a vacuum is just farking childish, and results in nonsense like rand paul saying the market would sort out civil rights.
 
2013-06-13 08:29:56 PM  
Does Rubio really believe this?  Who knows/  Does Rubio believe this position will help get him the Republican nomination?  Absolutely.
 
2013-06-13 08:32:40 PM  

pueblonative: SCOTUS ruled against the peyote smokers, so pretty much no dice there. And are you seriously citing Canadian law in US Employment law? Really?


Ah, but in the aftermath Oregon changed their law to allow religious exemptions - and when the congress tried to pass a law barring it, that was overturned by the Supreme Court.  So that particular case was a loss, yes, but in the long run it did change the way we treat religious exemption.  And the other was a memory slip on my part.  I guess we could focus on the more recent Chicago firefighter exam which was determined to be racist for no other reason than poorly educated people were more like to fail it if that would make you happier.  Same concept in play.

gaspode: The big guy can absolutely not ever be trusted to do the right thing without oversight and rules.


Precisely right.  I'm not saying that the current system is wrong as much as I'm merely stating that it exists.  The rules are so burdensome now that it's not really fair to think about employment or housing in terms of contract law because they're entirely different animals.
 
2013-06-13 08:33:54 PM  
Sexual orientation isn't covered by many employment non-discrimination policies.

Which is why it's perfectly legal to fire someone for being a heterosexual.
 
2013-06-13 08:37:07 PM  

vernonFL: RUBIO: I haven't read the legislation. By and large I think all Americans should be protected but I'm not for any special protections based on orientation.

KEYES: What about on race or gender?

RUBIO: Well that's established law.


What a weasely asshole Rubio is. The level of respect I had for Rubio just went from 0 to -1.


The shiat of it is, he is talking about special rights. As a gay person, if I start a business and hire a douchebag who hates on me constantly for being gay, because of his religion, I can't fire him... but if I get hired by a gay bashing religious douchebag, he can fire me. What he's looking for is protection of his own brand of bigotry... special rights.
 
2013-06-13 08:38:32 PM  

firefly212: The shiat of it is, he is talking about special rights. As a gay person, if I start a business and hire a douchebag who hates on me constantly for being gay, because of his religion, I can't fire him...


If he challenges the firing, just say you fired him because he's a heterosexual.
 
2013-06-13 08:39:22 PM  

firefly212: vernonFL: RUBIO: I haven't read the legislation. By and large I think all Americans should be protected but I'm not for any special protections based on orientation.

KEYES: What about on race or gender?

RUBIO: Well that's established law.


What a weasely asshole Rubio is. The level of respect I had for Rubio just went from 0 to -1.

The shiat of it is, he is talking about special rights. As a gay person, if I start a business and hire a douchebag who hates on me constantly for being gay, because of his religion, I can't fire him... but if I get hired by a gay bashing religious douchebag, he can fire me. What he's looking for is protection of his own brand of bigotry... special rights.


that's absurd. Of course you can.

Of course, maybe he hates on your for using the phrase "hates on me"? :)
 
2013-06-13 08:47:11 PM  
Why would you even consider firing someone for being gay?

I'd think a cheery disposition would be a positive in an employee.
 
2013-06-13 08:47:58 PM  
Weaver95:
tallguywithglasseson: I thought that was a long held position of the Republican Party, heartily embraced by their True Conservative rank and file.

Also note the language used

RUBIO: I haven't read the legislation. By and large I think all Americans should be protected but I'm not for any special protections based on orientation.
KEYES: What about on race or gender?
RUBIO: Well that's established law.

"That's established law", not "yes, I support that".

oh it's pretty clear that if the GOP had their way they would strip worker protections down to nothing.  that's not even in doubt.


Like unions, "protecting the worker" is in essence stripping the worker of the right to participate in a free market for their labour.  In the absence of the current intrusive regulations scheme, the best workers would naturally be enticed to seek employment at organizations with well-known good work conditions.  Less-impressive resumes would have to tolerate less honeyed jobs, but would have an incentive for them to improve skills and qualifications.  Companies would likewise have an incentive to treat workers well and not discriminate unduly, or end up with the dregs of the workforce who had nowhere else to go.  Supply and demand, it's how a market works.  The current system is practically Stalinist in its overbearing insistence that "all animals are equal, some are more equal than others".
 
2013-06-13 08:51:30 PM  
For a while I've wondered how the Republicans are going to handle 2016:  they can't really keep up the 'silent majority' bullshiat forever.  Sure, they can say it over and over, but they have to have a plan to deal with the fact that their base is shrinking.  Somewhere in their bullshiat, they have some kind of plan attempt to turn it around and market it as something vaguely appealing to people who aren't scared white people.

But there isn't.  The party itself is run by opportunists who don't believe in the Sunk Cost Fallacy or really get that this 'opportunity' to gain power in this party isn't a sign of things going awry.  The only thing I can think at this point is that the GOP is like the USSR before the Berlin Wall fell:  when shiat starts going seriously sideways, then we're going to see the true collapse.  Then again, this could go on for a while.  We are talking about people who would tell you the clear sky is pink if their sponsors deemed it so.  But from what I see, the GOP is nothing more than a party dedicated to marketing, not governing, and everybody is grasping that fact.  And they are good at marketing their hatred.  I don't see many buyers, but it's hard to really break the GOP from the bigotry on multiple levels they are unashamedly pushing.
 
2013-06-13 08:54:18 PM  

skullkrusher: 12349876: God-is-a-Taco: The Mexicans and other assorted S. Americans outnumber gays by a fair margin, so it's a safe move.
They're pretty farkin' religious.

And "religious" for them often means being on the left politically with things like liberation theology.  And at least on the books, there are several areas in Latin America that give gays more rights than in the USA.

no, it doesn't. That's what you wish it would mean but it's really not the case for the vast majority of Mexican peasants who are coming here for work.


Then why did only 33% support McCain and Romney?  Only 45% for Dubya?  And why are they so supportive of gay marriage now? (roughly half and half)

And what about this?

A 2007 joint survey by the respected Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life and the Pew Hispanic Center shows that 65 percent of first-generation U.S. Hispanics believe abortion should be illegal. But among second-generation U.S. Hispanics like Ana, that percentage drops to 43 percent.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/07/14/us-usa-hispanics-abortion- id USTRE56D00Y20090714
 
2013-06-13 08:56:12 PM  

No Such Agency: Like unions, "protecting the worker" is in essence stripping the worker of the right to participate in a free market for their labour. In the absence of the current intrusive regulations scheme, the best workers would naturally be enticed to seek employment at organizations with well-known good work conditions. Less-impressive resumes would have to tolerate less honeyed jobs, but would have an incentive for them to improve skills and qualifications. Companies would likewise have an incentive to treat workers well and not discriminate unduly, or end up with the dregs of the workforce who had nowhere else to go. Supply and demand, it's how a market works. The current system is practically Stalinist in its overbearing insistence that "all animals are equal, some are more equal than others".


Must be nice living in that fantasy world.  Those dead Bangladeshis appreciate your optimism.
 
2013-06-13 09:01:40 PM  

12349876: skullkrusher: 12349876: God-is-a-Taco: The Mexicans and other assorted S. Americans outnumber gays by a fair margin, so it's a safe move.
They're pretty farkin' religious.

And "religious" for them often means being on the left politically with things like liberation theology.  And at least on the books, there are several areas in Latin America that give gays more rights than in the USA.

no, it doesn't. That's what you wish it would mean but it's really not the case for the vast majority of Mexican peasants who are coming here for work.

Then why did only 33% support McCain and Romney?  Only 45% for Dubya?  And why are they so supportive of gay marriage now? (roughly half and half)

And what about this?

A 2007 joint survey by the respected Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life and the Pew Hispanic Center shows that 65 percent of first-generation U.S. Hispanics believe abortion should be illegal. But among second-generation U.S. Hispanics like Ana, that percentage drops to 43 percent.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/07/14/us-usa-hispanics-abortion- id USTRE56D00Y20090714


I can't speak for their political feelings but they are not subscribers to liberation theology to any significant degree. Of course, if 50% of them are not supportive of gay marriage, then they are more bigoted than the population at large
 
2013-06-13 09:03:23 PM  
Let me help.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment
 
2013-06-13 09:05:35 PM  

skullkrusher: I can't speak for their political feelings but they are not subscribers to liberation theology to any significant degree. Of course, if 50% of them are not supportive of gay marriage, then they are more bigoted than the population at large


One man's bigot is another's traditionalist.
 
