"Employment Non-Discrimination Act" (ENDA) Has Passed the House!

[Mystic of God]

My position is this:

Homosexuals are homosexuals. They sin like the rest of us.

Expect me to not discriminate against them, but I'll thank you kindly not to force me to support them via state-sponsored marriage benefits. If you do, you are placing a tax burden on me, forcing me to support something of which I do not morally approve.

[NewUlm1976_2000]

Originally Posted by leftistdestroye

NewUlm1976_2000;3658133]
To your mind, what discrimination IS acceptable?

So? They want to uphold traditional family values. How terrible is that?

NO discrimination is acceptable. Discrimination are "traditional family values"? Family values are looking for differences to avoid people instead of similarities to welcome them according to your inference?

No values are at risk here, never have been and never will be.

[cynic]

Originally Posted by leftistdestroye

NewUlm1976_2000;3658133]



To your mind, what discrimination IS acceptable?

Factors that are relevant to the job. Of course if sexuality is relevant, (for eg. teaching in a religious school) then to discriminate on those grounds is justified.

Originally Posted by leftistdestroye

NewUlm1976_2000;3658133]
So? They want to uphold traditional family values. How terrible is that?

They want homosexuals persecuted by limiting their abillity to earn a living.

[surfinpure]

Originally Posted by NewUlm1976_2000

NO discrimination is acceptable. Discrimination are "traditional family values"? Family values are looking for differences to avoid people instead of similarities to welcome them according to your inference?

No values are at risk here, never have been and never will be.

Really? So then when you decide that one applicant is more educated to perform a job than another, are you not discriminating against the less educated one? Discrimination is natural, and there is nothing wrong with it. But what you are talking about is unjust discrimination, and you are arguing that not hiring someone because their values conflict with the values of your organization is unjust discrimination.

I will therefore rephrase my earlier question:

Is it unjust for the NAACP not to hire someone simply because he is a white supremacist? Is it unjust for the DNC not to hire a Republican? Is it unjust for a daycare not to hire a registered sex-offender?

These would all be clear-cut cases of discrimination, after all.

[surfinpure]

Originally Posted by cynic

Factors that are relevant to the job. Of course if sexuality is relevant, (for eg. teaching in a religious school) then to discriminate on those grounds is justified.




They want homosexuals persecuted by limiting their abillity to earn a living.

I'm sorry, somehow I missed that in the AFA's statement (if that's whom you mean by "they"). I don't recall reading that they want to persecute gays by limiting their employment.

I do, however, agree that an employer extends a privilege to his employess in hiring them. It is not a right. No employer should be forced by the strong arm of the government to hire anyone. Period.

[leftistdestroye]

NewUlm1976_2000;3658224]

NO discrimination is acceptable.

Oh, ok. You added the word "just" in you last post, implying that there was some kind of "just" discrimination. Ok, just being clear.

Discrimination are "traditional family values"? Family values are looking for differences to avoid people instead of similarities to welcome them according to your inference?

No, family values are seeking to defend their side, just as the gays are seeking to defend theirs.

No values are at risk here, never have been and never will be.

60 years ago gay marriage was a joke. They would never thought that it would happen, and yet today, it is right on the horizon. Gay rights are a Liberal supported idea. Liberalism HAS affected the family, in terms of divorce, feminism, less children, NO children, low marriage rates, etc. It is a behavioral disorder, and total acceptance, encorages it. Not to mention the money. How many times have gays been let go at work for performance issues, yet won million dollar lawsuits? I have seen it regarding heterosexual "harrassment" as well. Consensual sex that ultimatley ended up in court as a "harrassment" suit.

[leftistdestroye]

cynic;3658230]

to discriminate on those grounds is justified.

They want homosexuals persecuted by limiting their abillity to earn a living.

Not true. That is YOUR perception of it.

[leftistdestroye]

surfinpure;3658284]

It is not a right. No employer should be forced by the strong arm of the government to hire anyone. Period.

So I gather that you are a supporter of Affirmative Action, then huh? LOL

Or mandated laws that say that you MUST offer healthcare to the
partner" of a gay? Like in California?

[leftistdestroye]

http://www.campusreportonline.net/ma...es.php?id=2320

[NewUlm1976_2000]

Originally Posted by leftistdestroye

http://www.campusreportonline.net/ma...es.php?id=2320

Oh brother.

(No, GLBT has nothing to do with bacon, lettuce and tomato; it�s liberalese for �gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender�).

"Liberalese"?

[NewUlm1976_2000]

Originally Posted by leftistdestroye

surfinpure;3658284]
So I gather that you are a supporter of Affirmative Action, then huh? LOL

Or mandated laws that say that you MUST offer healthcare to the
partner" of a gay? Like in California?

Healthcare benefits should be offered just like any other worker. It should not be held back due to sexual preference, it will be the employee's choice to offer it to his/her partner of course.

If you want to discuss AA, you can start a new thread.

[leftistdestroye]

NewUlm1976_2000;3658468]

Healthcare benefits should be offered just like any other worker. It should not be held back due to sexual preference, it will be the employee's choice to offer it to his/her partner of course.

Nice spin. It IS offered to the employee, but it is being forced to be given to their "partner" as well.

If you want to discuss AA, you can start a new thread.

I simply supported his post with factual examples of non discriminate racism/sexism.

[leftistdestroye]

NewUlm1976_2000;3658462]

Oh brother.

Do you roll your eyes at GLSEN too?

[surfinpure]

Originally Posted by leftistdestroye

surfinpure;3658284] So I gather that you are a supporter of Affirmative Action, then huh? LOL

Or mandated laws that say that you MUST offer healthcare to the
partner" of a gay? Like in California?

Yep, I support Affirmative Action just as much as the USCCB does ... that is, not at all.

[Ridgerunner]

So, can you who support this legislation assure me that I don't have to hire a a guy who comes to me and applies for a job in a dress? There is nothing I see in this legislation that clearly protects me from that. There is nothing in it that prevents me from having to force him on my employees, as repugnant as his behavior is going to be to them.

And what if somebody in my office decides to "change genders"? I have to keep the guy there while he grows breasts and grosses out the female employees? What, in the bill, prevents that?

And if an employee comes to work hand in hand with a person of the same gender, kisses in the outer office and sits next to people of the same gender?

And if, while others in the office talk about their spouses or significant others, some employee tells how he/she sleeps with his/her dog, how am I protected from having to put up with that?

And pedophiles? That's a "sexual orientation" too. So my employees cannot bring their children to the workplace.

There is no way, once the courts get finished with it, that all of those things will not be enforced by law. Why? Because there are no exceptions in the bill, and "sexual orientation" is not defined.

Even the ADA excepted transvestitism and transsexualism from its definition of "disability". But, suspecting the courts, some legislators were careful to except those things.

but then, I have not read the entire bill. Possibly those who support it can quote here the provisions that say none of the above will be forced on me by law.

If those protective provisions are not there, then the above is what you're supporting.