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.

(Courthouse News Service)   After conservative group Judicial Watch sues the DOJ for denying their FOIA request that would "out" any not-openly gay employees at the US Department of Justice, a US federal judge cordially invites Judicial Watch to go fark themselves   (courthousenews.com) divider line 153
    More: Spiffy, Judicial Watch, Freedom of Information Act, DOJ, foia requests, Justice Department, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder  
•       •       •

4127 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 May 2014 at 4:47 PM (11 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-05-13 02:50:11 PM
Maybe the guys in Judicial Watch are looking to ask out some lawyers on dates?

/I keed. Although for the record I think everyone should be "out"
 
2014-05-13 03:49:18 PM
Judicial Watch is coming off a might creepy.
 
2014-05-13 04:11:39 PM

Because People in power are Stupid: /I keed. Although for the record I think everyone should be "out"


Nope. I have friends who have been thrown out, disowned, or abused by their parents because they came out as lesbian, gay, or transgender. It's an individual's choice, and if you out someone without their permission, you are (as Tim Geithner said) such a dick.
 
2014-05-13 04:37:45 PM

James!: Judicial Watch is coming off a might creepy.


They just have a wide stance.
 
2014-05-13 04:44:19 PM
Personal information is personal information.  Doesn't matter if it's your social security number or your sexual orientation.  The government can't and shouldn't release that information based on a FOI request.
 
2014-05-13 04:49:14 PM
Geez, there are a lot of bicurious Republicans in the news today...
 
2014-05-13 04:50:24 PM
I mean... I guess being in the closet is relevant to security clearance background checks because it's potential blackmail material.  But the best solution to that is to keep removing the stigma on being gay.
 
2014-05-13 04:51:58 PM

ikanreed: I mean... I guess being in the closet is relevant to security clearance background checks because it's potential blackmail material.  But the best solution to that is to keep removing the stigma on being gay.


images2.dailykos.com

Sounds like someone's asking for their head to be shaved...
 
2014-05-13 04:53:22 PM

RminusQ: if you out someone without their permission


When I was a teenager a kid I knew decided for a day that he was gay. His soon to be former best friend outed him to everyone and he was, indeed a dick. But we are talking about adults here. I'm not saying that they should be outed by anyone other than themselves. But for gawd-sakes, stand up for who you are.

I'm going to say that the worst anti-gay rhetoric comes from closeted gay people -it provides a "cover" like no other.

i264.photobucket.com
 
2014-05-13 04:53:41 PM

RminusQ: Because People in power are Stupid: /I keed. Although for the record I think everyone should be "out"

Nope. I have friends who have been thrown out, disowned, or abused by their parents because they came out as lesbian, gay, or transgender. It's an individual's choice, and if you out someone without their permission, you are (as Tim Geithner said) such a dick.


Right.  And in any case, being out to grandma or your co-workers and being out to every troglodyte who reads some PAC's newsletter are very different things.
WebRepcurrentVotenoRatingnoWeight
 
2014-05-13 04:59:42 PM

SphericalTime: Personal information is personal information.  Doesn't matter if it's your social security number or your sexual orientation.  The government can't and shouldn't release that information based on a FOI request.


it's protected under FOIA exemption B(6)  and the kids at Judicial Watch know that full well, they basically make their money by filing FOIA requests and then suing when they get the results.   FOIA has a "fee shifting" provision so they only have to win once in a while to keep the lights on
 
2014-05-13 05:00:45 PM
That could easily make one a social/professional pariah in a lot of the U.S.. Pretty f*cked up to demand people subject themselves to a higher likelihood of discrimination if they decide that closeted is best for them personally.
 
2014-05-13 05:01:42 PM

ikanreed: I mean... I guess being in the closet is relevant to security clearance background checks because it's potential blackmail material.  But the best solution to that is to keep removing the stigma on being gay.


Several years ago I was interviewed by CSIS (Canada's version of the FBI/CIA) regarding my neighbour's Top Secret clearance renewal. I was somewhat shocked when the agent asked me if I thought my neighbour was gay, along with other questions like whether I thought she was on drugs or a terrorist sympathizer.

/csb
 
2014-05-13 05:02:39 PM

Because People in power are Stupid: I keed. Although for the record I think everyone should be "out"


In an ideal society, everyone would be, and it would not matter.
But unfortunatly we do not live in an ideal society so some people have to hide who they truely are.
 
2014-05-13 05:02:41 PM

Because People in power are Stupid: Maybe the guys in Judicial Watch are looking to ask out some lawyers on dates?