2013-06-13 09:06:05 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: Corvus: The current version of the bill under consideration in Congress prohibits private employers with more than 15 employees from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

Like I said it doesn't give a "special right" it protects everyone from being fired based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Not just homosexuals.

He is lying.

Shows what you know, libtard.  No one has ever fired a heterosexual because they were a heterosexual.  This bill is OBVIOUISLOYUTYLY being put forth to help shove the gay agenda down the throats of viral real red blooded able bodied American men.  Right.  Down.  Their.  Throats.  All the way down, over and over until the end.


Right but if they make that argument then they are proving the point then that it's needed.
 
2013-06-13 09:10:12 PM  

Shaggy_C: Firing a Christian guy for failing a drug test? No problem. Fire an American Indian for doing psychedelic mushrooms as a part of a bizarre 'religious exercise'? That's a Supreme Courtin'.


The real problem here isn't preferential treatment, it's a social bias against drug use. Using psychedelic drugs as part of a religious ritual isn't a bizarre act and was common in many ancient religions. Many Western Christians just happen to be unaware of this and don't realize that the visionary experiences mentioned in the Bible were likely aided by the use of drugs.
 
2013-06-13 09:10:55 PM  
I'm sure that Log Cabin Republicans will be happy to hear that.
 
2013-06-13 09:11:08 PM  

Shaggy_C: skullkrusher: I can't speak for their political feelings but they are not subscribers to liberation theology to any significant degree. Of course, if 50% of them are not supportive of gay marriage, then they are more bigoted than the population at large

One man's bigot is another's traditionalist.


I'm a traditionalist. I married a woman.
I don't give a fark what you do.
I'm traditional that way.
 
2013-06-13 09:11:42 PM  

No Such Agency: Weaver95:
tallguywithglasseson: I thought that was a long held position of the Republican Party, heartily embraced by their True Conservative rank and file.

Also note the language used

RUBIO: I haven't read the legislation. By and large I think all Americans should be protected but I'm not for any special protections based on orientation.
KEYES: What about on race or gender?
RUBIO: Well that's established law.

"That's established law", not "yes, I support that".

oh it's pretty clear that if the GOP had their way they would strip worker protections down to nothing.  that's not even in doubt.

Like unions, "protecting the worker" is in essence stripping the worker of the right to participate in a free market for their labour.  In the absence of the current intrusive regulations scheme, the best workers would naturally be enticed to seek employment at organizations with well-known good work conditions.  Less-impressive resumes would have to tolerate less honeyed jobs, but would have an incentive for them to improve skills and qualifications.  Companies would likewise have an incentive to treat workers well and not discriminate unduly, or end up with the dregs of the workforce who had nowhere else to go.  Supply and demand, it's how a market works.  The current system is practically Stalinist in its overbearing insistence that "all animals are equal, some are more equal than others".


What color do you paint the sky in your fantasy world created in the imagination that runs wild in the room of your parents house?
 
2013-06-13 09:12:10 PM  

tallguywithglasseson: I thought that was a long held position of the Republican Party, heartily embraced by their True Conservative rank and file.

Also note the language used

RUBIO: I haven't read the legislation. By and large I think all Americans should be protected but I'm not for any special protections based on orientation.
KEYES: What about on race or gender?
RUBIO: Well that's established law.

"That's established law", not "yes, I support that".


"That's established law.... for now"
 
2013-06-13 09:17:51 PM  

pueblonative: Shaggy_C: Lackofname: Wait.

I thought it was perfectly legal for a private business to fire you for any reason they damn well like.

Nope.  That's only true if you're part of the privileged majority.

For instance:
Firing a Christian guy for failing a drug test? No problem.  Fire an American Indian for doing psychedelic mushrooms as a part of a bizarre 'religious exercise'? That's a Supreme Courtin'.

Refuse to hire a man to become a firefighter because he can't pass a physical test that requires the firefighter to be able to lift dead weight equal to a smoke inhalation victim? No problem.  Refuse to hire a woman for the same reason? That's a Supreme Courtin'.

Fire a guy for heterosexual sexual harrassment? No problem.  Fire guy for homosexual sexual harrassment?  That's a lawsuit.

Et cetera, et cetera.  Contract law is a joke when it comes to employment.  Like housing, the benefit of the doubt is given to the little guy to such an extent that it behooves pretty much everyone to claim discrimination the second they get fired.  If nothing else, it will gum up the works long enough that they will actually keep a paycheck while the courts are battling each other over whether or not "people with big feet" is a protected class or not.

i have two questions for you:

1.  Is your safety helmet securely strapped on?
2.  Is a responsible adult anywhere in your general vicinity?


What part of what he said is incorrect in anyway?
 
2013-06-13 09:18:05 PM  

fusillade762: Wait, let me guess: because Jesus?


Jesus wore flowing robes, drank wine and hung out with men in flowing robes who drank wine almost exclusively except the occasional prostitute. Plus, sandals.

Boggles the mind.
 
2013-06-13 09:20:29 PM  
Well hell, I think it should be legal for me to punch Marco Rubio in the face while wearing a spiked gauntlet, but that's why we have sensible adults making laws instead of morons like me or Rubio.
 
2013-06-13 09:20:45 PM  

Guntram Shatterhand: For a while I've wondered how the Republicans are going to handle 2016:  they can't really keep up the 'silent majority' bullshiat forever.  Sure, they can say it over and over, but they have to have a plan to deal with the fact that their base is shrinking.  Somewhere in their bullshiat, they have some kind of plan attempt to turn it around and market it as something vaguely appealing to people who aren't scared white people.

But there isn't.  The party itself is run by opportunists who don't believe in the Sunk Cost Fallacy or really get that this 'opportunity' to gain power in this party isn't a sign of things going awry.  The only thing I can think at this point is that the GOP is like the USSR before the Berlin Wall fell:  when shiat starts going seriously sideways, then we're going to see the true collapse.  Then again, this could go on for a while.  We are talking about people who would tell you the clear sky is pink if their sponsors deemed it so.  But from what I see, the GOP is nothing more than a party dedicated to marketing, not governing, and everybody is grasping that fact.  And they are good at marketing their hatred.  I don't see many buyers, but it's hard to really break the GOP from the bigotry on multiple levels they are unashamedly pushing.


2012 was basically a wave election like 2008 -- way more votes for Democrats -- but the GOP has a lock on the House until 2020 thanks to their redistricting in 2010. Their game plan is obviously to obstruct, anger, poison the well, and constantly and deliberately push a worldview that is simply an equal and opposite reaction to whatever the most prominent Democrat is thinking or doing right then. The 2016 election will be thrown, or ruined much like the last two, then in 2020 they'll run on the fact that "Democrats are established scoundrels." The media will eat it up because they just love parroting official nonsense.

I really don't know if they'll have enough voters that buy their shiat eight years from now. But every single time I think the US can't get any dumber, I spot more people in traffic, lovingly gazing down at their cell phones, imagining I'm honking at them because they're attractive. America is turning into what failed companies feel like for the rank-and-file workers. We're a mall where the escalators have all become stairs.
 
2013-06-13 09:22:05 PM  

skullkrusher: I can't speak for their political feelings


Then why did you come in here claiming they'd all be conservative solely because they're religious?
 
2013-06-13 09:24:24 PM  
Is it a bona-fide occupational qualification, or does it hinder job performance in some measurable way?

Then it doesn't matter whether it's a protected class or not, it's not a valid ground for firing someone, even in states that are technically at-will.  If you openly state that that's the reason you're firing someone in, for example, Texas, you can be sued for a lot of extra unemployment.

//Which is why mostly you're going to get fired without official cause in states where that's an option.
 
2013-06-13 09:26:45 PM  
I see the Republicans haven't gotten the message that the majority of people in this country don't fear the gays any more.  Good.  Maybe that will mean fewer Republicans elected next time.  I'd keep pushing the anti-woman platform as well.
 
2013-06-13 09:29:18 PM  
Bitwise God-is-a-Taco: The Mexicans and other assorted S. Americans outnumber gays by a fair margin, so it's a safe move.They're pretty farkin' religious
.S. Americans? Super Americans, Straight Americans, Special Americans, Southern Americans, Sexy Americans, Swallowing Americans, Stereotypical Amerians? Help me out, here.


He's sorta saying, "Anything south of Texas - there's more of them from down there than those others up here over there,"
and then something about being religious about f*rk*ng. Which we must assume he must be.
And that's what it's all about.
 
