Homosexuality is not a civil right

[SILVERNAME]

Posted: September 25, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern

While the nation’s news outlets are riveted on the Jena 6 and O.J. Simpson, an insidious undermining of the workplace advances virtually unnoticed.

That creeping darkness is the federal Employment Nondiscrimination Act, or ENDA, H.R. 2015. If the proposed measure becomes law, it will add “actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity” as a category to the 1964 Civil Rights Act. It would give special employment rights to homosexuals and the transgendered that would not only harm the integrity of faith-based organizations, but it would specifically undermine an employer’s ability to grow his/her business in a productive and profitable way.

wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57802

 

[goofyjim]

I support a faithbased organizations right to let go a person who is pushing an agenda different from theirs. What I do not support is a secular business deciding to fire on the basis of “perceived” sexual orientation when the person otherwise does his job well. This is not hindering the profitability of a company. Methinks you want an ideal, IYO, society that just firs anyone who might be homosexual and then they would all be on the streets homeless. Well I won’t let that happen.

 

[b_justb]

I support a faithbased organizations right to let go a person who is pushing an agenda different from theirs. What I do not support is a secular business deciding to fire on the basis of “perceived” sexual orientation when the person otherwise does his job well. This is not hindering the profitability of a company. Methinks you want an ideal, IYO, society that just firs anyone who might be homosexual and then they would all be on the streets homeless. Well I won’t let that happen.

You’re going into the extremely affordable housing construction business? http://www.coolsmilies.net/happy/sq_hehe1.gif

 

[estesbob]

I support a faithbased organizations right to let go a person who is pushing an agenda different from theirs. What I do not support is a secular business deciding to fire on the basis of “perceived” sexual orientation when the person otherwise does his job well. This is not hindering the profitability of a company. Methinks you want an ideal, IYO, society that just firs anyone who might be homosexual and then they would all be on the streets homeless. Well I won’t let that happen.

I believe I should have the right to fire an employee for any reason at any time. If an employer believes that a person’s homosexuality is causing problems in this business he has every right to let him go. Similarly if an employees heterosexuality is causing problems I should be able to cut them loose. The idea that sexual behavior should be afforded the same protected status as race, gender and country of national origin is specious.

 

[goofyjim]

You’re going into the extremely affordable housing construction business? http://www.coolsmilies.net/happy/sq_hehe1.gif

I just don’t see how anyone coming to work for whatever reason and doing their job well is hindering the productivity and profitability of a company. The same could be said of a Christian who spends his whole time preaching on the job to nonbelievers. Yet if he was fired it would be discrimination. Why? Is he not wasting company time with stuff that does not pertain to the business? These threads about firing “perceived” homosexuals are totally ridiculous. Then we satrt trying to perceive who is and who isn’t and that becomes unjust. They have a right to employment like the rest of us do as long they focus on the job and do it well.

 

[goofyjim]

I believe I should have the right to fire an employee for any reason at any time. If an employer believes that a person’s homosexuality is causing problems in this business he has every right to let him go. Similarly if an employees heterosexuality is causing problems I should be able to cut them loose. The idea that sexual behavior should be afforded the same protected status as race, gender and country of national origin is specious.

 

[goofyjim]

I believe I should have the right to fire an employee for any reason at any time. If an employer believes that a person’s homosexuality is causing problems in this business he has every right to let him go. Similarly if an employees heterosexuality is causing problems I should be able to cut them loose. The idea that sexual behavior should be afforded the same protected status as race, gender and country of national origin is specious.

Then why should anything be protected. This stupid article is not talking about behavior it is talking about perceived orientation. You cannot always tell and if we start trying to discern who is and who isn’t it becomes all out unjust. I would fire a Christian who spends his whole time trying to convert his fellow workers.

 

[estesbob]

Then why should anything be protected. This stupid article is not talking about behavior it is talking about perceived orientation. You cannot always tell and if we start trying to discern who is and who isn’t it becomes all out unjust. I would fire a Christian who spends his whole time trying to convert his fellow workers.

If you don’t like my unemployment policies then you should start your own business and hire anyone you want to. I have never fired anyone because of the manner the engaged in sex. In fact in 26 years is never come up in the office. But I reserve the right to fire an employee anytime I feel there causing a problem. And contrary to what others may tell you there is a lot more involved the in dynamics of an office than whether an employees is doing a good job or not.

