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.

(Palm Springs Desert Sun)   Congress will come out today unless the Senate filibusters their ass. *jazz hands*   (mydesert.com ) divider line
    More: Cool, Senate Filibuster, jazz hands, Senate, Employment Non-Discrimination Act, nationalities, Jeff Merkley, Dianne Feinstein  
•       •       •

2218 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 Nov 2013 at 11:24 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


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

 
2013-11-04 10:14:48 AM  
Does anyone seriously think this bill will see the light of day in the House?
 
2013-11-04 10:26:15 AM  
FTFA: Heritage also argued that ENDA is worrisome to "free marketers concerned about freedom of contract and government interference in the marketplace

i.imgur.com

I love how "Freedom of Contract" always manages to exclude some people who would like to engage in the "Freedom of Contract."
 
2013-11-04 10:32:55 AM  
FTFAThe Heritage Foundation, an influential conservative think tank, said in an ENDA fact sheet that the legislation would create "special privileges based on sexual orientation and gender identity,"

i.imgur.com

Isn't it interesting how the "Right to Work" seems to exclude people who would like to work and participate in the capitalist system?
 
2013-11-04 10:43:11 AM  
...after which it will die a quiet death in the House.
 
2013-11-04 10:45:01 AM  
Good luck with that.
 
2013-11-04 10:46:17 AM  

sammyk: Does anyone seriously think this bill will see the light of day in the House?


I'll be shocked if it even makes cloture in the Senate.

I'm taking bets on the GOPer that will filibuster this.  My money's on Cruz.
 
2013-11-04 10:53:06 AM  

xanadian: sammyk: Does anyone seriously think this bill will see the light of day in the House?

I'll be shocked if it even makes cloture in the Senate.

I'm taking bets on the GOPer that will filibuster this.  My money's on Cruz.


who's the most closeted senator in the GOP? He'll be the one to filibuster it.

/doubt Cruz will be it
 
2013-11-04 11:27:30 AM  
What possible reason could you have to be against this??

Honestly. Explain to me- without violating the part about the first amendment where we don't make laws based on religion- why you would be opposed to this.
 
2013-11-04 11:34:52 AM  

somedude210: xanadian: sammyk: Does anyone seriously think this bill will see the light of day in the House?

I'll be shocked if it even makes cloture in the Senate.

I'm taking bets on the GOPer that will filibuster this.  My money's on Cruz.

who's the most closeted senator in the GOP? He'll be the one to filibuster it.

/doubt Cruz will be it


Cruz has nothing to gain politically from a filibuster. If it gets filibustered, it's going to be by someone who needs to suck up to the religious right because they're in danger of getting primaried.
 
2013-11-04 11:36:00 AM  

rynthetyn: somedude210: xanadian: sammyk: Does anyone seriously think this bill will see the light of day in the House?

I'll be shocked if it even makes cloture in the Senate.

I'm taking bets on the GOPer that will filibuster this.  My money's on Cruz.

who's the most closeted senator in the GOP? He'll be the one to filibuster it.

/doubt Cruz will be it

Cruz has nothing to gain politically from a filibuster. If it gets filibustered, it's going to be by someone who needs to suck up to the religious right because they're in danger of getting primaried.


I'm still going with "most closeted republican because of projected shame he feels on himself" as the winner.
 
2013-11-04 11:36:30 AM  

somedude210: who's the most closeted senator in the GOP? He'll be the one to filibuster it.


Lindsey Graham ?
 
2013-11-04 11:36:56 AM  

what_now: What possible reason could you have to be against this??

Honestly. Explain to me- without violating the part about the first amendment where we don't make laws based on religion- why you would be opposed to this.


Let's say you have an all make workforce. The last thing that you need is some gay guy coming in an distracting the rest of your employees and making them uncomfortable.

OK....I feel dirty now for even trying to think like a Republican.
 
2013-11-04 11:38:37 AM  
ITT: people who think that Senators actually talk when they filibuster something instead of just saying "I Object" before hitting on their 19-year-old female oil lobbyist.
 
2013-11-04 11:42:13 AM  

DeathBySmiley: ITT: people who think that Senators actually talk when they filibuster something instead of just saying "I Object" before hitting on their 19-year-old female oil lobbyist.


Are we in the same topic?
 
2013-11-04 11:43:24 AM  

Biff_Steel: somedude210: who's the most closeted senator in the GOP? He'll be the one to filibuster it.

Lindsey Graham ?


Was just about to post this. I think we have a winner.
 
