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 88
    More: Asinine, rubio, Republican, Employment Non-Discrimination Act, workplace discrimination, coming out, middle ground, minorities, Alan Keyes  
•       •       •

3377 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-06-13 07:14:43 PM
11 votes:
RUBIO: Well that's established law.

So is Obamacare and Roe vs. Wade
2013-06-13 07:31:06 PM
7 votes:
Dear GOP,

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

Sincerely,
Progress
2013-06-13 05:47:21 PM
6 votes:

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 05:41:28 PM
6 votes:
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 08:13:25 PM
4 votes:
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 07:25:52 PM
4 votes:

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 06:04:39 PM
4 votes:
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 05:34:37 PM
4 votes:
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 10:28:19 PM
3 votes:

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 08:17:31 PM
3 votes:

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 07:00:52 PM
3 votes:
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 05:59:12 PM
3 votes:

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
2013-06-14 12:50:19 AM
2 votes:

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 12:00:48 AM
2 votes:

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.
2013-06-13 11:34:11 PM
2 votes:
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 11:22:16 PM
2 votes:

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 10:30:22 PM
2 votes:

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 10:30:03 PM
2 votes:

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 10:17:56 PM
2 votes:

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 10:16:39 PM
2 votes:

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 10:04:07 PM
2 votes:
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 09:51:05 PM
2 votes:

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 09:20:29 PM
2 votes:
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 08:56:12 PM
2 votes:

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 08:37:07 PM
2 votes:

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 08:24:58 PM
2 votes:
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 08:04:32 PM
2 votes:
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 07:50:33 PM
2 votes:

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 07:50:01 PM
2 votes:

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 07:12:29 PM
2 votes:

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 07:10:50 PM
2 votes:

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 06:45:14 PM
2 votes:

Paris1127: Who's Rick Rubio?


Volton-esque amalgamation of Rick Perry and Marco Rubio.
2013-06-13 05:54:12 PM
2 votes:

Paris1127: Who's Rick Rubio?


He produced the last Beastie Boys album.
2013-06-13 05:47:40 PM
2 votes:

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 05:47:04 PM
2 votes:

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 05:36:40 PM
2 votes:
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?
2013-06-14 07:51:03 AM
1 votes:
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 03:27:03 AM
1 votes:

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 02:57:45 AM
1 votes:
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 01:58:50 AM
1 votes:
 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 01:58:32 AM
1 votes:

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 12:51:54 AM
1 votes:
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 12:36:30 AM
1 votes:

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 12:19:38 AM
1 votes:

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 12:04:31 AM
1 votes:

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?
2013-06-13 11:11:04 PM
1 votes:

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 10:47:28 PM
1 votes:

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


Then neither is your mental illness.
2013-06-13 10:39:39 PM
1 votes:

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 10:37:49 PM
1 votes:

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 10:33:33 PM
1 votes:

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 10:30:55 PM
1 votes:

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 10:17:54 PM
1 votes:
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 10:13:51 PM
1 votes:

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 10:09:08 PM
1 votes:

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 09:59:40 PM
1 votes:

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 09:58:05 PM
1 votes:

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 09:57:05 PM
1 votes:

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 09:54:50 PM
1 votes:

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 09:47:48 PM
1 votes:
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 09:44:12 PM
1 votes:

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 09:42:49 PM
1 votes:
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 09:40:59 PM
1 votes:

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 09:22:05 PM
1 votes:

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 09:12:10 PM
1 votes:

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 09:11:42 PM
1 votes:

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 08:24:47 PM
1 votes:

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 08:03:26 PM
1 votes:

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 08:00:15 PM
1 votes:

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 07:55:30 PM
1 votes:

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 07:39:55 PM
1 votes:

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 07:35:58 PM
1 votes:
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 07:34:06 PM
1 votes:
Don't you think he looks thirsty?
2013-06-13 07:33:33 PM
1 votes:

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 07:30:37 PM
1 votes:
i.usatoday.net

Was that wrong? Should I not have said that?
2013-06-13 07:28:54 PM
1 votes:

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 07:17:34 PM
1 votes:

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 07:13:33 PM
1 votes:

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 07:11:38 PM
1 votes:

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


1/10 - you get a point for brevity, but that was amateurish.
2013-06-13 07:09:04 PM
1 votes:
Wouldn't that mean it's also OK to fire someone for being straight?
2013-06-13 07:07:03 PM
1 votes:
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 06:58:02 PM
1 votes:
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 06:57:26 PM
1 votes:
imageshack.us
RIP Rick Rubio
2013-06-13 06:53:01 PM
1 votes:
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 06:51:15 PM
1 votes:

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 05:51:51 PM
1 votes:
Who's Rick Rubio?
2013-06-13 05:51:01 PM
1 votes:
Well at least someone in the GOP is actually talking about jobs...
2013-06-13 05:46:10 PM
1 votes:
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 05:36:07 PM
1 votes:
Wait, let me guess: because Jesus?
 
Displayed 88 of 88 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report