 

[goofyjim]

If you don’t like my unemployment policies then you should start your own business and hire anyone you want to. I have never fired anyone because of the manner the engaged in sex. In fact in 26 years is never come up in the office. But I reserve the right to fire an employee anytime I feel there causing a problem. And contrary to what others may tell you there is a lot more involved the in dynamics of an office than whether an employees is doing a good job or not.

I agree. So if I start my own business I would have to tell my employees to leave religion at home.

 

[estesbob]

I agree. So if I start my own business I would have to tell my employees to leave religion at home.

Of course you should-and IMO you should.

 

[Bennie_P]

I support a faithbased organizations right to let go a person who is pushing an agenda different from theirs. What I do not support is a secular business deciding to fire on the basis of “perceived” sexual orientation when the person otherwise does his job well. This is not hindering the profitability of a company. Methinks you want an ideal, IYO, society that just firs anyone who might be homosexual and then they would all be on the streets homeless. Well I won’t let that happen.

Well you see Jim, that is the problem, if sexual orientation is declared a “suspect class” then faithbased organizations would not have the ability to do let go someone with a different agenda. This is a way that “gay” rights movement can move into positions in order to undermind Church teachings.

ENDA is the latest attempt to have the federal government enforce what businesses and individuals overwhelmingly reject, i.e., mandated acceptance of a particular lifestyle to the exclusion of their core beliefs and principles. Homosexual activists are demanding the government mandate that rational Americans reject the reality they know to be true and believe that men can be women and vice versa. If ENDA passes, organizations like the Boy Scouts, youth camps, religious bookstores and faith-based services would immediately fall victim to liberal courts eager to do the bidding of those who seek to alter the accepted sexual construct representative of civilized society.

This is facism at its worst. Forcing a belief of a misguided minority on the majority.
Look what is happening in England - from such laws.

New British law has potential to force bishops to ordain transsexuals

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/images/ppmonjacura130907.jpg

London, Sep 13, 2007 / 09:55 am (CNA).- The bishops of England and Wales are asking for an exemption from new equality laws that could force them to ordain transsexuals as priests or allow them to become nuns.
The bishops said proposals to ban “indirect discrimination” against people who have had gender reassignment operations would take away their right to check baptismal and confirmation certificates which would show if candidates for the priesthood, religious life or marriage had a hidden past, reports the London Times.
“Many Christians believe, on strongly held religious grounds, that gender is given before birth and cannot be changed,” Archbishop Peter Smith of Cardiff reportedly said.
The government plans to change the law so that such records are altered when a person has such an operation. The bishops are asking that the Catholic Church be exempt from such a law. However, the government’s track record on giving the Church exemptions has not been good. Earlier this year, the government refused to give the Church an exemption from its new adoption law which make it illegal to prevent homosexuals from adopting children. (CNA coverage here)

You keep talking about "gays’ being victims, but it seems like they are forcing themselves into every nook and cranny possible, this is not “gay” rights but “gay” rape.

 

[goofyjim]

Well you see Jim, that is the problem, if sexual orientation is declared a “suspect class” then faithbased organizations would not have the ability to do let go someone with a different agenda. This is a way that “gay” rights movement can move into positions inorder undermind Church teachings.

This is facism at its worst. Forcing a belief of a misguided minority on the majority.
Look what is happening in England - from such laws.

You keep talking about "gays’ being victims, but it seems like they are forcing themselves into every nook and cranny possible, this is not “gay” rights but “gay” rape.

There is no rape going on here. We’re talking about whether or not these homosexuals affect the productivity of a secular company. They do not anymore than the selfproclaimed preacher on the job. Either one can push their agenda. Either can also submit and just do their job. I would fire either one for pushing their agenda. I would keep them both if they are doing their job.

 

[estesbob]

There is no rape going on here. We’re talking about whether or not these homosexuals affect the productivity of a secular company. They do not anymore than the selfproclaimed preacher on the job. Either one can push their agenda. Either can also submit and just do their job. I would fire either one for pushing their agenda. I would keep them both if they are doing their job.

And the ONLY one qualified to make that decision is the employer. If sexual behvior is added to the supect class it will be impossible to fire anyone. All they will have to do is claim to be homosexual and claim that that is why there are being fired. Since homosexual behavior is not inate like race or gender there is no way to prove whether one is or is not homosexual.

