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

  • Thread starter Thread starter surfinpure
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
NewUlm1976_2000;3658224]
NO discrimination is acceptable.
Click to expand...
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? :eek:
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
cynic;3658230]

to discriminate on those grounds is justified.
They want homosexuals persecuted by limiting their abillity to earn a living.
Click to expand...
Not true. That is YOUR perception of it.
 
surf(name removed by moderator)ure;3658284]
It is not a right. No employer should be forced by the strong arm of the government to hire anyone. Period.
Click to expand...
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 said:
surf(name removed by moderator)ure;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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
I simply supported his post with factual examples of non discriminate racism/sexism.
 
leftistdestroye said:
surf(name removed by moderator)ure;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?
Click to expand...
Yep, I support Affirmative Action just as much as the USCCB does … that is, not at all. 😉
 
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.
 
leftistdestroye said:
NewUlm1976_2000;3658468]
Nice spin. It IS offered to the employee, but it is being forced to be given to their “partner” as well.
Click to expand...
Why would it effect the employer? It is the employee who is paying for their partner. And out of it you get a more productive and happier employee. Do you question all employees about their partners and what goes on at home? That is a interview no-no.
 
leftistdestroye said:
Do you roll your eyes at GLSEN too?
Click to expand...
We have had threads on this already, search for it. It was a matter of more respectful treatment towards those with same-gender preferences. This is not a liberal vs conservative as it is a human respect/rights issue.
 
Ridgerunner said:
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.
Click to expand...
Lots of “ifs” there. Lots of hypothetical searching for a worst case scenario which will probably never happen. If those happen, it is between you, the employee, and the rest of the office.

A “guy coming in a dress” would be transvestite, not homosexual. You cannot use his appearance to be a direct reason not to hire him, it would have to come from other parts of the interview directly related to the job at hand.

There is no direct connection between pedophiles and homosexuals. Abusers are across all sexual preferences.
 
NewUlm1976_2000 said:
Why would it effect the employer? It is the employee who is paying for their partner. And out of it you get a more productive and happier employee. Do you question all employees about their partners and what goes on at home? That is a interview no-no.
Click to expand...
Do you not understand health insurance? It would directly effect the employer, because employers have to pay a significant portion of their employees’ health insurance coverage. The employee is allowed to have his/her spouse or children on the plan, but gays want their “partners” recognized as spouses.

But this is off the subject of the thread.
 
surf(name removed by moderator)ure said:
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.
Click to expand...
They are not forced to advertise a position. Fair employment relations require that employees be judged by factors that are relevant to the work, and not those that aren’t. It follows then that hiring practice should follow suite.

Do you agree with an employer being free to refuse hiring black people on the basis of their race? Yes, race and sexual behaviour are quite different, but they are also equally irrelevant in most workplaces.
 
leftistdestroye said:
NewUlm1976_2000;3658133]To your mind, what discrimination IS acceptable?
Click to expand...
Discrimination against people who are not qualified for the job in question. Discrimination against a person who fails to perform their job. Discrmination against a convicted criminal working with money or in security. Discrmination against a convicted child molester in a job working with children.

Those are acceptable forms of discrimination.

Other, arbitrary forms, such as race, RELIGIOUS BELIEFS (which is chosen), sex, national origin, disability and sexual orientation are not acceptable. Bear in mind that perceived sexual orientation is also protected in this act. That’s right, in some states, if your boss even THINKS you may be a homasexial, then as the Donald would say, “you’re fired.”
 
cynic said:
They are not forced to advertise a position. Fair employment relations require that employees be judged by factors that are relevant to the work, and not those that aren’t. It follows then that hiring practice should follow suite.

Do you agree with an employer being free to refuse hiring black people on the basis of their race? Yes, race and sexual behaviour are quite different, but they are also equally irrelevant in most workplaces.
Click to expand...
I would consider moral principles highly relevant to the work of anyone in a religious organization.

Let me state this next part very carefully, because I don’t want to be misunderstood: I believe it is morally wrong not to hire a black person solely because of their race. However, I also believe it is morally wrong for the government to dictate whom an employer may hire. Therefore, if a bigoted employer wants to screen out black people, let the black people make that fact known and boycott his company. That is free enterprise. One is free to hire whom he pleases. The other is free to take his business elsewhere.

The bottom line is that an employer should not have his rights stripped from him. In this country, people have the legal right to be bigoted, ignorant, intolerant, foolish, ditzy, what have you. We don’t by any means agree with their behavior, but we don’t try to legislate it away, because in the removal of Bubba’s right to be prejudiced, I lose my right to hire whom I want.

In preventing a gay person from working in a certain company, he is not taking away the gay man’s rights, because the man had no “right” to work there to begin with. He was, rather, applying for a privilege. Nobody should be forced to extend privileges.
 
NewUlm1976_2000;3658681]
Why would it effect the employer? It is the employee who is paying for their partner. And out of it you get a more productive and happier employee.
Click to expand...
What post #34 said.
Do you question all employees about their partners and what goes on at home? That is a interview no-no.
Click to expand...
No, but having to pay for more insurance for an unmarried couple should be decided by the employer, not the government.
 
surf(name removed by moderator)ure said:
The bottom line is that an employer should not have his rights stripped from him. In this country, people have the legal right to be bigoted, ignorant, intolerant, foolish, ditzy, what have you. We don’t by any means agree with their behavior, but we don’t try to legislate it away, because in the removal of Bubba’s right to be prejudiced, I lose my right to hire whom I want.

In preventing a gay person from working in a certain company, he is not taking away the gay man’s rights, because the man had no “right” to work there to begin with. He was, rather, applying for a privilege. Nobody should be forced to extend privileges.
Click to expand...
It does not say you HAVE to hire him/her. This is not a AA program for same-gender people, it is just that you cannot remove people from employment or choose not to hire them based solely on their sexual preferences. You can still choose to hire them or not based on how they best fit the job description and their job related duty performance.

Another poster above also mentioned precieved homosexuality, which is also pertinent, as what you think might be there really might not be there.
 
NewUlm1976_2000;3658693]
We have had threads on this already, search for it. It was a matter of more respectful treatment towards those with same-gender preferences. This is not a liberal vs conservative as it is a human respect/rights issue.
Click to expand...
I don’t see it that way. I see it as going into schools and forcing those who disagree with that particular lifestyle, to accept it. The more that this type of Liberalism, and it is liberalism, is accepted, the more socialism will be pushed down our throats. The two, and many more issues, are linked.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top