/I keed. Although for the record I think everyone should be "out"


in CO (as well as other states, you can still be fired for teh gay
 
2014-05-13 05:05:06 PM

James!: Judicial Watch is coming off a might creepy.


www.judicialwatch.org

"Your honor, Judicial Watch is well within its legal rights to receive this kind of information about public workers.  In addition to sexual orientation, we're also asking for the height, weight and age of all male DOJ employees.

While you're at it, we would also like to know whether or not they have been circumcised.

And are they tops or bottoms?

And if they're bottoms are they power bottoms?

Thank you, your honor."
 
2014-05-13 05:07:15 PM

RminusQ: Because People in power are Stupid: /I keed. Although for the record I think everyone should be "out"

Nope. I have friends who have been thrown out, disowned, or abused by their parents because they came out as lesbian, gay, or transgender. It's an individual's choice, and if you out someone without their permission, you are (as Tim Geithner said) such a dick.


I think his point is that no one should have to feel like they are "in the closet" at all, and be able to live their lives however they choose.    Alternately, "not one should be thrown out, disowned, or abused because of their orientation."
 
2014-05-13 05:07:21 PM
img.pandawhale.com
 
2014-05-13 05:08:52 PM
I think the bigger problem here is that the Attorney General shouldn't be discussing the sexual orientation of employees in a work email.
 
2014-05-13 05:11:18 PM
FOIA Exemption 6 prevents the release of personnel and medical files and other records whose release "would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy."

"Privacy"? Don't these Folks have parades and shiat? What do they know about "privacy"?

Just kidding...
 
2014-05-13 05:13:17 PM
A group of oppression-bots without the word "family" in their name?  What a world!
 
2014-05-13 05:14:23 PM

threedingers: I was somewhat shocked when the agent asked me if I thought my neighbour was gay


Correct answer: "It's hard to say... we were 8 in the Jaccuzzi and things got a bit weird..."
 
2014-05-13 05:15:01 PM
So...Judicial Watch filed a FOIA request so they could find out if Eric Holder stereotyped certain DOJ employees? And the judge dismissed their appeal of redactions because no1curr about JW's AWing and people still get to be people even if they work for the government and are possibly gay?

Do I have that right?

// why does JW want unedited drafts of Holder's speech in the first place?
// are they expecting "Well, as I was entering Barak's tight anus last night (Michelle was off eating pudding with Condi Rice), he turned around and said, 'I hope my secret Shariah Law bill gets enacted soon. All this sneaking around shiat has me pushing rope'"?
 
2014-05-13 05:15:32 PM

threedingers: ikanreed: I mean... I guess being in the closet is relevant to security clearance background checks because it's potential blackmail material.  But the best solution to that is to keep removing the stigma on being gay.

Several years ago I was interviewed by CSIS (Canada's version of the FBI/CIA) regarding my neighbour's Top Secret clearance renewal. I was somewhat shocked when the agent asked me if I thought my neighbour was gay, along with other questions like whether I thought she was on drugs or a terrorist sympathizer.

/csb


At the height of the gays in the military hysteria of the Clinton years (before DADT became law) I, as one of about two people on an aircraft carrier that thought gays in the military was just farkin' fine, spent about four hours being questioned by ship's security (let's call 'em Neal and Bob) about who had teh gey and who didn't.   Now, the fact that I wasn't a homophobe meant I became father confessor to every freaking gay guy on the ship (I spent a lot of time explaining that :"I don't care" worked both ways) and actually did know a lot of guys that had teh gehy was irrelevant.   Bob would ask me who was a homo, and I'd tell him Neal was.  Neal would ask, and I'd tell him Bob was.  After about three hours of this, my division officer showed up and put a quick end to that bullshiat.

/ csb
 
2014-05-13 05:26:14 PM

Because People in power are Stupid: When I was a teenager a kid I knew decided for a day that he was gay.


I don't understand what this means.
 
2014-05-13 05:31:14 PM
i.imgur.com
 
MFK
2014-05-13 05:32:42 PM
why in the everloving fark does Judical Watch think they have a right to know the sexual orientation of public employees? Do they think that just because they work for the government (actually the PEOPLE) that their entire lives are subject to review by anyone at any time?

Seriously, what the fark is up with conservatives being such enormous assholes lately?
 
2014-05-13 05:33:00 PM
Don't want something released under FOIA?  Just sprinkle in some banter about your co-workers' sexual orientation.

Most transparent administration ever.
 
