• 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!

Gay-rights bill clears first hurdle in Senate

If I remember right, Boehner has said the bill won't even be brought to the floor of the house for a vote.

Republicans really do hate equal rights don't they?
 
Republicans really do hate equal rights don't they?

I don't think it's that so much as they absolutely refuse to do anything that could be perceived as giving the Democrats a win, because they care more about petty partisanship than doing the right thing.
 
Anti-discrimination laws already exist. Some phony Republicans just pandering. It won't become law fortunately.
 
Bunk. This bill is an unnecessary waist of time. We should not be creating a special class of citizen. We already have anti discrimination laws that cover race, sex creed etc. Now we must add sexuality???? Give me a break. Next thing you know you will not be able to fire someone for being lazy because it discriminates against lazy people.

We need less government intervention, not MORE.
 
I don't think it's that so much as they absolutely refuse to do anything that could be perceived as giving the Democrats a win, because they care more about petty partisanship than doing the right thing.

I get the impression that it's both.
 
Anti-discrimination laws already exist. Some phony Republicans just pandering. It won't become law fortunately.

No they don't. In 28 states it's perfectly legal to fire someone for their sexuality. Not that you care obviously.
 
I hate crap like this because it allows people who get fired or not hired in the first place to play the victim, make assumptions, or speculate as to why any particular establishment isn't employing them.

If someplace doesn't want your services for whatever reason, tough. Find a place that will.
 
Bunk. This bill is an unnecessary waist of time. We should not be creating a special class of citizen. We already have anti discrimination laws that cover race, sex creed etc. Now we must add sexuality???? Give me a break. Next thing you know you will not be able to fire someone for being lazy because it discriminates against lazy people.

We need less government intervention, not MORE.

We have been in the business of creating protected classes for decades now, and that includes the LBGT. It's not a bad thing to suggest that folks should be evaluated on their job performance and potential.

While I support the law's intentions, I feel it sadly necessary to remind folks that are somehow scared they can't fire or refuse to hire based on knowledge of sexuality, that there is nothing in the law that prevents folks finding alternate reasons to hire/fire an employee they happen to not like due to sexuality, race, gender, disability. In fact, it happens regularly enough to the right folks. The problem is they just can't quite prove it...even though the statistics may bear the inconvenient reality that somehow these folks just aren't getting hired or aren't keeping their jobs.
 
I hate crap like this because it allows people who get fired or not hired in the first place to play the victim, make assumptions, or speculate as to why any particular establishment isn't employing them.

If someplace doesn't want your services for whatever reason, tough. Find a place that will.

I'm comfortable with "we refuse to hire black people" being illegal.
 
Isn't most employment "at-will" anyway?


Tim-
 
I'm comfortable with "we refuse to hire black people" being illegal.

Yeah, we all aware you don't care about human rights. Thanks for repeating the message anyway though.
 
Bunk. This bill is an unnecessary waist of time. We should not be creating a special class of citizen. We already have anti discrimination laws that cover race, sex creed etc. Now we must add sexuality???? Give me a break. Next thing you know you will not be able to fire someone for being lazy because it discriminates against lazy people.

We need less government intervention, not MORE.

exactly. we already have EO laws. funny how a group of people who "just want to be equal and treated like everyone else" needs a special law to protect them
 
Republicans really do hate equal rights don't they?

Equal rights? Because ignoring the rights of the business owner is equal rights. :roll: Tell me more about how you have the right to force people to associate with you, enter property that you do not own and gain or maintain employment or service from unwilling members of society. I'm always open to hearing a story of bull**** in the afternoon.
 
Last edited:
Equal rights? Because ignoring the rights of the business owner is equal rights. :roll: Tell me more about how you have the right to force people to associate with you, enter property that you do not own and gain or maintain employment or service from unwilling members of society. I'm always open to hearing a story of bull**** in the afternoon.

Business owners do not have the right to discriminate against people for race, skin colour, country of origin, sex, and now sexual orientation it is just a common sense extension of already existing anti-discrimination laws.
 
Bunk. This bill is an unnecessary waist of time. We should not be creating a special class of citizen. We already have anti discrimination laws that cover race, sex creed etc. Now we must add sexuality???? Give me a break. Next thing you know you will not be able to fire someone for being lazy because it discriminates against lazy people.

We need less government intervention, not MORE.

Yes, we need to protect the rights of citizens to continue being allowed to discirminate against those nasty gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaays :roll:
 
Equal rights? Because ignoring the rights of the business owner is equal rights. :roll: Tell me more about how you have the right to force people to associate with you, enter property that you do not own and gain or maintain employment or service from unwilling members of society. I'm always open to hearing a story of bull**** in the afternoon.

You would have a point if we already didn't have laws on the books to prevent discimination of other groups. Sine we do, your point is useless and just points to the fact you want people to continue to disciminate against gays.
 
Business owners do not have the right to discriminate against people for race, skin colour, country of origin, sex, and now sexual orientation it is just a common sense extension of already existing anti-discrimination laws.

I find it strange that anyone would claim someone has a right not to be discriminated against when to have such a right others peoples human rights would have to be violated. How can someone have a right to force someone to associate with them? How can someone have a right to the use of resources and property of someone else? How can someone have a right to someones else's labor and/or service? How can someone have a right to be employed or stay employed even at the protest of the owner of the business they are working for? I don't imagine I will ever come across someone that will successful defend that such things can occur and not have peoples rights violated in the process.
 
You would have a point if we already didn't have laws on the books to prevent discimination of other groups. Sine we do, your point is useless and just points to the fact you want people to continue to disciminate against gays.

Except for the fact that I have made it a point to voice my disagreement with public accommodation laws well before this issue came up.
 
Except for the fact that I have made it a point to voice my disagreement with public accommodation laws well before this issue came up.

Yes, you have. However, until such laws are removed, it makes perfect sense to allow gays to be included in this.
 
Yes, you have. However, until such laws are removed, it makes perfect sense to allow gays to be included in this.

I will never approve of expanding the reach of bad laws.
 
if/since one is "born gay" wouldn't that already be covered under the current AD laws regarding "sex"?
 
Back
Top Bottom