2013-11-04 11:44:58 AM  
25.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-11-04 11:45:01 AM  

hawcian: DeathBySmiley: ITT: people who think that Senators actually talk when they filibuster something instead of just saying "I Object" before hitting on their 19-year-old female oil lobbyist.

Are we in the same topic?


Or, you know. Thread. Words are hard.
 
2013-11-04 11:47:01 AM  

what_now: What possible reason could you have to be against this??

Honestly. Explain to me- without violating the part about the first amendment where we don't make laws based on religion- why you would be opposed to this.


Employers should be able to fire anybody for any reason they want to at any time they want to. If you work for an employer who wants to do this, you should just quit and go to a new job with an employer who doesn't agree.
 
2013-11-04 11:48:02 AM  

what_now: What possible reason could you have to be against this??

Honestly. Explain to me- without violating the part about the first amendment where we don't make laws based on religion- why you would be opposed to this.


Because Jesus.

Duh.
 
2013-11-04 11:48:50 AM  

xanadian: sammyk: Does anyone seriously think this bill will see the light of day in the House?

I'll be shocked if it even makes cloture in the Senate.



60 Senators are now on the record in favor. All 55 democrats, and 4 Republicans have been on the record for a little while. Heller came out in support today, making 60.

So yeah, it'll pass the Senate. The House is the tricky part.
 
2013-11-04 11:48:55 AM  
I like how the people who love freedom, and liberty, and are outraged over government tyranny are against this and want the government to impose their will to force people to be treated unfairly...
 
2013-11-04 11:51:50 AM  

sammyk: Does anyone seriously think this bill will see the light of day in the House?


Yes. I have it on good authority from the Tea Party leaders that they are an economic movement with no interest in social issues.
 
2013-11-04 11:52:01 AM  
There are, supposedly, already 60 votes to break a filibuster - 55 dems and 2 GOP as sponsors, 2 other GOP who voted for it in conference, and at least one who has said he'll vote for it on the floor.  They're still pushing for a few more GOP supporters, just in case, but there's a decent chance this will actually break filibuster and pass the Senate.

Boehner's just going to let it die, of course, but the Senate isn't likely going to be the problem here.
 
2013-11-04 11:54:31 AM  

cptjeff: xanadian: sammyk: Does anyone seriously think this bill will see the light of day in the House?

I'll be shocked if it even makes cloture in the Senate.

60 Senators are now on the record in favor. All 55 democrats, and 4 Republicans have been on the record for a little while. Heller came out in support today, making 60.

So yeah, it'll pass the Senate. The House is the tricky part.


It'll never come to the floor of the House.

Voting against this would have a heavy blowback (outside of the deep south). Never bringing it to the floor accomplishes the same thing as voting it down, without the black mark on a voting record.
 
2013-11-04 11:57:02 AM  
Throw out your hands!
Stick out your tush!!
Hands on your buttons!
Give them a push!
You'll be surprised!
You're doing the Congressional Mistake!!
SINE DIE!!
 
2013-11-04 11:58:49 AM  

cram_hole: Biff_Steel: somedude210: who's the most closeted senator in the GOP? He'll be the one to filibuster it.

Lindsey Graham ?

Was just about to post this. I think we have a winner.


Ding ding ding went the trolley!
 
2013-11-04 12:06:23 PM  
What I'd like to see after this bill and a similar one in the House fail, is for a gay business owner to fire all of his straight employees then make sure that the local/regional press makes a big stink about it.  "How dare he fire people and put families at risk just because people aren't gay!" they'll say.
 
2013-11-04 12:06:34 PM  
pbs.twimg.com
 
2013-11-04 12:07:06 PM  
ts1.mm.bing.net

Does this mean the Christian book-store around the corner might have to hire someone like this...person to work the register?
 
2013-11-04 12:09:16 PM  

Somacandra: FTFA:  The Heritage Foundation, an influential conservative think tank, said in an ENDA fact sheet that the legislation would create "special privileges based on sexual orientation and gender identity,"

[i.imgur.com image 320x240]

Isn't it interesting how the "Right to Work" seems to exclude people who would like to work and participate in the capitalist system?


Hey now. They work hard, they play hard.
 
2013-11-04 12:09:20 PM  

Klivian: cptjeff: xanadian: sammyk: Does anyone seriously think this bill will see the light of day in the House?

I'll be shocked if it even makes cloture in the Senate.

60 Senators are now on the record in favor. All 55 democrats, and 4 Republicans have been on the record for a little while. Heller came out in support today, making 60.

So yeah, it'll pass the Senate. The House is the tricky part.

It'll never come to the floor of the House.

Voting against this would have a heavy blowback (outside of the deep south). Never bringing it to the floor accomplishes the same thing as voting it down, without the black mark on a voting record.