2013-06-13 09:30:52 PM  

BitwiseShift: God-is-a-Taco: The Mexicans and other assorted S. Americans outnumber gays by a fair margin, so it's a safe move.
They're pretty farkin' religious.

S. Americans? Super Americans, Straight Americans, Special Americans, Southern Americans, Sexy Americans, Swallowing Americans, Stereotypical Amerians?

Help me out, here.


Space
 
2013-06-13 09:33:19 PM  
If it hasn't been pointed out already, opposition to homosexuals is actually highest in minority demographics.  So, while I doubt they've thought it through that far since the GOP seem to share a single brain cell, it could very well be a good move on their part, politically.
 
2013-06-13 09:34:17 PM  
At what point would a sexual act be considered deviant by Rubio's standards? Even if we limited the category to heterosexuality for the sake of argument, you would find a variety of sexual preferences. Hetero people can also engage in sodomy, which is technically anything outside of vaginal penetration by a penis. Would Rubio approve of employers firing "deviant" heterosexuals if they discovered this information?
 
2013-06-13 09:35:08 PM  

God-is-a-Taco: BitwiseShift: God-is-a-Taco: The Mexicans and other assorted S. Americans outnumber gays by a fair margin, so it's a safe move.
They're pretty farkin' religious.

S. Americans? Super Americans, Straight Americans, Special Americans, Southern Americans, Sexy Americans, Swallowing Americans, Stereotypical Amerians?

Help me out, here.

Space


South Americans.
 
2013-06-13 09:35:56 PM  
Though Rubio bristles at the notion of being called a "bigot,"

Not a bigot, but #1 with bigots!

Christ, what an insufferable douchebag.

Where's Jackson_Herring with that anigif of Rubio taking a drink of water during his SOTU address response?
 
2013-06-13 09:40:59 PM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: Let me help.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment


"Several statutory and judge-made exceptions to the doctrine exist, especially if unlawful discrimination is involved regarding the termination of an employee.  "

Hey, thanks for the help.
 
2013-06-13 09:42:49 PM  
Rubio's exact quote in question:

" I haven't read the legislation. By and large I think all Americans should be protectedbut I'm not for any special protections based on orientation. "

This to a liberal the above quote SOMEHOW in their warped, one-track minds translates to: "We should be allowed to fire someone for being gay."
This is what liberals actually believe.
This is the most intellectually-dishonest article I have seen in a while and it makes me sick to scroll on web sites and see headlines like this.  Many people only see the headline and go on assuming it is true.  It's dishonest, it's irresponsible, and it's killing our country.  Don't make your case against someone's character with dishonesty.  I don't even know much about Rubio but this article is really grasping.  How could anyone take this seriously?

I think what he's actually saying (you party of racist, bigoted homophobes) is that regardless of sexuality we should all be treated equally and there is no need for special "protective" legislation for a certain group.  In addition, it would potentially open the door to frivolous lawsuits.  He is not even sure of this though, as by his own admittance, he would have to read the legislation in order to have an opinion on it.

I have lived and worked all over this country (Indiana, Tennessee, Michigan, Texas and Wisconsin).  At every job I worked there were homosexuals.  I don't recall a single instance of anyone ever being fired for their sexuality.
 
2013-06-13 09:43:50 PM  
"By and large I think all Americans should be protected but I'm not for any special protections based on orientation."

So expand protected classes to include all Americans?
 
2013-06-13 09:44:12 PM  

Shaggy_C: I absolutely am a "little guy". Not sure what difference that makes - I was just telling it like it is. Employment and housing are two areas where the "big guy" is hamstrung to an almost silly degree due to the protections for the employee/lessee. Just look up your local codes around evictions for non-payment.


As owner of a property management office, you are full of shiat.

All leases are subordinate to federal law. Evictions occur because of nonpayment or breach of leases.
 
2013-06-13 09:47:48 PM  
ExpressPork:

Forgot to mention that there are already discrimination laws in place which protect you from being discriminated against for any reasonall things being equal.

I know, I know, I'm a racist, bigoted, islamo/homophobe.

I just think the more Liberals divide Americans into designated groups the more it perpetuates the problems.
Crazy, I know.
 
2013-06-13 09:51:05 PM  

teenage mutant ninja rapist: pueblonative: Shaggy_C: Lackofname: Wait.

I thought it was perfectly legal for a private business to fire you for any reason they damn well like.

Nope.  That's only true if you're part of the privileged majority.

For instance:
Firing a Christian guy for failing a drug test? No problem.  Fire an American Indian for doing psychedelic mushrooms as a part of a bizarre 'religious exercise'? That's a Supreme Courtin'.

Refuse to hire a man to become a firefighter because he can't pass a physical test that requires the firefighter to be able to lift dead weight equal to a smoke inhalation victim? No problem.  Refuse to hire a woman for the same reason? That's a Supreme Courtin'.

Fire a guy for heterosexual sexual harrassment? No problem.  Fire guy for homosexual sexual harrassment?  That's a lawsuit.

Et cetera, et cetera.  Contract law is a joke when it comes to employment.  Like housing, the benefit of the doubt is given to the little guy to such an extent that it behooves pretty much everyone to claim discrimination the second they get fired.  If nothing else, it will gum up the works long enough that they will actually keep a paycheck while the courts are battling each other over whether or not "people with big feet" is a protected class or not.

i have two questions for you:

1.  Is your safety helmet securely strapped on?
2.  Is a responsible adult anywhere in your general vicinity?

What part of what he said is incorrect in anyway?


Every word, including "a," "and," and "the." It was the most ridiculous misstatement of the state of the law imaginable.
 
2013-06-13 09:54:50 PM  

Shaggy_C: pueblonative: SCOTUS ruled against the peyote smokers, so pretty much no dice there. And are you seriously citing Canadian law in US Employment law? Really?

Ah, but in the aftermath Oregon changed their law to allow religious exemptions - and when the congress tried to pass a law barring it, that was overturned by the Supreme Court.  So that particular case was a loss, yes, but in the long run it did change the way we treat religious exemption.  And the other was a memory slip on my part.  I guess we could focus on the more recent Chicago firefighter exam which was determined to be racist for no other reason than poorly educated people were more like to fail it if that would make you happier.  Same concept in play.


It was the religious right leaders who pushed hard for those religious exemption laws after the peyote decision. They were the ones behind the "Religious Freedom Restoration Act," and behind the state laws, not the people who wanted to smoke peyote.
 
2013-06-13 09:57:05 PM  

Shaggy_C: Ah, but in the aftermath Oregon changed their law to allow religious exemptions - and when the congress tried to pass a law barring it, that was overturned by the Supreme Court. So that particular case was a loss, yes, but in the long run it did change the way we treat religious exemption. And the other was a memory slip on my part. I guess we could focus on the more recent Chicago firefighter exam which was determined to be racist for no other reason than poorly educated people were more like to fail it if that would make you happier. Same concept in play.


1995 is recent to you?  Okay.


And for a guy who is using the term "disparate impact" you sure as hell don't know a lot about the term.  Like, for instance, when you happen to move the pass/fail point from 65 to 89 and there is no statistical or employment justification to do so, but just so happens to decimate the amount of African Americans who would have been hired in the first place.  Which, you know, happened in that case and which numerous courts ruled was the case and thus, discriminatory in nature.
 
2013-06-13 09:57:30 PM  

ExpressPork: Rubio's exact quote in question:

" I haven't read the legislation. By and large I think all Americans should be protectedbut I'm not for any special protections based on orientation. "

This to a liberal the above quote SOMEHOW in their warped, one-track minds translates to: "We should be allowed to fire someone for being gay."
This is what liberals actually believe.
This is the most intellectually-dishonest article I have seen in a while and it makes me sick to scroll on web sites and see headlines like this.  Many people only see the headline and go on assuming it is true.  It's dishonest, it's irresponsible, and it's killing our country.  Don't make your case against someone's character with dishonesty.  I don't even know much about Rubio but this article is really grasping.  How could anyone take this seriously?

I think what he's actually saying (you party of racist, bigoted homophobes) is that regardless of sexuality we should all be treated equally and there is no need for special "protective" legislation for a certain group.  In addition, it would potentially open the door to frivolous lawsuits.  He is not even sure of this though, as by his own admittance, he would have to read the legislation in order to have an opinion on it.

