• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Senate to vote on gay rights bill by Thanksgiving

AGENT J

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 25, 2010
Messages
80,422
Reaction score
29,075
Location
Pittsburgh
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Senate to vote on gay rights bill by Thanksgiving

[h=1]Senate to vote on gay rights bill by Thanksgiving[/h]Susan Davis, USA TODAY2:37 p.m. EDT October 28, 2013
[h=2]Federal laws already ban employer discrimination based on on race, color, sex, nationality, religion, age or disability.[/h]


WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate will take up a gay rights bill before Thanksgiving, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Monday.
The Employment Non-Discrimination Act bans workplace discrimination by employers on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. Religious organizations and the U.S. military are exempted. ENDA has been introduced in nearly every Congress since 1994, and it came one vote shy of passage in 1996. It has not been given a full Senate vote since.
Federal laws already ban employer discrimination based on on race, color, sex, nationality, religion, age or disability.
"We think this vote is long overdue," said Freedom to Work founder Tico Almeida, a former counsel in the U.S. House of Representatives who helped draft the legislation. The House passed a version of the legislation in 2007, but it died in the Senate and faced a veto threat from then-President George W. Bush.
Click to expand...
Back up links:
http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_new...rotect-gay-transgender-employment-rights?lite
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs.../28/for-republicans-a-big-test-on-gay-rights/

Now for people who actually follow equal rights ENDA isnt NEW and IMO i dont actually think it will pass YET. Still too many fearmongers and conspiracy theorists out there but if it does, WOW, look out.

The fall of DOMA was a huge nail in the coffin of discrimination and if SCOTUS doesnt act first it will probably lead to about 30 states having equal rights for gays in 3 years.

If ENDA passes that process will just be further streamlined.
More writing on the wall, equality IS coming.
 
As I said many times I am for equal rights for everyone but this is not about that, Its about giving a class of people a special right and hopefully that will never happen. The definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman should never change.
 
Navy Pride said:
As I said many times I am for equal rights for everyone but this is not about that, Its about giving a class of people a special right and hopefully that will never happen. The definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman should never change.
Click to expand...

and as many poster have said many times you factually are not for equal rights and your post is factually false. When you have any facts that support you let us know. :)
 
Navy Pride said:
As I said many times I am for equal rights for everyone but this is not about that, Its about giving a class of people a special right and hopefully that will never happen.
Click to expand...

Are you claiming that "heterosexual" isn't a sexual orientation?
 
And if we add sexual orientation to the list that means we can't refuse pedophiles a job because they are pedos. In fact, everyone in the workplace will have to be nice to them to avoid discrimination lawsuits.
 
Maybe the government should stop issuing marriage licenses.
 
clownboy said:
And if we add sexual orientation to the list that means we can't refuse pedophiles a job because they are pedos. In fact, everyone in the workplace will have to be nice to them to avoid discrimination lawsuits.
Click to expand...

These laws are designed to prevent discrimination on the basis of a perceived trait. They don't, nor should they, stop an employer from firing or refusing to hire someone on the basis of, for example, an inappropriate conversation from which sexual orientation is either revealed or apparent.
 
In my state you can fire people without reason.

Hiring might be a different ball game.
 
vasuderatorrent said:
In my state you can fire people without reason.

Hiring might be a different ball game.
Click to expand...

If it is patterned after Title 7, it includes a hiring process, not just a termination on account of.
 
AGENT J said:
and as many poster have said many times you factually are not for equal rights and your post is factually false. When you have any facts that support you let us know. :)
Click to expand...

The problem is you won't accept the facts...You gays can call your hook up anything you want but not marriage. That is a union between a man and a woman period.
 
vasuderatorrent said:
Maybe the government should stop issuing marriage licenses.
Click to expand...


It is beneficial for the gov to promote marriage is a good thing. It provides a stable relation for a man and a woman and their children and that is a good thing.
 
Navy Pride said:
1.)The problem is you won't accept the facts...You gays can call your hook up anything you want but not marriage. That is a union between a man and a woman period.
Click to expand...

again FACTS, law, history and dictionaries all prove you wrong.
But feel free to believe what ever you want even if facts do destroy it
 
AGENT J said:
Senate to vote on gay rights bill by Thanksgiving


Back up links:
Reid pledges vote on bill to protect gay, transgender employment rights - NBC Politics
For Republicans, a big test on gay rights

Now for people who actually follow equal rights ENDA isnt NEW and IMO i dont actually think it will pass YET. Still too many fearmongers and conspiracy theorists out there but if it does, WOW, look out.

The fall of DOMA was a huge nail in the coffin of discrimination and if SCOTUS doesnt act first it will probably lead to about 30 states having equal rights for gays in 3 years.

If ENDA passes that process will just be further streamlined.
More writing on the wall, equality IS coming.
Click to expand...

I wonder why the military is exempted. How about congress? Did they exempt themselves like they do with almost every other law they pass?
 
