You, sir, are a sick freak. 
Priam already responded effectively, but just to add:
It’s not “special treatment” and it’s not “favoritism” and it’s not “preferential treatment.” I don’t want my boss to treat me any differently because I’m gay – that’s the whole fucking point. Without state recognition of sexual orientation as a protected status, then my boss could come in one day, decide that he doesn’t want any “deviants” or “perverts” (as you described homosexuals in a previous thread) working at his company, and fire everyone who’s openly gay. I wouldn’t want that to happen. Does that mean I’m looking for special treatment?
Imagine your boss decides that doing it up the butt is the only way to have sex, and anyone who sticks to missionary style is “choosing to engage in deviant sexual practices” is a pervert and should be fired. What do you do, clothahump? Do you say, “okay boss” and stick to doggie-style from now on? Or do you tell your boss that it’s none of his damn business what you do when you’re not at work?
:o
(note the double-meaning)
Photopat, don’t be embarrassed. I had similar difficulties with it and had to seriously read and re-read everything I could on the issue to fully comprehend it. Thank goodness I did. It’s hard to wrap my mind around voting yes on any referendum that applies to gays right now, because I’m afraid that by doing so, I might be saying ‘Yes, we should stop them disgusting varmints.’ Of course, I don’t want to do that! And, on face, Article XII is written to give you the exact impression Miller mentioned. No, I don’t want people treated specially, I want them treated equally. However, by no accident I’m sure, the word ‘equal’ appears not once in the language of the Article, but ‘preference’ and its variation occur twice. Sneaky bastards, aren’t they? :mad:
No, it doesn’t. You’re obviously sent by Satan to test their faith, you insidious pervert weirdo you. :rolleyes:
Sexual orientation does not need to be a “protected” status. Under existing labor laws, the scenario you describe could not occur unless the boss is an idiot who is willing to expose himself and his company to massive legal action for unfair labor practices.
I’m so very glad that you have seen fit to declaim this to be Fact. I’ll just sit down and shut up now, because Clothahump has convinced me that sexual orientation does not need to be a “protected” status.
Who knew he was a public policy expert? :eek:
Thanks for that. I think to a certain extent, Proposal 2 has sort of slid under the radar. At least it has up here, where the big issue is Proposal 1, which is supposed to allow Michigan residents to vote on gambling-related issues. As I understand it, it would basically require a ballot initiative every time they want to change to a new scratch-off ticket.
I mean, you’ve gotta love those priorities. Tramping all over someone else’s rights? Not a big deal. But we can’t let them change the lotto tickets without a vote!
Actually, depending on state, you’re pretty well wrong. If one is working in an “at will” state, as many are, then you absolutely have no recourse.
From one of the student newspapers at my alma mater:
Dammit, matt_mcl, you’re trying to make me switch universities again, aren’t you?
many hugs and loads of support for* Priam***
As Priam said, you are wrong. In virtually every city and state in the U.S., a boss who fires somebody solely for being homosexual exposes himself to precisely jack shit. And that’s the point, you ignorant fool.
Priam, my lad, I feel for you. I’ve fallen in love with a wonderful fellow. Because we’re both straight, I can talk about him at work or keep a picture of him on my desk, go with him to check out a new apartment, even hug and kiss him good-bye in a public parking lot, and all I have to worry about is inducing saccharine poisoning in innocent bystanders. If the only thing that were different about our relationship is that we were both gay, this behaviour we take for granted could endanger my job, his chance of getting the apartment, or it could lead to our being accused of being gross, disgusting, perverted, etc. or even being physically attacked. When he’s come to church with me, it’s been sweet and charming, rather than immoral, and I haven’t had to worry about anyone disapproving of us. It’s not right that you, gobear. matt mcl, and others should have to be careful about the things I’ve been taking for granted.
I’ve got friends in the Cincinnati area, and a very close friend who’s bisexual and living in Dayton. I’ll be down in Cincy myself in December. I’m pretty sure which way they’ll be voting, and, if I could, I’d vote the same way myself. What you and others face may not be right, but it can be changed. And it will be, at least if this straight, besotted woman has any say in it.
CJ
Well, if that were the only thing, y’all wouldn’t be together . . .
see, 'cos he’d be a gay guy and you’d be a gay chick . . .
I’ll shut up now.
(Love ya, Ceej.)
Never claimed to be one. Any posts like that which are made without a cite are nothing more than an expression of personal opinion. You know that as well as I do.
No, I am not wrong, you ignorant fool.
I do contract work. Three jobs ago, I was brought in to replace a manager who had fired someone for being gay. The employee sued for wrongful termination and got a good settlement out of it. I got a job out of it because the dork that fired him lost his job as a result.
Let’s look at that post again:
Sorry, my fine shelled friend. The above paragraph is NOT a statement of opinion, unless one of the defining marks of a statement of opinion is a total absence of the word “opinion” or any other synonym thereof within the relevant text.
And then there’s the post directly above this one:
…in which you HARDLY sound like someone offering an opinion, humble or not. Yes, in that instance, the person who fired someone for being gay got slammed. Did the courts declare the termination actually wrongful? Or did the company settle? Companies settle lawsuits for many, many reasons, only some of which involve the belief that they will not win in court. If the company thought that public opinion would turn against them or they’d get bad publicity from it, they’d settle. If the company merely thought they’d spend too much money on legal defense if they went to trial, they’d settle. Settlement doesn’t necessarily mean the law is on your side.
On the other side of the coin, there are precious few places where you seriously cannot legally be fired simply for being gay. I don’t think ANY states actually have a non-discrimination statute that includes orientation. Mostly what you have is larger cities and counties, scattered like poorly-fired birdshot across the map of the US.
OK doing the breakdown here.
-
It’s quite possible your municipality had an anti-discrimination law that included sexual orientation.
-
Some states do not operate under “at will” employment. At will basically breaks down to meaning you can fire anyone for any reason not contrary to discrimination laws. Others hold by different standards that are not so free. I took a course in this as part of my management degree, but some of the details have escaped me.
California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin and District of Columbia.
Really?!
I’m shamefully behind on NDA passages then.