2014-05-13 05:34:42 PM

To The Escape Zeppelin!: I think the bigger problem here is that the Attorney General shouldn't be discussing the sexual orientation of employees in a work email.


The speech was at the National LGBT Bar Association's 2012 Lavender Law Conference and Career Fair, the emails were about the speech. It wouldn't be hard to connect anyone mentioned in the speech with their sexual orientation, unless they just happened to be heterosexual, but strong advocates for LGBTBBQ rights. Not that the right would accept that as possible.

/The only problem I have with the LGBT crowd is the ever-expanding acronym
//I've seen LGBTQA
 
MFK
2014-05-13 05:36:40 PM

Cataholic: Don't want something released under FOIA?  Just sprinkle in some banter about your co-workers' sexual orientation.

Most transparent administration ever.


oh fark you
 
2014-05-13 05:37:00 PM
Wait, if you didn't want people to know you were gay why would you join the National LGBT Bar Association?
 
2014-05-13 05:40:31 PM

MFK: oh fark you

 
2014-05-13 05:43:06 PM

fusillade762: Wait, if you didn't want people to know you were gay why would you join the National LGBT Bar Association?


To support your fellow Bar Members andCcitizens who are  entitled to their full rights as Americans?

There are Caucasians who are members of the NAACP, you know.
 
2014-05-13 05:47:26 PM

Deucednuisance: fusillade762: Wait, if you didn't want people to know you were gay why would you join the National LGBT Bar Association?

To support your fellow Bar Members andCcitizens who are  entitled to their full rights as Americans?

There are Caucasians who are members of the NAACP, you know.


They even give lifetime achievement awards to some of them.

/paging Donald Sterling white's only courtesy phone.
 
2014-05-13 05:48:55 PM
So they want to know who in the DOJ is going to attend an LGBT run conference so that they can "out" employees. That doesn't really make much sense to me. I mean, assuming that the DOJ is a Gaytopia  it doesn't mean that all employees attending the conference are gay. This is a conference on modern and pressing legal issues that affect a subset of people. So I imagine that there's a healthy amount of straight lawyers out there who would also want to attend and might even be invited to speak on certain issues in some panels.

But nah. They're just all a bunch of queermos and should be outed and driven out of work by God fearing 'Mericans.
 
2014-05-13 05:51:00 PM
Did we finally give up on the charade that Judicial Watch is not a right wing group?
 
2014-05-13 05:52:28 PM
Which employees went to the doctor for prostate exams??

That's right.  No one knows.

WHAT ARE YOU HIDING IN YOUR EMPLOYEES URETHRAS OBAMA?
images.sodahead.com
 
2014-05-13 05:58:05 PM

MFK: Seriously, what the fark is up with conservatives being such enormous assholes lately?


"Lately"?
 
2014-05-13 06:02:39 PM

threedingers: ikanreed: I mean... I guess being in the closet is relevant to security clearance background checks because it's potential blackmail material.  But the best solution to that is to keep removing the stigma on being gay.

Several years ago I was interviewed by CSIS (Canada's version of the FBI/CIA) regarding my neighbour's Top Secret clearance renewal. I was somewhat shocked when the agent asked me if I thought my neighbour was gay, along with other questions like whether I thought she was on drugs or a terrorist sympathizer.

/csb


Maybe your answer to that one could reflect on the quality of your replies to the others?
 
2014-05-13 06:16:14 PM

fusillade762: Wait, if you didn't want people to know you were gay why would you join the National LGBT Bar Association?


Because they make wicked cocktails.
 
2014-05-13 06:21:23 PM

threedingers: ikanreed: I mean... I guess being in the closet is relevant to security clearance background checks because it's potential blackmail material.  But the best solution to that is to keep removing the stigma on being gay.

Several years ago I was interviewed by CSIS (Canada's version of the FBI/CIA) regarding my neighbour's Top Secret clearance renewal. I was somewhat shocked when the agent asked me if I thought my neighbour was gay, along with other questions like whether I thought she was on drugs or a terrorist sympathizer.

/csb


Active duty. Coworker/neighbor getting a periodic clearance renewal.
Investigator: Work with?
Me: Yup.
Inv: Neighbor?
Me: Yup.
Inv: See him around?
Me: Yup.
Inv: Been to each other's places, social interaction?
Me: Yup. Wife and I occasionally invite him over for meals. Barbecue sometimes, too. Occasionally rent the vehicle lift at MWR and bend wrenches.
Inv: He's single?
Me: Yup.
Inv: So ... he's gay.
Me: WTF?
Inv: He's ... homosexual. Doesn't go on dates.
Me: lulz Shy. He keeps asking advice on how to approach [female from different unit] to ask her out. I tell him to walk on up and ask. Why?
Inv: Oh. [female from different unit] said she thought he was. *furious erasing and writing of notes* Thanks.
*saw investigator speaking with [female from different unit] later that day*
She asked him out two days later.
 