I have lived and worked all over this country (Indiana, Tennessee, Michigan, Texas and Wisconsin).  At every job I worked there were homosexuals.  I don't recall a single instance of anyone ever being fired for their sexuality.


Yes, because we all know that rights and protections are zero-sum so extending them to cover people who should already have them in the first place means everyone else is at a loss.
 
2013-06-13 09:58:05 PM  

firefly212: vernonFL: RUBIO: I haven't read the legislation. By and large I think all Americans should be protected but I'm not for any special protections based on orientation.

KEYES: What about on race or gender?

RUBIO: Well that's established law.


What a weasely asshole Rubio is. The level of respect I had for Rubio just went from 0 to -1.

The shiat of it is, he is talking about special rights. As a gay person, if I start a business and hire a douchebag who hates on me constantly for being gay, because of his religion, I can't fire him... but if I get hired by a gay bashing religious douchebag, he can fire me. What he's looking for is protection of his own brand of bigotry... special rights.


No, you can fire him for being a douchebag. Douchebags are not a protected class, and being a dick to your employer is definitely a good way to get fired.
 
2013-06-13 09:59:40 PM  

ExpressPork: ExpressPork:

Forgot to mention that there are already discrimination laws in place which protect you from being discriminated against for any reasonall things being equal.

I know, I know, I'm a racist, bigoted, islamo/homophobe chucklefark.


FTFY.  Saved typing too.
 
2013-06-13 10:02:31 PM  

12349876: skullkrusher: I can't speak for their political feelings

Then why did you come in here claiming they'd all be conservative solely because they're religious?


I didn't. I came here claiming that your claim that "many" were liberation theology adherents was nonsense.
 
2013-06-13 10:02:44 PM  

Lackofname: My confusion was that I was under the impression NO ONE was protected.


Yet if you don't sign on to the idea of equal opportunity, you get disqualified from many government contracts.
 
2013-06-13 10:04:07 PM  
I haven't read the legislation. By and large I think all Americans should be protected but I'm not for any special protections based on orientation.

Am I the only one who thought he contradicted himself in the same sentence?
 
2013-06-13 10:07:02 PM  

Mrtraveler01: I haven't read the legislation. By and large I think all Americans should be protected but I'm not for any special protections based on orientation.

Am I the only one who thought he contradicted himself in the same sentence?


I believe cognitive dissonance (or schizophrenia) is a requirement for GOP membership these days.
 
2013-06-13 10:09:08 PM  

icam: Yes, because we all know that rights and protections are zero-sum so extending them to cover people who should already have them in the first place means everyone else is at a loss.


It could be exploited so easily.   What about the rights of a business owner?  Maybe hefires someone for being perpetually-late.  A week later they claim they were fired for being gay.  The last thing we need is more lawsuits in this country.
$Profit$

My point is - why find yet another excuse to further single-out a class (homosexuals) like this?  If I was gay I would find this article ridiculously offensive.

Did anyone catch the kitchen nightmares with the crazy owners that went viral recently?  Remember the young girl that was fired for absolutely no reason whatsoever?  Should we introduce laws to "protect" her?  Oh crap, she was white and (presumably) heterosexual...no way trick dumbfarks and college kids  into voting for us on that one...move on...

A private business-owner really should be able to fire someone for anything they want by the way.  It's should be no one else's farking business who someone chooses to employ at their own private business.
 
2013-06-13 10:10:52 PM  

Noam Chimpsky: Your perversions aren't protected, Democrat.


The vast majority of gay men I know always vote Republican, troll.
 
2013-06-13 10:11:32 PM  

pueblonative: Mrtraveler01: I haven't read the legislation. By and large I think all Americans should be protected but I'm not for any special protections based on orientation.

Am I the only one who thought he contradicted himself in the same sentence?

I believe cognitive dissonance (or schizophrenia) is a requirement for GOP membership these days.


It's remarkable to do it in the same sentence though. They have really perfected their artwork.
 
2013-06-13 10:13:51 PM  

ExpressPork: ExpressPork:

Forgot to mention that there are already discrimination laws in place which protect you from being discriminated against for any reasonall things being equal.

I know, I know, I'm a racist, bigoted, islamo/homophobe.

I just think the more Liberals divide Americans into designated groups the more it perpetuates the problems.
Crazy, I know.


A simple Google search stomps the nuts of your anecdotes into paste.
 
2013-06-13 10:14:38 PM  

pueblonative: I believe cognitive dissonance (or schizophrenia) is a requirement for GOP membership these days.


Notice that 90% of liberals in /pol have no actual point or semblance of an argument or rebuttal.  It's just juvenile name-calling.

Take any tab of comments in /pol and contrast conservative ones against liberal ones.  It's no contest.  It's like 100 elementary school children against a seldom few who try in vain to make legitimate points.

Didn't used to be this way on fark...
 
2013-06-13 10:16:39 PM  

ExpressPork: pueblonative: I believe cognitive dissonance (or schizophrenia) is a requirement for GOP membership these days.

Notice that 90% of liberals in /pol have no actual point or semblance of an argument or rebuttal.  It's just juvenile name-calling.

Take any tab of comments in /pol and contrast conservative ones against liberal ones.  It's no contest.  It's like 100 elementary school children against a seldom few who try in vain to make legitimate points.

Didn't used to be this way on fark...


Give me a break dude.

The Liberals do make valid arguments, it's just that you don't agree with them.

You're fine with employers firing people because they're black, female, gay, or whatever, others are not. I don't think we'll be able to find an area where we can both agree.
 
2013-06-13 10:17:34 PM  

Alphakronik: Noam Chimpsky: Your perversions aren't protected, Democrat.

The vast majority of gay men I know always vote Republican, troll.


that cuz gay dudes are rich
 
2013-06-13 10:17:54 PM  
I don't object to protecting people from discrimination based on sexual orientation, which I am certain happens all the time, but the problem I see is in how easy it would be to falsely claim that protection. I can't lie and say I'm a woman or a minority. I'm quite obviously not either. But I could certainly say I was gay, and where would the burden of proof fall on that?
 
2013-06-13 10:17:56 PM  

ExpressPork: icam: Yes, because we all know that rights and protections are zero-sum so extending them to cover people who should already have them in the first place means everyone else is at a loss.

It could be exploited so easily.   What about the rights of a business owner?  Maybe hefires someone for being perpetually-late.  A week later they claim they were fired for being gay.  The last thing we need is more lawsuits in this country.
$Profit$

My point is - why find yet another excuse to further single-out a class (homosexuals) like this?  If I was gay I would find this article ridiculously offensive.

Did anyone catch the kitchen nightmares with the crazy owners that went viral recently?  Remember the young girl that was fired for absolutely no reason whatsoever?  Should we introduce laws to "protect" her?  Oh crap, she was white and (presumably) heterosexual...no way trick dumbfarks and college kids  into voting for us on that one...move on...

A private business-owner really should be able to fire someone for anything they want by the way.  It's should be no one else's farking business who someone chooses to employ at their own private business.


You can fire whoever you want, the issue here is that Rubio supports making that a "for cause" issue, which would mean you can't collect unemployment or vocational training benefits. It's basically a way to reward people with taxpayer dollars just for being straight.
 
2013-06-13 10:20:43 PM  

pueblonative: Which, you know, happened in that case and which numerous courts ruled was the case and thus, discriminatory in nature.


I don't see how this disproves the point that lower standards are created for protected classes when it comes to employment.  Go back to my original post, you'll see I was merely stating that employment law is different than standard contract law in this regard - if I make a contract with you that you must do X and then I do Y, no one is going to come beating down my door and say that X is 'too hard' for people in a certain class and therefore I must make an exception for them.  But, change X to a job and Y to a salary, and suddenly it's a different ballgame.  Not sure what we're disagreeing about - the OP was under the impression that you could fire someone for "any reason" which is a bit laughable.
 
2013-06-13 10:20:51 PM  
As someone who was beaten and killed for being gay, I'm typing a comment.
 
2013-06-13 10:21:52 PM  

FuturePastNow: I don't object to protecting people from discrimination based on sexual orientation, which I am certain happens all the time, but the problem I see is in how easy it would be to falsely claim that protection. I can't lie and say I'm a woman or a minority. I'm quite obviously not either. But I could certainly say I was gay, and where would the burden of proof fall on that?


you also have to prove that you were fired for being gay. Merely being gay and getting fired isn't enough
 
2013-06-13 10:28:19 PM  

FuturePastNow: I don't object to protecting people from discrimination based on sexual orientation, which I am certain happens all the time, but the problem I see is in how easy it would be to falsely claim that protection. I can't lie and say I'm a woman or a minority. I'm quite obviously not either. But I could certainly say I was gay, and where would the burden of proof fall on that?


