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
    More: Asinine, rubio, Republican, Employment Non-Discrimination Act, workplace discrimination, coming out, middle ground, minorities, Alan Keyes  
•       •       •

3384 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 Jun 2013 at 6:48 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
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 coontil 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 coontil 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 46 of 196 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | 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