It really wouldn't, that's the thing. It's supported by at least 2:1 margins by just about every demographic, Republicans included. The biggest issue in terms of popular support is that something like 70% of people think it already exists.

It won't come to the floor because Boehner is a gutless puke, but even if Republicans did vote for it, they'd be unlikely to see much blowback, because even their primary crowd supports it, by and large.

And not bringing it to the floor will still have the same effect politically as voting against it. Democrats are going to be going after House Republicans on Immigration reform in 2014, which suffered the same fate. They'll be going after them for this as well, and that's a big part of the drive to pass it now. They just rewrite the ads to talk about how "Representative soandso fought to make sure ENDA never even came to a vote. He not only opposed a measure that would have given your friends and neighbors protection against bigots, he made sure to kill democracy with it."

It's taken some time (and a shutdown), but the public is more and more aware of Republican obstruction. Candidates in 2014 can and will get the message across.
 
2013-11-04 12:22:13 PM  

what_now: What possible reason could you have to be against this??

Honestly. Explain to me- without violating the part about the first amendment where we don't make laws based on religion- why you would be opposed to this.


The argument will be that THIS law violates the first amendment by forcing employers to act against their religious beliefs.

It's actually a good argument, except for the fact that the religious beliefs of pretty much the same people also allow discrimination based on race and sex, and laws preventing those have been passed and upheld.
 
2013-11-04 12:25:22 PM  

EdNortonsTwin: [ts1.mm.bing.net image 98x108]

Does this mean the Christian book-store around the corner might have to hire someone like this...person to work the register?


Places of employment can still regulate actual matters of appearance in most ways.  If you're bothered that some guy always wears a skirt, you can make a dress-code policy requiring that employees wear pants.  If they're making out with employees of the same sex in the break room, you can fire them (just like employees of the opposite sex doing so).

It's just that if you find out what your employees are doing in their off hours you can no longer retaliate, on grounds that it's none of your business as an employer.
 
2013-11-04 12:28:32 PM  

Aquapope: What I'd like to see after this bill and a similar one in the House fail, is for a gay business owner to fire all of his straight employees then make sure that the local/regional press makes a big stink about it.  "How dare he fire people and put families at risk just because people aren't gay!" they'll say.


I would hope if you're willing to work  for a gay person, you're willing to work  with a gay person. But people think all kinds of stupid things, so maybe I'm wrong.
 
2013-11-04 12:30:23 PM  

Jim_Callahan: It's just that if you find out what your employees are doing in their off hours you can no longer retaliate, on grounds that it's none of your business as an employer.


Offer not valid for employees who smoke weed on the weekends.
 
2013-11-04 12:46:33 PM  

xanadian: sammyk: Does anyone seriously think this bill will see the light of day in the House?

I'll be shocked if it even makes cloture in the Senate.

I'm taking bets on the GOPer that will filibuster this.  My money's on Cruz.


It has 60 votes.
 
2013-11-04 12:47:00 PM  

un4gvn666: Jim_Callahan: It's just that if you find out what your employees are doing in their off hours you can no longer retaliate, on grounds that it's none of your business as an employer.

Offer not valid for employees who smoke weed on the weekends.


Or people who engage in some kinds of criminal behavior, depending on the job.

The argument is that some activities have a tangible effect on workplace performance.  I don't support that argument in every instance it's used - specifically with blanket drug-use policies that aren't based on observed impairment prior to testing - but it's an argument that has at least limited merit.  Not everything done in Vegas stays in Vegas.
 
2013-11-04 12:49:32 PM  
img99.imageshack.us
 
2013-11-04 12:50:08 PM  

EdNortonsTwin: [ts1.mm.bing.net image 98x108]

Does this mean the Christian book-store around the corner might have to hire someone like this...person to work the register?


They must certainly hire him if he's qualified....and they can have their dress code dictate what he wears.
 
2013-11-04 12:54:44 PM  

what_now: What possible reason could you have to be against this??

Honestly. Explain to me- without violating the part about the first amendment where we don't make laws based on religion- why you would be opposed to this.


Easy.  Just re-define the 1st amendment as a mechanism that protects your right to be a bigot.  Then you can be against economic equality for gay people because Jesus.
 
2013-11-04 12:59:31 PM  

what_now: What possible reason could you have to be against this??

Honestly. Explain to me- without violating the part about the first amendment where we don't make laws based on religion- why you would be opposed to this.


Have you met the conservatives? Do they really seem like a forward thinking bunch whom are actually concerned with the well being of the United States and its citizens who aren't attached to huge sums of money? They live in a fantasy land, believing in an America that never existed.
 
2013-11-04 01:07:57 PM  

what_now: What possible reason could you have to be against this??


Here's one dumb reason.

Say no to Obama on #ENDA. Respect religious liberty. http://t.co/4WLw4vDiOb

- Cong. Tim Huelskamp (@CongHuelskamp) November 4, 2013


"Say no to Obama". Because that's what's important here.
 
2013-11-04 01:13:45 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: what_now: What possible reason could you have to be against this??

Here's one dumb reason.

Say no to Obama on #ENDA. Respect religious liberty. http://t.co/4WLw4vDiOb- Cong. Tim Huelskamp (@CongHuelskamp) November 4, 2013

"Say no to Obama". Because that's what's important here.



"Religious liberty" is just a dogwhistle for "lets oppress women and gays!"
 
2013-11-04 01:14:26 PM  
House Speaker John Boehner affirmed on Monday morning that he would oppose a law that would prohibit discrimination against gay and lesbian employees in the workplace, citing the possibility that it would put a financial burden on businesses.

Are you kidding. WTF. They might as well argue that we should bring back slavery because it will help business.
 
2013-11-04 01:14:39 PM  

The RIchest Man in Babylon: ...after which it will die a quiet death in the House.


Not a chance. There is nothing quiet about those people if there is a microphone nearby.
 
2013-11-04 01:17:49 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: what_now: What possible reason could you have to be against this??

Here's one dumb reason.

Say no to Obama on #ENDA. Respect religious liberty. http://t.co/4WLw4vDiOb- Cong. Tim Huelskamp (@CongHuelskamp) November 4, 2013

"Say no to Obama". Because that's what's important here.


I wonder if Huelskamp would support me exercising my religious liberty by firing somebody for not being white. Or not being Christian. Or not being male.
 
2013-11-04 01:20:54 PM  
Today, public [ENDA] support ranges from a low of 63 percent in Mississippi to a high of 81 percent in Massachusetts. Link
 
2013-11-04 01:24:25 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Today, public [ENDA] support ranges from a low of 63 percent in Mississippi to a high of 81 percent in Massachusetts. Link


When most of Mississippi is on board for ending discrimination, you may just have a discrimination problem

/I mean their state motto is "Come hang out in Mississippi" :D
 
2013-11-04 01:27:30 PM  

un4gvn666: Aquapope: What I'd like to see after this bill and a similar one in the House fail, is for a gay business owner to fire all of his straight employees then make sure that the local/regional press makes a big stink about it.  "How dare he fire people and put families at risk just because people aren't gay!" they'll say.

I would hope if you're willing to work  for a gay person, you're willing to work  with a gay person. But people think all kinds of stupid things, so maybe I'm wrong.


Back in the late 90s a city ordinance in Lawrence, KS outlawing LGBT bias in employment and housing was up for votes, but failed (in the libbiest place in Kansas).  Some folks I thought were a little more progressive than they really were were happy if failed, mostly because of Jesus and who'll think of the children reasons.  I pointed out that a well-known local business owner (who is gay) could fire everybody who was straight or kick out he straight people who lived in the apartments above his shop.  Not surprisingly, the Jesus people said things like "He can't do that, that's illegal!"  I honestly could not make them understand that that's exactly what they were in favor of given their position on the ordinance.
 
2013-11-04 01:31:06 PM  

Aquapope: un4gvn666: Aquapope: What I'd like to see after this bill and a similar one in the House fail, is for a gay business owner to fire all of his straight employees then make sure that the local/regional press makes a big stink about it.  "How dare he fire people and put families at risk just because people aren't gay!" they'll say.

I would hope if you're willing to work  for a gay person, you're willing to work  with a gay person. But people think all kinds of stupid things, so maybe I'm wrong.

Back in the late 90s a city ordinance in Lawrence, KS outlawing LGBT bias in employment and housing was up for votes, but failed (in the libbiest place in Kansas). Some folks I thought were a little more progressive than they really were were happy if failed, mostly because of Jesus and who'll think of the children reasons.  I pointed out that a well-known local business owner (who is gay) could fire everybody who was straight or kick out he straight people who lived in the apartments above his shop.  Not surprisingly, the Jesus people said things like "He can't do that, that's illegal!"  I honestly could not make them understand that that's exactly what they were in favor of given their position on the ordinance.


I'd just like to note that today, Lawrence does ban bias in employment and housing on the basis of both sexual orientation and gender identity. The gender identity provisions were added in September 2011.
 
Displayed 50 of 58 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | 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