2014-05-13 06:22:39 PM
Judicial watch could just hang out in the lobby & spot the ghey by who dresses/looks/smells the cleanest.

why do Conservatives depend on our Gov't to solve their problems for them?
 
2014-05-13 06:24:23 PM
Well, there used to be a time when personal details like sexual proclivities of all sorts were commonly used by the soviets to compromise state department employees. Prohibitions against homosexuality for government employees weren't so much about enforcing some sort of gender-based hetero-normal apartheid as they were simply ways of eliminating potential weaknesses to be exploited by the enemy. You couldn't be an alcoholic, or a compulsive gambler, or just debt-ridden because you weren't good with money, either.


So there's nothing inherently wrong with having the same reasonable expectations of DOJ employees. If the employees in question have any issues about public disclosure of their homosexuality, then that's a weakness that can be exploited by anyone in the future who seeks to pervert justice.
 
2014-05-13 06:28:38 PM
Dear Judicial Watch,

This is not going to get Eric Holder to sleep with you.

Also, aren't you folks the ones always demanding that gay people keep it to themselves?
 
2014-05-13 06:29:42 PM

Nemosomen: To The Escape Zeppelin!: I think the bigger problem here is that the Attorney General shouldn't be discussing the sexual orientation of employees in a work email.

The speech was at the National LGBT Bar Association's 2012 Lavender Law Conference and Career Fair, the emails were about the speech. It wouldn't be hard to connect anyone mentioned in the speech with their sexual orientation, unless they just happened to be heterosexual, but strong advocates for LGBTBBQ rights. Not that the right would accept that as possible.

/The only problem I have with the LGBT crowd is the ever-expanding acronym
//I've seen LGBTQA


LGBTZOMGWTFBBQLOL...

They should just go with "Socially Marginalized Sexualities" of some such and just be done with it... because that's what they are really all about (unless they're complete hypocritical assholes).
 
2014-05-13 06:30:36 PM

Rent Party: RminusQ: Because People in power are Stupid: /I keed. Although for the record I think everyone should be "out"

Nope. I have friends who have been thrown out, disowned, or abused by their parents because they came out as lesbian, gay, or transgender. It's an individual's choice, and if you out someone without their permission, you are (as Tim Geithner said) such a dick.

I think his point is that no one should have to feel like they are "in the closet" at all, and be able to live their lives however they choose.    Alternately, "not one should be thrown out, disowned, or abused because of their orientation."


In my last company - someone else made mention of my boyfriend in front of a VP who clearly had issues.  After I quit I was formally queried from the company lawyers if I ever felt discriminated against by the VP in question.  I had to think about it before realizing that the guy was a total dick for other reasons than just being generally incompetent.   I filed an ethical complaint and went on with my life.  But others aren't as lucky as I am and don't have the same flexibility.

/the dude still works there
//I find it weird when people talk about personal lives at work not because I'm want to be "in the closet" - its because I'm Minnesotan
 
2014-05-13 06:30:48 PM

letrole: Well, blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah justice.


You're pregnant.
 
2014-05-13 06:33:33 PM

MFK: oh fark you


QFT
 
2014-05-13 06:34:24 PM
I don't have a problem with that. That sort of knowledge should be a matter of the public record, along with infection status of certain diseases (HIV/AIDS, Hepatitis A,C, and so on). The public has a right to know what their employees are doing.
 
2014-05-13 06:34:57 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: threedingers: ikanreed: I mean... I guess being in the closet is relevant to security clearance background checks because it's potential blackmail material.  But the best solution to that is to keep removing the stigma on being gay.

Several years ago I was interviewed by CSIS (Canada's version of the FBI/CIA) regarding my neighbour's Top Secret clearance renewal. I was somewhat shocked when the agent asked me if I thought my neighbour was gay, along with other questions like whether I thought she was on drugs or a terrorist sympathizer.

/csb

Active duty. Coworker/neighbor getting a periodic clearance renewal.
...
She asked him out two days later.

 That story is so farked up on multiple levels...
 
Displayed 50 of 153 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report