Perotista said:
I wonder why the military is exempted. How about congress? Did they exempt themselves like they do with almost every other law they pass?
Click to expand...

totally GUESSING but my guess is its old legislation still in there since it was first written in 1994 "I think"
but with the fall of DADT i would guess its meaningless anyway
 
read a great op-ed that basically said civil unions = marriage. the difference is civil unions are a touchdown for the gay community, but gay marriage is spiking the ball in the face of their perceived enemies. I agree with that. Lets just take marriage out of the government's hands and let them hand out civil unions to anyone who wishes to apply. Why wouldn't that work and make both sides happy?! Honestly
 
Navy Pride said:
It is beneficial for the gov to promote marriage is a good thing. It provides a stable relation for a man and a woman and their children and that is a good thing.
Click to expand...

Here is an article from Wikipedia. I don't know if it's accurate or not.

Marriage license - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some groups believe that the requirement to obtain a marriage license is unnecessary and/or immoral. The Libertarian Party, for instance, believes that marriage should be a matter of personal liberty, not requiring permission from the state. Libertarians argue that marriage is a right, and that by allowing the state to exercise control over marriage, it is implied that we merely have privilege, not the right, to marry. As an example, those born in the US receive a birth certificate, not a birth license. Some Christian groups also argue that a marriage is a contract between a man and a woman presided over by God, so no authorization from the state is required. In some US states, the state is cited as a party in the marriage contract which is seen by some as an infringement.
 
JoeTrumps said:
1.)read a great op-ed that basically said civil unions = marriage.
2.)the difference is civil unions are a touchdown for the gay community, but gay marriage is spiking the ball in the face of their perceived enemies. I agree with that.
3.) Lets just take marriage out of the government's hands and let them hand out civil unions to anyone who wishes to apply.
4.)Why wouldn't that work and make both sides happy?! Honestly
Click to expand...

1.) well the great op-ed is wrong because they are factually not equal
2.) well since civil unions are factually not equal it would be more like a loss of yards so that fails too
3.) marriage is a contract and has to be protected by the government. In fact some of the rights/protections offered by the marriage contract cant be obtained any other way.
4.) when it comes to equal rights nobody cares about making both sides happy. What was the solution to make both sides happy for slavery, minority rights, womens rights, interracial marriage etc?
 
AGENT J said:
totally GUESSING but my guess is its old legislation still in there since it was first written in 1994 "I think"
but with the fall of DADT i would guess its meaningless anyway
Click to expand...

That was exactly why I was wondering. The military has adopted just fine since the repeal of DADT. There was a few brush fires at the get go, but when the brass came down hard on those who were refusing to go along with the program, things even out and are running smooth.
 
Napoleon said:
These laws are designed to prevent discrimination on the basis of a perceived trait. They don't, nor should they, stop an employer from firing or refusing to hire someone on the basis of, for example, an inappropriate conversation from which sexual orientation is either revealed or apparent.
Click to expand...

Nope. If the individual can show they were refused employment because of their sexual orientation they have a valid lawsuit if sexual orientation is added to the list.
 
Navy Pride said:
As I said many times I am for equal rights for everyone but this is not about that, Its about giving a class of people a special right and hopefully that will never happen. The definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman should never change.
Click to expand...

The definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman of the same race should never change......Oops. I guess definitions can change....if you agree with them. Doh!
 
Navy Pride said:
As I said many times I am for equal rights for everyone but this is not about that, Its about giving a class of people a special right and hopefully that will never happen. The definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman should never change.
Click to expand...

I am afraid you might be right.
 
Navy Pride said:
The problem is you won't accept the facts...You gays can call your hook up anything you want but not marriage. That is a union between a man and a woman period.
Click to expand...

Sorry navy...but it it YOU who won't accept the facts. Gay marriages are not like the whorehouse "hook-ups" that you so often engaged in. They are committed long-term relationships just like yours today, whether you like it or not. It is called "marriage" because it IS marriage...It is legally recognized marriage in an increasing number of states and will soon be legally recognized in every state in this nation.

Your aversion to gay marriage is no different than the bigots who opposed inter-racial marriage prior to the definition of marriage changing in order to allow those "marriages".
 
JoeTrumps said:
read a great op-ed that basically said civil unions = marriage. the difference is civil unions are a touchdown for the gay community, but gay marriage is spiking the ball in the face of their perceived enemies. I agree with that. Lets just take marriage out of the government's hands and let them hand out civil unions to anyone who wishes to apply. Why wouldn't that work and make both sides happy?! Honestly
Click to expand...

Many gays probably would have been happy with civil unions. The reality is that the people who are all of a sudden in favor of civil unions are the same people who opposed them until marriage equality for gays became a reality. Now they cry "Why aren't civil unions enough". Too little too late. It is the fight of the right-wing to prevent civil unions that has helped make gay marriage equality a reality. They are going to have to live with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom