• 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!

LGBT Non-Discrimation Vote Passes Senate [W:215]

chromium said:
Yeah anyone arguing it against this who doesn't want to remove race, religion, pregnancy status etc from ENDA, is just a bigot plain and simple. Some of those are even clearly personal choices yet protected.
Click to expand...

Not true. My objections are that it is overly broad (as written would include pedophiles), creates yet another protected class and is not necessary nor within the powers of the federal.
 
Paschendale said:
Like what?
Click to expand...

Never mind, I read the bill. There are exceptions for the ones I was thinking of like environment specific attire and/or religious employers.
 
chromium said:
A lot of those companies get fed subsidies as well or contract with the fed, and it's clearly wrong for them to discriminate. But that could be dealt with by executive order, only obama refuses to.
Click to expand...

Not every company has a choice in the subsidies they get. Furthermore, the subsidies do not change the nature of the business. It is still a privately held business. The same of course goes for contracts with the fed. Just because you have a contract with the fed doesn't mean your business is no longer private.
 
chromium said:
Yeah anyone arguing it against this who doesn't want to remove race, religion, pregnancy status etc from ENDA, is just a bigot plain and simple. Some of those are even clearly personal choices yet protected.
Click to expand...

yep very true
 
chromium said:
Yeah anyone arguing it against this who doesn't want to remove race, religion, pregnancy status etc from ENDA, is just a bigot plain and simple. Some of those are even clearly personal choices yet protected.
Click to expand...

I want to repeal all public accommodation laws. The problem is that getting rid of such laws is most likely impossible, so any expansion on those laws will only extend the damage and put more laws on the books that we can't get rid of. I don't consider that a better situation.
 
Henrin said:
I want to repeal all public accommodation laws. The problem is that getting rid of such laws is most likely impossible, so any expansion on those laws will only extend the damage and put more laws on the books that we can't get rid of. I don't consider that a better situation.
Click to expand...

Quantify that damage.
 
Deuce said:
Quantify that damage.
Click to expand...

cant be done cause there isnt any REAL damage, there are benefits though

discrimination loses and rights are protected
 
Henrin said:
Don't lecture me on human rights progressive. Until I see a progressive that understand rights, in which I haven't yet, I will not accept any lecturing from them on the subject. They have no rights on the table and I do. There is no conflict of rights taking place. Learn about the subject before you speak of it.



That has no effect on my rights and I have no reason to compromise.
Click to expand...

Don't worry I understand Libertarians pretty well. They think they have all the rights at everyone else's expense. You think all the worlds resources are yours to do as you please with zero input from anyone else. The reason you think this way is because you are extremely egocentric.

Egocentrism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the main driver behind Libertarian and Conservative ideology. This is why they just can't understand anyone else that doesn't think the same way they do. They only see the world through their own selfish eyes and think they should have everything 100% at everyone else's 0%, and it is not just fair, but legal, constitutional, and morally right.

This is why you people are such a pest to everyone else that works to share this Earth.
 
Henrin said:
You mean the people that were trespassing on private property and refused to leave when ordered to do so.
Click to expand...

Thank you for going above and beyond the call of duty in making my point. Haters gonna hate.

Bottom line is that, if someone has a business that serves the public, then he must serve ALL of the public. He can't decide to kick people out because they are black, or because they are gay.
 
When hiring or firing and employee his or her sexual preference should not come into play.........And employer that owns a private business should be a able to hire or fire as he sees fit...That is a fact.
 
danarhea said:
It is only right that a person's private life is no damn business of the government, nor the business of whoever employs that person.
Click to expand...
This bill dissolves the NSA? No? Then it protected no such thing. You got played for a fool.
 
danarhea said:
Thank you for going above and beyond the call of duty in making my point. Haters gonna hate.

Bottom line is that, if someone has a business that serves the public, then he must serve ALL of the public. He can't decide to kick people out because they are black, or because they are gay.
Click to expand...

But if the employee is incompetent and gay the employer should have the right to fire him.
 
AGENT J said:
cant be done cause there isnt any REAL damage, there are benefits though

discrimination loses and rights are protected
Click to expand...

It really has very little to do with that....If and employee is not hacking it the employer should be able to fire him whether he is straight or gays and when and employee using his gayness when it has nothing to do with it is wrong.

Keep your sexual preference to yourself do your job and you will be fine.
 
And they will.
 
Navy Pride said:
When hiring or firing and employee his or her sexual preference should not come into play.........And employer that owns a private business should be a able to hire or fire as he sees fit...That is a fact.
Click to expand...

No, that's a belief. Your use of the word "should" is the way to identify that.
 
Deuce said:
No, that's a belief. Your use of the word "should" is the way to identify that.
Click to expand...

You really have to look at both sides of the coin and a employee who uses his sexual preference to keep him job when is incompetent is just as bad.
 
Navy Pride said:
1.)It really has very little to do with that....
2.)If and employee is not hacking it the employer should be able to fire him whether he is straight or gays and when and employee using his gayness when it has nothing to do with it is wrong.
3.)Keep your sexual preference to yourself do your job and you will be fine.
Click to expand...

1.) as usual you are factually wrong
2.) WOW and in the very next line you prove it, thank you for again showing how severely uneducated you are on a topic.

read slow

an employee can still fire anybody they want if the employee is not hacking it

AWESOME, i love when your posts do this and its all the time

3.) if an employer doesnt break the law they will be fine
 
If the employer keeps track of the employees attendence/work record and then, when the employer fires them for those things, the employer will be protected.
 
Re: Senate passes LGBT anti-discrimination bill

Dickieboy said:
From your link; nos 1 & 4 lost their jobs at 'religious based' employment which is exempted in the Senate bill
Nos 2 & 3 got their jobs back
No. 5 hasn't lost his job...yet
Click to expand...

The request was to find people fired for being gay. That was met.
 
clownboy said:
I understand, you're more than willing to sacrifice liberty for your pet causes, you've made that abundantly clear.
Click to expand...
People are actually fighting for a so called "right' to discriminate. You agree with that? You think gays should be able to be fired just because they are gay? Really? Do you REALLY want to fight for that right? What's next, fired for being Black? Christian? Muslim?

I mean are you ok with this?
 
Navy Pride said:
You really have to look at both sides of the coin and a employee who uses his sexual preference to keep him job when is incompetent is just as bad.
Click to expand...

You know what, I'm ok with an employer firing a gay person for being incompetent. I'm not ok with an employer firing an employee just because they are gay. The difference between you and me, you are ok with firing a person just because they are gay even if they are competent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom