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  
•       •       •

3378 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 Jun 2013 at 6:48 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 196 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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