What the hell are you talking about? Employers would be every bit as free to fire someone who's gay as they are to fire anyone else  so long as the employee is not being fired because he or she is gay. This is how anti-discrimination laws work. What's so farking hard to understand about this?
 
2013-06-13 10:29:37 PM  

Alphakronik: The vast majority of gay men I know always vote Republican, troll.


That seems like a very wide stance to take.
 
2013-06-13 10:30:03 PM  

ExpressPork: icam: Yes, because we all know that rights and protections are zero-sum so extending them to cover people who should already have them in the first place means everyone else is at a loss.

It could be exploited so easily.   What about the rights of a business owner?  Maybe hefires someone for being perpetually-late.  A week later they claim they were fired for being gay.  The last thing we need is more lawsuits in this country.


First off, you have a really farked up notion about how discrimination law works in this country.  Lawsuits are expensive and timely, and you're going to have a hell of a time convincing a lawyer to take even a legitimate case even on an hourly basis, let alone contingency.  And all that time, by the way, you're in the papers as a complainer and a legal pain in the neck.  You think anybody's going to hire you (so, you know, you can keep on living) after that?  And the burden is on you to prove discrimination in the first place.


Did anyone catch the kitchen nightmares with the crazy owners that went viral recently?  Remember the young girl that was fired for absolutely no reason whatsoever?  Should we introduce laws to "protect" her?  Oh crap, she was white and (presumably) heterosexual...no way trick dumbfarks and college kids  into voting for us on that one...move on...


I'm guessing in your reality minorities drive around in their souped up Cadillacs with their lawyers on speed dial for every little infraction (when they're not loading those cars up with welfare food) laughing at the poor put upon white guy who got fired just because his boss wanted to be a dick.  I'm also guessing your reality is fueled by bullshiat talk radio stories, mind-altering drugs, and some huge whopper of a resentment that you need to put on somebody else.
 
2013-06-13 10:30:22 PM  

ExpressPork: ExpressPork:

Forgot to mention that there are already discrimination laws in place which protect you from being discriminated against for any reasonall things being equal.

I know, I know, I'm a racist, bigoted, islamo/homophobe.

I just think the more Liberals divide Americans into designated groups the more it perpetuates the problems.
Crazy, I know.


The fact that you refer to the outlawing of discrimination in all its forms as 'dividing Americans into designated groups' is what is crazy. The reason such laws are necessary is due to the people that are discriminating, ie. segregating, ie. separating people unlike themselves. When one group of people, say, homophobes and religious zealots, think it is their right to discriminate against another group of people, gays, it is the homophobes and religious zealots that created/divided Americans into designated groups, not the people trying to protect gays from bigotry. If the existing laws were working, new laws would not be necessary. The fact that the bigots are fighting such new laws is about as much evidence as you need that the existing laws weren't working because if they were, the bigots wouldn't give a shiat because nothing would change as a result of the new laws.
 
2013-06-13 10:30:55 PM  

Elmo Jones: A simple Google search stomps the nuts of your anecdotes into paste.


So...your argument is to post a google search?  Are you on the debate team?  Although I shouldn't even lend dignity to your "argument" by responding to your "google search" slam dunk, I guess I will humor you.
A "simple" perusal of those results and I can see how easily your thought-process is being manipulated.
Nothing about those results "stomps the nuts" of anything, quite the contrary.  Go ahead and read the results and articles for yourself, as I just did.  Nothing about that comes even remotely close to the scale of requiring legislation or even being a priority right now.
The top article managed to come up with 5 people in all the states and the evidence in the cited cases is scant at best.

This calls for some immediate hefty federal legislation to "protect" gays.  We'll call it the "Stop Gay Hate Act" and anyone who opposes it we can accuse of "hating gays" since Americans are so farking mind-numbingly stupid they will actually go along with the idea.  As part of this new law, all straight people will be taxed an extra $1 for any straight activities to help fund gay-hate tolerance classes.  Once we tax the straights to pay for gay tolerance camp we will finally have the equality we all deserve.
 
2013-06-13 10:33:33 PM  

Shaggy_C: pueblonative: Which, you know, happened in that case and which numerous courts ruled was the case and thus, discriminatory in nature.

I don't see how this disproves the point that lower standards are created for protected classes when it comes to employment.  Go back to my original post, you'll see I was merely stating that employment law is different than standard contract law in this regard - if I make a contract with you that you must do X and then I do Y, no one is going to come beating down my door and say that X is 'too hard' for people in a certain class and therefore I must make an exception for them.  But, change X to a job and Y to a salary, and suddenly it's a different ballgame.  Not sure what we're disagreeing about - the OP was under the impression that you could fire someone for "any reason" which is a bit laughable.


In that case, it's that you changed X to Z (the old standard was 65; the Daley administration moved it to 88) without any explanation other than to make sure you got less of B and more of W.
 
2013-06-13 10:34:09 PM  

BMulligan: FuturePastNow: I don't object to protecting people from discrimination based on sexual orientation, which I am certain happens all the time, but the problem I see is in how easy it would be to falsely claim that protection. I can't lie and say I'm a woman or a minority. I'm quite obviously not either. But I could certainly say I was gay, and where would the burden of proof fall on that?

What the hell are you talking about? Employers would be every bit as free to fire someone who's gay as they are to fire anyone else  so long as the employee is not being fired because he or she is gay. This is how anti-discrimination laws work. What's so farking hard to understand about this?


I got an email today stating that one of our former traders has brought a suit against one of the trading companies within our fund for discrimination based on sexual orientation. I asked around and no one ever recalls anyone saying anything untoward towards this guy in that regard. I suppose the point is that people can use such protection as a justification for a lawsuit even in the absolute absence of any reality backing it, but they still have to prove the case which is especially difficult to do based on hearsay. I doubt anyone sent him an email calling him a "homo" or anything like that
 
2013-06-13 10:34:43 PM  

pueblonative: I'm guessing in your reality minorities drive around in their souped up Cadillacs with their lawyers on speed dial for every little infraction (when they're not loading those cars up with welfare food) laughing at the poor put upon white guy who got fired just because his boss wanted to be a dick.  I'm also guessing your reality is fueled by bullshiat talk radio stories, mind-altering drugs, and some huge whopper of a resentment that you need to put on somebody else


No.  This guess is wrong.
 
2013-06-13 10:37:49 PM  

Weaver95: I thought the GOP had classes and workshops that showed them now to NOT be f*cking stupid in front of cameras, reporters or children?  did they just get dumber or something?


When you're stupid you don't realize you're stupid.

When you are intelligent you are more likely to consider what you are about to say, in case it's stupid. Stupid people can't do that. Because they're stupid.

/stupid stupid stupid
 
2013-06-13 10:39:39 PM  

FuturePastNow: I don't object to protecting people from discrimination based on sexual orientation, which I am certain happens all the time, but the problem I see is in how easy it would be to falsely claim that protection. I can't lie and say I'm a woman or a minority. I'm quite obviously not either. But I could certainly say I was gay, and where would the burden of proof fall on that?


Taking your argument at face value: you don't get a "special protection" by being female, a minority, even pregnant.  You have to prove the discrimination: either by proving prior behavior (i.e. your boss was dropping f-bombs like they were going out of style) which involves witnesses, and good luck getting your currently employed friends to testify for you, or you have to prove inconsistent standards (i.e. you were fired for x, but bob, joe, and karen weren't and the only difference is that they're straight).  So just saying you're gay doesn't become a magic trump card.  Oh, and by the way, if you work for a "religious organization", you may have that thrown out in the first place.
 
2013-06-13 10:40:14 PM  
On a side note, even though Alan Keyes is a keyword here (if you search Alan Keyes on FARK you'll find this article) he actually has nothing to do with this article, even though he's one of the few politicians so homophobic that he said that if one of his kids came out, he'd reject them.  Which came in handy when his daughter actually did.  And no, they haven't spoken since.

Scott Keyes co-wrote the article and interviewed Rubio.
 
2013-06-13 10:42:34 PM  

The Lone Gunman: On a side note, even though Alan Keyes is a keyword here (if you search Alan Keyes on FARK you'll find this article) he actually has nothing to do with this article, even though he's one of the few politicians so homophobic that he said that if one of his kids came out, he'd reject them.  Which came in handy when his daughter actually did.  And no, they haven't spoken since.



Well, there's one more upside to coming out.
 
2013-06-13 10:43:41 PM  
dangelder: Guntram Shatterhand: For a while I've wondered how the Republicans are going to handle 2016:  they can't really keep up the 'silent majority' bullshiat forever.  Sure, they can say it over and over, but they have to have a plan to deal with the fact that their base is shrinking.  Somewhere in their bullshiat, they have some kind of plan attempt to turn it around and market it as something vaguely appealing to people who aren't scared white people.

But there isn't.  The party itself is run by opportunists who don't believe in the Sunk Cost Fallacy or really get that this 'opportunity' to gain power in this party isn't a sign of things going awry.  The only thing I can think at this point is that the GOP is like the USSR before the Berlin Wall fell:  when shiat starts going seriously sideways, then we're going to see the true collapse.  Then again, this could go on for a while.  We are talking about people who would tell you the clear sky is pink if their sponsors deemed it so.  But from what I see, the GOP is nothing more than a party dedicated to marketing, not governing, and everybody is grasping that fact.  And they are good at marketing their hatred.  I don't see many buyers, but it's hard to really break the GOP from the bigotry on multiple levels they are unashamedly pushing.

2012 was basically a wave election like 2008 -- way more votes for Democrats -- but the GOP has a lock on the House until 2020 thanks to their redistricting in 2010. Their game plan is obviously to obstruct, anger, poison the well, and constantly and deliberately push a worldview that is simply an equal and opposite reaction to whatever the most prominent Democrat is thinking or doing right then. The 2016 election will be thrown, or ruined much like the last two, then in 2020 they'll run on the fact that "Democrats are established scoundrels." The media will eat it up because they just love parroting official nonsense.

I really don't know if they'll have enough voters that buy their shiathe problem here is that the Democrats have successfully taken the Republican Play Book and used it.  The Republicans love being the underdog to the extent that they cannot really stand on anything else.  When you have them scaring people into voting Democratic and the Democrats are using the same tactics that aren't so much of a stretch, you get your 2012 right there.  And 'media muscle' means nothing when the Republicans have developed a vocabulary to nullify that as well that the Democratic Party will use just as well.

This is why I don't see the Republican Party lasting very much longer.  On one hand, they created a way for people who shouldn't be afraid to be afraid and take the victim mentality unjustly.  On the other hand, they're pushing for wildly right-wing reforms that rob everybody except very rich and very white people of rights, upward mobility, and everything else.  And the only way the Republicans can fight their own methodology is disenfranchisement...which just adds to the mess they have dug for themselves.

It's little wonder the Republicans have been unable to 'relabel' themselves.  They are beyond useless now.  The only question is when they'll find themselves all out of jobs.
 
2013-06-13 10:47:28 PM  

Noam Chimpsky: Your perversions aren't protected, Democrat.


Then neither is your mental illness.
 
2013-06-13 10:48:42 PM  

ExpressPork: pueblonative: I'm guessing in your reality minorities drive around in their souped up Cadillacs with their lawyers on speed dial for every little infraction (when they're not loading those cars up with welfare food) laughing at the poor put upon white guy who got fired just because his boss wanted to be a dick.  I'm also guessing your reality is fueled by bullshiat talk radio stories, mind-altering drugs, and some huge whopper of a resentment that you need to put on somebody else

No.  This guess is wrong.


But you do think that Obama only won because of massive voter fraud, right?
 
2013-06-13 10:48:47 PM  

Lackofname: Wait.

I thought it was perfectly legal for a private business to fire you for any reason they damn well like. The only protection offered is for government employees (or businesses that receive government grants)?


Yeah, no. It's legal for businesses to fire you for any reason that is not illegal. The feds prohibit discrimination based on race/national origin, religion/creed, gender, disability, and age. The EEOC is trying to shoe-horn sexual orientation under gender as a form of sex stereotyping, but I doubt the Courts buy it.

Many states, though far from all, also protect on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, and pregnancy (which is not considered a disability in and of itself). Most states also cover more employers than the feds. Federal law generally only applies to employers of 15 or more workers. Iowa's anti-discrimination laws, for instance, apply to anyone with 4 or more employees.
 
2013-06-13 10:49:52 PM  

Hickory-smoked: ExpressPork: pueblonative: I'm guessing in your reality minorities drive around in their souped up Cadillacs with their lawyers on speed dial for every little infraction (when they're not loading those cars up with welfare food) laughing at the poor put upon white guy who got fired just because his boss wanted to be a dick.  I'm also guessing your reality is fueled by bullshiat talk radio stories, mind-altering drugs, and some huge whopper of a resentment that you need to put on somebody else

No.  This guess is wrong.

But you do think that Obama only won because of massive voter fraud, right?


No. I am sure some slight and average sized people were in on it too
 
2013-06-13 11:11:04 PM  

Elmo Jones: Don't you think he looks thirsty?


That always felt like a poker tell. He doesn't really believe what he's saying when he keeps reaching for water; some autonomic response is punishing him for going against his conscious.
 
2013-06-13 11:16:21 PM  

skullkrusher: Alphakronik: Noam Chimpsky: Your perversions aren't protected, Democrat.

The vast majority of gay men I know always vote Republican, troll.

that cuz gay dudes are rich


Yep, easily found at any cigar bar.  Just look for the guy with the +58 ring gauge cigar and you've found your Log Cabin 'Pub.
 
2013-06-13 11:17:21 PM  

dartben: Lackofname: Wait.

I thought it was perfectly legal for a private business to fire you for any reason they damn well like. The only protection offered is for government employees (or businesses that receive government grants)?

Yeah, no. It's legal for businesses to fire you for any reason that is not illegal. The feds prohibit discrimination based on race/national origin, religion/creed, gender, disability, and age. The EEOC is trying to shoe-horn sexual orientation under gender as a form of sex stereotyping, but I doubt the Courts buy it.

Many states, though far from all, also protect on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, and pregnancy (which is not considered a disability in and of itself). Most states also cover more employers than the feds. Federal law generally only applies to employers of 15 or more workers. Iowa's anti-discrimination laws, for instance, apply to anyone with 4 or more employees.


The Feds also protect on the basis of pregnancy and have since the The Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978.

/7 years too late for my mother who was fired from her job because she was pregnant with me.
 
2013-06-13 11:22:16 PM  

ExpressPork: The top article managed to come up with 5 people in all the states and the evidence in the cited cases is scant at best.


I'm sure you would feel the same way, if it were you, fired for something like that.
Until just recently, the United States Government could fire someone for being gay.
I could muster some respect for you, if you just came out and said that you didn't care about the lives of some people, but you hide behind a very thin veneer of false superiority.
Injustice to one, is injustice to all.
 
2013-06-13 11:34:11 PM  
He's afraid such laws will harm freedom of religion. You know, his freedom to use the government to impose his religious beliefs on you. That's the religious right meaning of freedom of religion.
 
2013-06-13 11:38:03 PM  

TheMysteriousStranger: Dear GOP,

You do know that if LBGT voters voted the same as non-LBGT voters that Mitt would be president right now.   You also know that anti-gay bigotry turns off young voters.   Voters, more often then not, tend to get set for who they vote for when young.  Naturally you are driving millions and millions of young voters away from you while those pleased by such bigotry are dying off from the usual process of the young replacing the old.   But heck, there are some old people converting away from bigotry even before they die.

You can't say that you are not warned.   No whining when you weep what you sow, please.  You will get no sympathy.


A former coworker of mine brought her daughter to Bring Your Daughter To Work day.  Said daughter is the (straight) president of her high school's Gay-Straight Alliance.  In an area of Michigan not really known for their progressive thinking or educated populace.

Warmed my heart.

We had a few out folks at my high school (only a few lesbians and bi girls or boys; none of the gay boys came out until college, although my friend who dated the guy who loved Mariah Carey really should've seen some flags).  But even though that was really not that long ago, the idea of a group to fight for their rights didn't even cross our minds because it seemed so far off.

Yay young kids.  I'm just afraid it's going to take so goddamn long to undo the damage Michigan has put into place over the past few years.  My alma mater has to fight in court just to give long term gay partners the same benefits married people get.  Something about attracting good talent to the university, both gay and straight (plenty of intelligent straight people want to work in an welcoming environment, myself included).  Not like we have a brain drain here or anything*.  Sigh.