 

[goofyjim]

Sexual behavior at home has never had any influence on the profitability of a company. In fact mnay of them are able to rise to the top because they do not have family ties and expenses to burden the company. They are able to devote more time to the socalled profitabiltiy of the company. Churches and faith based organizations should be exempt but I see no reason why this law should not be passed for secular companies.

 

[goofyjim]

And the ONLY one qualified to make that decision is the employer. If sexual behvior is added to the supect class it will be impossible to fire anyone. All they will have to do is claim to be homosexual and claim that that is why there are being fired. Since homosexual behavior is not inate like race or gender there is no way to prove whether one is or is not homosexual.

So now it is impossible to fire anyone unless they are homosexual? Seems pretty lame.

 

[goofyjim]

What’s next? Do we start questioning everyone who isn’t married and if we discover they are homosexual in orientation alone fire them since it is unprotected? Paranoia.

 

[estesbob]

Sexual behavior at home has never had any influence on the profitability of a company. In fact mnay of them are able to rise to the top because they do not have family ties and expenses to burden the company. They are able to devote more time to the socalled profitabiltiy of the company. Churches and faith based organizations should be exempt but I see no reason why this law should not be passed for secular companies.

Well Jim if it is confied to the home it wont come up at work does it? And it doeant come up at work one would not they were homosexual would they.?And if one does not know they are homosxual then none cant fire them becuase of it ,can they? So why is a law neded?

The only thing that such a law would do is give extra jod security to avowed homosexuals -secutiry not avaianlbe to the ordinary Joe sitting in his cubicle-thet is unless he wants to claim to be homosexual to have a grievance if they get fired.

 

[Mirdath]

I believe I should have the right to fire an employee for any reason at any time. If an employer believes that a person’s homosexuality is causing problems in this business he has every right to let him go.

‘Causing problems’ is really where the issue lies. If a gay employee – or a Christian, or an Asian, or whatever – is not ‘causing problems’ what reason would you have to terminate employment?

In college, I worked at a software company as a co-op/intern. After a semester that by all accounts had gone extremely well (I was the highest-performing co-op they had, closing double the number of issues anyone else did), I was told two weeks before I was to return ‘oh, don’t come back’ (even better, I had to call them to find out, since I’d heard there were shakeups but nobody’d gotten in touch with me). A friend of mine still worked there, and yes, apparently I was let go because I wasn’t right and uptight enough. I hadn’t violated the terms of employment or the dress code, had gotten along decently well with my coworkers, didn’t have sex on the CEO’s desk, and I got things done. I simply wasn’t what the management wanted to walk in and see every morning, or pass on the way to the company Bible study in the back once a week. Is that a good enough reason to fire someone?

goofyjim:

You cannot always tell and if we start trying to discern who is and who isn’t it becomes all out unjust. I would fire a Christian who spends his whole time trying to convert his fellow workers.

Of course – if he’s spending company time evangelizing, he’s not working. If an employee spends all his or her time on the clock looking for action, whether gay or straight, that person deserves to be fired too. But nobody should be fired merely for being Christian or being gay or straight. Corporations exist to make money, not to dictate the lives of their employees.

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

I believe I should have the right to fire an employee for any reason at any time. If an employer believes that a person’s homosexuality is causing problems in this business he has every right to let him go. Similarly if an employees heterosexuality is causing problems I should be able to cut them loose. The idea that sexual behavior should be afforded the same protected status as race, gender and country of national origin is specious.

It would not be because of his actual (or precieved) orientation you would let him/her go. The dismissal reason would be poor quality of work or disrupting the office, as any sexual orientation would be a secondary reason at best.

You should not be able to fire someone just on their sexual preference alone.

 

[goofyjim]

Well Jim if it is confied to the home it wont come up at work does it? And it doeant come up at work one would not they were homosexual would they.?And if one does not know they are homosxual then none cant fire them becuase of it ,can they? So why is a law neded?

The only thing that such a law would do is give extra jod security to avowed homosexuals -secutiry not avaianlbe to the ordinary Joe sitting in his cubicle-thet is unless he wants to claim to be homosexual to have a grievance if they get fired.

Yet if the employee wants to they can hire an investigator to find out what goes at home and then fire them for something they didn’t bring into the workplace. I’m sure it happens.