Homosexuality is not a civil right

  • Thread starter Thread starter SILVERNAME
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
goofyjim said:
So now it is impossible to fire anyone unless they are homosexual? Seems pretty lame.
Click to expand...
If they have protected status I have to PROVE that i did not fire thm becuase they are not homosexual.

What will happen , Jim, is that if this law passes people like me will not hire anyone who looks even remotely homsexual to cut down on the possbility of having a lawsut filed if you fire them.
 
NewUlm1976_2000 said:
You should not be able to fire someone just on their sexual preference alone.
Click to expand...
Why not? Its my business. Who gives you the right to tell me who I sould hire? And is sexual behavior the ONLY beahavior I am not allowed to fire someone for?
 
goofyjim said:
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.
Click to expand...
Why would any employer waste their money doing that?
 
estesbob said:
If they have protected status I have to PROVE that i did not fire thm becuase they are not homosexual.

What will happen , Jim, is that if this law passes people like me will not hire anyone who looks even remotely homsexual to cut down on the possbility of having a lawsut filed if you fire them.
Click to expand...
Is that seriously one of the big hiring weights for your business? :confused:

Shouldn’t it be work skills that relate directly towards the job? Sexual preference has no correlation with on-the-job performance.
 
Mirdath said:
‘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?

.
Click to expand...
And the ONLY one in a position to determine if they are causing a problem is the employer.
 
estesbob said:
Why not? Its my business. Who gives you the right to tell me who I sould hire? And is sexual behavior the ONLY beahavior I am not allowed to fire someone for?
Click to expand...
As long as their work performance is not effected, what is the big deal? Then you can make it a work performance issue, not a sexual preference one.
 
estesbob said:
And the ONLY one in a position to determine if they are causing a problem is the employer.
Click to expand...
But employees are still within their legal rights (in most states) if they feel they were wrongfully terminated to take it into the legal system.
 
NewUlm1976_2000 said:
But employees are still within their legal rights (in most states) if they feel they were wrongfully terminated to take it into the legal system.
Click to expand...
A what this law would do is give them still another avenue to dispute their firing.
 
Another issue at hand here is whether or not sexual orientation is innate like race or gender. Again there is increasing chromosomal evidence in favor of the fact. Therefore they may not be able to do anything about their orientation and should be a protected status.
 
estesbob said:
And the ONLY one in a position to determine if they are causing a problem is the employer.
Click to expand...
As an employer, then, how does a model employee who happens to have a different preference in partner than you cause problems merely by that preference?
 
estesbob said:
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.
Click to expand...
Not only that but this:
. Including “homosexual orientation” among the considerations on the basis of which it is illegal to discriminate can easily lead to regarding homosexuality as a positive source of human rights, for example, in respect to so-called affirmative action or preferential treatment in hiring practices. This is all the more deleterious since there is no right to homosexuality (cf. No. 10) which therefore should not form the basis for judicial claims. The passage from the recognition of homosexuality as a factor on which basis it is illegal to discriminate can easily lead, if not automatically, to the legislative protection and promotion of homosexuality. A person’s homosexuality would be invoked in opposition to alleged discrimination, and thus the exercise of rights would be defended precisely via the affirmation of the homosexual condition instead of in terms of a violation of basic human rights.
Click to expand...
  1. The “sexual orientation” of a person is not comparable to race, sex, age, etc. also for another reason than that given above which warrants attention. An individual’s sexual orientation is generally not known to others unless he publicly identifies himself as having this orientation or unless some overt behavior manifests it. As a rule, the majority of homosexually oriented persons who seek to lead chaste lives do not publicize their sexual orientation. Hence the problem of discrimination in terms of employment, housing, etc., does not usually arise.
Click to expand...
CONSIDERATIONS CONCERNING THE RESPONSE TO LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS ON THE NON-DISCRIMINATION OF HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS
Click to expand...
 
Mirdath said:
As an employer, then, how does a model employee who happens to have a different preference in partner than you cause problems merely by that preference?
Click to expand...
It doesnt. But I reserve the right to fire them at such a point i think it does.
 
estesbob said:
Why should the govt have any say in why I hire or fire someone?
Click to expand...
Because it is about the employee’s rights. Any unscrupulous employer can make up anything about an employee, true or not. There have to be workplace protections for the employee.
 
estesbob said:
A what this law would do is give them still another avenue to dispute their firing.
Click to expand...
And if it is an above the board termination, there will be no case. Sexual preference alone does not fit into “above the board”. Work performance alone fits into it regardless of the underlining issues (e.g. sexual preference).
 
NewUlm1976_2000 said:
And if it is an above the board termination, there will be no case. Sexual preference alone does not fit into “above the board”. Work performance alone fits into it regardless of the underlining issues (e.g. sexual preference).
Click to expand...
In you opinion. If sexual preference is not made a suspect class neiher of us will ever have to determine who’s opinion is correct
 
estesbob said:
It doesnt. But I reserve the right to fire them at such a point i think it does.
Click to expand...
So, you would fire your best employee because of what they do in private in their personal off-hour time? Sounds like a lawsuit to me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top