* Two of my closest friends in college moved to Canada so their relationship could have the same legal protections any straight couple here could have.  They're both doing incredibly well and didn't really *want* to leave the state, but that was the tipping factor.  But eh, not like we need any well educated entrepreneurs already here for school to stay here to stay for keeps or anything.
 
2013-06-13 11:45:01 PM  
You people basically vote on how stiff, motile and pungent the feces is that's taking office.

I wouldn't piss on this guy if he was on fire.
 
2013-06-13 11:54:50 PM  

wildcardjack: That always felt like a poker tell. He doesn't really believe what he's saying when he keeps reaching for water; some autonomic response is punishing him for going against his conscious.


Weasels gonna' wheeze.
 
2013-06-14 12:00:48 AM  

ExpressPork: I don't recall a single instance of anyone ever being fired for their sexuality.


Here are 5 instances which contradict your anecdotal evidence.
 
2013-06-14 12:04:31 AM  

ExpressPork: ExpressPork:

Forgot to mention that there are already discrimination laws in place which protect you from being discriminated against for any reasonall things being equal.

I know, I know, I'm a racist, bigoted, islamo/homophobe.

I just think the more Liberals divide Americans into designated groups the more it perpetuates the problems.
Crazy, I know.


NO, there aren't.  In many states you can fire someone for being gay just because you don't like gays.

Are you really that obtuse or do you just play one on TV?
 
2013-06-14 12:11:34 AM  
I am just think you should have to prove why you are firing somebody regardless of reason. It's not like they are trying to make a living to survive or anything.
 
2013-06-14 12:12:19 AM  

skullkrusher: BMulligan: FuturePastNow: I don't object to protecting people from discrimination based on sexual orientation, which I am certain happens all the time, but the problem I see is in how easy it would be to falsely claim that protection. I can't lie and say I'm a woman or a minority. I'm quite obviously not either. But I could certainly say I was gay, and where would the burden of proof fall on that?

What the hell are you talking about? Employers would be every bit as free to fire someone who's gay as they are to fire anyone else  so long as the employee is not being fired because he or she is gay. This is how anti-discrimination laws work. What's so farking hard to understand about this?

I got an email today stating that one of our former traders has brought a suit against one of the trading companies within our fund for discrimination based on sexual orientation. I asked around and no one ever recalls anyone saying anything untoward towards this guy in that regard. I suppose the point is that people can use such protection as a justification for a lawsuit even in the absolute absence of any reality backing it, but they still have to prove the case which is especially difficult to do based on hearsay. I doubt anyone sent him an email calling him a "homo" or anything like that


Exactly. Whenever a potential client came to me and asked if I thought they could sue, I'd always say sure - anyone can sue anyone else for anything. Suing is easy; it's winning that's hard. Most truly frivolous lawsuits are filtered out of the system in lawyers' offices all over the country because no one wants to waste time and energy on a dog of a case - the vast majority of the rest are filtered out soon after on summary judgment.
 
2013-06-14 12:13:49 AM  

The Lone Gunman: On a side note, even though Alan Keyes is a keyword here (if you search Alan Keyes on FARK you'll find this article) he actually has nothing to do with this article, even though he's one of the few politicians so homophobic that he said that if one of his kids came out, he'd reject them.  Which came in handy when his daughter actually did.  And no, they haven't spoken since.

Scott Keyes co-wrote the article and interviewed Rubio.


Alan Keyes Compares Gay Marriage to Picking One's Nose and Eating It

NOT The Onion, btw.
 
2013-06-14 12:19:38 AM  

Weaver95: I thought the GOP had classes and workshops that showed them now to NOT be f*cking stupid in front of cameras, reporters or children?  did they just get dumber or something?


If it's a legitimate class, the Republican mind has a way of shutting those things down.
 
2013-06-14 12:25:06 AM  

0Icky0: Weaver95: I thought the GOP had classes and workshops that showed them now to NOT be f*cking stupid in front of cameras, reporters or children?  did they just get dumber or something?

If it's a legitimate class, the Republican mind has a way of shutting those things down.


By preemptively not existing.
 
2013-06-14 12:36:30 AM  

ExpressPork: pueblonative: I believe cognitive dissonance (or schizophrenia) is a requirement for GOP membership these days.

Notice that 90% of liberals in /pol have no actual point or semblance of an argument or rebuttal.  It's just juvenile name-calling.

Take any tab of comments in /pol and contrast conservative ones against liberal ones.  It's no contest.  It's like 100 elementary school children against a seldom few who try in vain to make legitimate points.

Didn't used to be this way on fark...


Just because you don't agree with what we say, does not make it wrong.
 
2013-06-14 12:36:58 AM  

ExpressPork: I know, I know, I'm a racist, bigoted, islamo/homophobe.


Never thought I'd ever agree with you!

Well first time for everything!!!
 
2013-06-14 12:41:01 AM  

Shostie: Paris1127: Who's Rick Rubio?

Voltron-esque amalgamation of Rick Perry and Marco Rubio.


I wonder which one forms the asshole?
 
2013-06-14 12:50:19 AM  

ExpressPork: Elmo Jones: A simple Google search stomps the nuts of your anecdotes into paste.

So...your argument is to post a google search?  Are you on the debate team?  Although I shouldn't even lend dignity to your "argument" by responding to your "google search" slam dunk, I guess I will humor you.
A "simple" perusal of those results and I can see how easily your thought-process is being manipulated.
Nothing about those results "stomps the nuts" of anything, quite the contrary.  Go ahead and read the results and articles for yourself, as I just did.  Nothing about that comes even remotely close to the scale of requiring legislation or even being a priority right now.
The top article managed to come up with 5 people in all the states and the evidence in the cited cases is scant at best.

This calls for some immediate hefty federal legislation to "protect" gays.  We'll call it the "Stop Gay Hate Act" and anyone who opposes it we can accuse of "hating gays" since Americans are so farking mind-numbingly stupid they will actually go along with the idea.  As part of this new law, all straight people will be taxed an extra $1 for any straight activities to help fund gay-hate tolerance classes.  Once we tax the straights to pay for gay tolerance camp we will finally have the equality we all deserve.


Now you are just being stupid. He showed you evidence that you are totally wrong, yet you dismiss it as fantasy. In 29 states, it is totally legal to fire someone for *just* being gay.
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/lgbt/report/2012/08/30/35114/ ga y-and-transgender-discrimination-in-the-public-sector/
 
2013-06-14 12:51:54 AM  
I think whats important here is that people understand that Job Creators need to be able to UN-create

/Plan 21
//Take off and..
 
2013-06-14 01:08:27 AM  
Can we just throw all the Republicans into a volcano?  Please?
 
2013-06-14 01:40:00 AM  

Lackofname: dookdookdook: Lackofname: dookdookdook: Lackofname: muh freedums!

Nope.

Why did you put "muh freedums"?

I'm not for firing gay people. :|

Ah.  Pardon the misunderstanding then.

My confusion was that I was under the impression NO ONE was protected.

I do know some businesses can fire you without stating a reason. And that it's legal for businesses to deny service to anyone they decide (it is not, however, WISE to do so because it results in public outcry).


You're deeply confused about how the laws in your country apply. Just because you've seen a sign that says "We reserve the right to XXXX", doesn't mean a business owner can actually claim XXXX as a right. You can and will be sued if you refuse service to someone based on the fact that they are black, female, over 40, etc.

You're also confused about how protected classes work. "Age" is a protected class, but protections apply only to people over 40, because they are the ones historically discriminated against. "Sex" (not gender, BTW) applies under the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which extend protections to women (not to both sexes).

That's why you can open a women-only gym like Curves.
 
2013-06-14 01:50:09 AM  

Alphakronik: Yep, easily found at any cigar bar.  Just look for the guy with the +58 ring gauge cigar and you've found your Log Cabin 'Pub.


Most Log Cabin Republicans can't afford the bus fare to the cigar bar let alone that +58 ring gauge cigar.
 
2013-06-14 01:57:44 AM  

Godscrack: Should be legal to fire brown nosing coconuts too.


img.izismile.com
 
2013-06-14 01:58:32 AM  

ExpressPork: Elmo Jones: A simple Google search stomps the nuts of your anecdotes into paste.

