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 elseNo. This guess is wrong.But you do think that Obama only won because of massive voter fraud, right?
Elmo Jones: Don't you think he looks thirsty?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
ExpressPork: I don't recall a single instance of anyone ever being fired for their sexuality.
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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...
ExpressPork: I know, I know, I'm a racist, bigoted, islamo/homophobe.
Shostie: Paris1127: Who's Rick Rubio?Voltron-esque amalgamation of Rick Perry and Marco Rubio.
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.
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).
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.
Godscrack: Should be legal to fire brown nosing coconuts too.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
JesusJuice: Can we just throw all the Republicans into a volcano? Please?
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).
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 largeOne man's bigot is another's traditionalist.
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: May 28 2017 10:38:40
Runtime: 0.467 sec (466 ms)