So...your argument is to post a google search?  Are you on the debate team?  Although I shouldn't even lend dignity to your "argument" by responding to your "google search" slam dunk, I guess I will humor you.
A "simple" perusal of those results and I can see how easily your thought-process is being manipulated.
Nothing about those results "stomps the nuts" of anything, quite the contrary.  Go ahead and read the results and articles for yourself, as I just did.  Nothing about that comes even remotely close to the scale of requiring legislation or even being a priority right now.
The top article managed to come up with 5 people in all the states and the evidence in the cited cases is scant at best.

This calls for some immediate hefty federal legislation to "protect" gays.  We'll call it the "Stop Gay Hate Act" and anyone who opposes it we can accuse of "hating gays" since Americans are so farking mind-numbingly stupid they will actually go along with the idea.  As part of this new law, all straight people will be taxed an extra $1 for any straight activities to help fund gay-hate tolerance classes.  Once we tax the straights to pay for gay tolerance camp we will finally have the equality we all deserve.


Wow. Your posts really drag the intelligence level in this thread down into the gutter, and given some of these other numbskulls, that's saying something.
 
2013-06-14 01:58:50 AM  
 Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), who is touted as a top GOP presidential prospect in 2016, thinks it should be legal to fire someone for their sexual orientation.

Yeah, this is REALLY gonna do a lot for the GOP's image. Why are these people so STUPID?

KEYES: The Senate this summer is going to be taking up the Employment Non-Discrimination Act which makes it illegal to fire someone for being gay. Do you know if you'll be supporting that?

RUBIO: I haven't read the legislation. By and large I think all Americans should be protected  but I'm not for any special protections based on orientation.

KEYES: What about on race or gender?


RUBIO: Well that's established law.

KEYES: But not for sexual orientation?

Notice that he didn't say that he was against discrimination based on race or gender? Didn't even think twice. He didn't say 'No, I think that's wrong.'.  What he sai d was that it was "established law". Someone who actually thought discrimination was bad would have said 'No I think it's wrong to discriminate based on race or gender.'. It's very telling that he just ducked the question by stating that it was already protected by law.
 
2013-06-14 02:00:25 AM  

God-is-a-Taco: The Mexicans and other assorted S. Americans outnumber gays by a fair margin, so it's a safe move.
They're pretty farkin' religious.



Safe move? The only certainty that statements like Rubio's provides is that Democrats will continue to be elected President for the foreseeable future. Latino's may be religious and increasing in number but the only demographic still clinging to the old bigotry is the white trash voting bloc.
 
2013-06-14 02:27:08 AM  
media.tumblr.com
 
2013-06-14 02:57:45 AM  
The GOP could do so much better if they stuck to financial BS and dropped the churchy stuff altogether. Conservatives may not like it, but they'll still come out to vote to avoid letting an eeebil Demmicrat into office.
 
2013-06-14 03:10:06 AM  

evil saltine: The GOP could do so much better if they stuck to financial BS and dropped the churchy stuff altogether. Evangelicals  Conservatives may not like it, but they'll still come out to vote to avoid letting an eeebil Demmicrat into office.


The problem is than even the their financial BS has become unhinged from reality.  And Evangelicals have huge pull.  Not only with being able to raise cash but also getting out the votes.  Without them the Republicans wouldn't be able to get someone voted in as dog catcher.
 
2013-06-14 03:27:03 AM  

evil saltine: The GOP could do so much better if they stuck to financial BS and dropped the churchy stuff altogether. Conservatives may not like it, but they'll still come out to vote to avoid letting an eeebil Demmicrat into office.


Before the 1980s, the parties were entirely defined by economic issues.  There was religion in politics, yes, but there were religious factions and influences in both parties and neither actually gave the churches a voice directly.

In the 1980s the GOP, finding itself slipping from power in the wake of the southern strategy going all fail on them in a demonstrable fashion with the civil rights movement, needed to pin down some large demographic, basically any demographic, to avoid going down to join the Whigs in obscurity.  They picked the protestant churches more or less randomly out of a hat and started giving institutions like the SBC a more or less direct say in party policy, then claimed the Dems were anti-religion for not following suit.

So the change is actually very much intentional, intended to be kind of a stop-gap to prevent a slide into oblivion that's just stayed about two decades past its use-by date.  It's the nature of religion to corrupt any ostensibly honest government or institution with bureaucracy and outright psychopathy in even mixture, it's something that even most of the GOP saw coming since it's pretty inevitable but once it was clear that inviting the religions in meant they  couldn't get any actual sustainable demographics to join they were kinda stuck.
 
2013-06-14 04:08:55 AM  

Zeppelininthesky: Now you are just being stupid. He showed you evidence that you are totally wrong, yet you dismiss it as fantasy. In 29 states, it is totally legal to fire someone for *just* being gay.


Guess who we probably won't hear from again (until he thinks we've forgotten).
 
2013-06-14 05:38:48 AM  

FuturePastNow: I don't object to protecting people from discrimination based on sexual orientation, which I am certain happens all the time, but the problem I see is in how easy it would be to falsely claim that protection. I can't lie and say I'm a woman or a minority. I'm quite obviously not either. But I could certainly say I was gay, and where would the burden of proof fall on that?


Physical demonstrations of sexual orientation in front of a judge before a lawsuit is allowed to proceed.
 
2013-06-14 05:52:58 AM  

Shaggy_C: Lackofname: Wait.

I thought it was perfectly legal for a private business to fire you for any reason they damn well like.

Nope.  That's only true if you're part of the privileged majority.

For instance:
Firing a Christian guy for failing a drug test? No problem.  Fire an American Indian for doing psychedelic mushrooms as a part of a bizarre 'religious exercise'? That's a Supreme Courtin'.

Refuse to hire a man to become a firefighter because he can't pass a physical test that requires the firefighter to be able to lift dead weight equal to a smoke inhalation victim? No problem.  Refuse to hire a woman for the same reason? That's a Supreme Courtin'.

Fire a guy for heterosexual sexual harrassment? No problem.  Fire guy for homosexual sexual harrassment?  That's a lawsuit.

Et cetera, et cetera.  Contract law is a joke when it comes to employment.  Like housing, the benefit of the doubt is given to the little guy to such an extent that it behooves pretty much everyone to claim discrimination the second they get fired.  If nothing else, it will gum up the works long enough that they will actually keep a paycheck while the courts are battling each other over whether or not "people with big feet" is a protected class or not.


Christ, you're a whiny little biatch.
 
2013-06-14 05:56:16 AM  
Gay people vote too, dumbass.
 
2013-06-14 06:09:13 AM  

JesusJuice: Can we just throw all the Republicans into a volcano?  Please?


And get their thetans all over us? Hell no!
 
2013-06-14 06:15:19 AM  

Elmo Jones: Zeppelininthesky: Now you are just being stupid. He showed you evidence that you are totally wrong, yet you dismiss it as fantasy. In 29 states, it is totally legal to fire someone for *just* being gay.

Guess who we probably won't hear from again (until he thinks we've forgotten).


That's what the Favorite button is for. Color code those assholes.
 
2013-06-14 07:51:03 AM  
Rubio needs to be unemployed and in debit for a year, then have to go to a job interview in front of a GAY BOSS who knows exactly what kind of an asshole he is.
 
2013-06-14 08:20:33 AM  

Weaver95: I thought the GOP had classes and workshops that showed them now to NOT be f*cking stupid in front of cameras, reporters or children?  did they just get dumber or something?


It's in their DNA to be stupid and vile.
 
2013-06-14 08:59:36 AM  
cdn2-b.examiner.com
 
2013-06-14 09:25:42 AM  

Godscrack: Should be legal to fire brown nosing coconuts too.


...really?

1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-06-14 10:11:26 AM  
Is he trying not to win the presidency?
 
2013-06-14 02:18:19 PM  
...This is 2013, not 2012, right? I could swear I got  out of my time machine...
 
2013-06-14 02:31:55 PM  

Shaggy_C: skullkrusher: I can't speak for their political feelings but they are not subscribers to liberation theology to any significant degree. Of course, if 50% of them are not supportive of gay marriage, then they are more bigoted than the population at large

One man's bigot is another's traditionalist.


i1159.photobucket.com

/oblig
 
2013-06-15 01:15:01 AM  

ExpressPork: ExpressPork:

Forgot to mention that there are already discrimination laws in place which protect you from being discriminated against for any reasonall things being equal.

I know, I know, I'm a racist, bigoted, islamo/homophobe.

I just think the more Liberals divide Americans into designated groups the more it perpetuates the problems.
Crazy, I know.


No, no. Not crazy. Just deeply stupid.
 
Displayed 196 of 196 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report