ENDA - the end of indepent thought?

7xstall · Sep 24, 2007

as democrats continue to bow to their rich, powerful special interest groups, they have authored and support yet another attack on freedom of speech.

a few times this year we've seen them attack the right of pastors to describe homosexuality, bestiality, and other sexual deviance (diversity?) as a sin, which the bible says it is, and even attempt to punish people who voice their personal opinion. if they had their way it would now be a felony hate crime to say that you believe homosexuality is wrong, or that same sex couples are un-natural.

no matter what you believe, i hope we can agree that no one should have their mouth forced shut by legislation like this.

this week, democrats are seeking to enact the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which would "make it illegal to fire, refuse to hire, or refuse to promote an employee based on his sexual orientation or "gender identity."

now, i read this as a legal open door to high dollar lawsuits anytime a business owner decides not to hire a reasonably qualified cross-dresser or anyone who build their life around advertising their sexuality. (anyone still wonder why the dems get so much money from the trial lawyer lobby??) what if you hire John and he mutilates himself and changes his name to Jessica? what if you just don't like the image you project to your customers by having flagrantly gay people in certain positions?

what's everyone think, should the government be your HR department and tell you what your guidelines for hiring/firing are?

support for this bill is almost strictly democrat, do the leftist/dems here believe that the government should take this role?

WashingtonWatch.com - H.R. 2015, The Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2007

.

Garden Knowm · Sep 24, 2007

i dont understabd. seems like the postis contradictory...

sounds like the bill is supporting freedom... and yet you are against it.. cause you think it is taking freedom away..

it basically says.. if I understand you correctly.. that

"you can suck as much KAK as you like, regardless of being a man or woman.. and "we" can not fire you or hire you based on your KAK sucking prefences"

i'm cool with that.... suck away

7xstall · Sep 24, 2007

Garden Knowm said:
i dont understabd. seems like the postis contradictory...

sounds like the bill is supporting freedom... and yet you are against it.. cause you think it is taking freedom away..

it basically says.. if I understand you correctly.. that

"you can suck as much KAK as you like, regardless of being a man or woman.. and "we" can not fire you or hire you based on your KAK sucking prefences"

i'm cool with that.... suck away

the government is stepping into each and every business in America and telling them that they must not use KAK sucking as a factor... what if i own a Christian book store, do i not have the right to pass on hiring someone who flagrantly advertises and subjects everyone to their preference of KAK sucking? what is my role in my business if i can't hire/fire who i want?

what if all the nose pickers of America unite? what if there was a law that said you must not hire/fire based on public nose picking? some people see this as a respect issue.

.

Garden Knowm · Sep 24, 2007

interesting point about the christian book store.....

I agree that a nazi bookstore, probably doe not wantto hire a jew as the front counter man... i see how this may not be good for business..

or a TITTY BAR Strip club hiring men to strip.... can a man be denied a job as a female stripper? is this sexist?

we must get to the bottom of this!!!!

7xstall · Sep 24, 2007

lol, you got it, that's my problem with the law. think of how many lawsuits would pop up! talk about a state of paranoia, wow, every business owner would be worried sick all the time.

nevermind the freedom to run my business how i want to, i don't think gay people want to work where they aren't wanted... why would they? it would do the same kind of damage that affirmative action did/does to blacks; everyone wonders if they "really" deserved the job or if they simply had to be hired to make the numbers.

.

Garden Knowm · Sep 24, 2007

fook.... i hope this does not look like I am agreeing wiith you???????

i feel dirty.. gotta go shower now.. be right back

medicineman · Sep 24, 2007

LOL, how anyone can turn a bill promoting human rights into a nazi loving gay bashing nose picking turmoil, and bash the democrats for trying to help rationalize society is incredible. No, your employer should not have the right to fire you based on his opinion of your sexual status. Firing should be based on job performance and sexual orientation left off the table. Any rational compassionate human being should see this clearly. It's funny how all the Bible thumpers want to make your sexual orientation an issue, I don't believe Jesus, (Who I think supercedes all old testament bullshit), would make an issue out of a persons sexual orientation, Nosepickers, maybe.-

ViRedd · Sep 24, 2007

medicineman said:
LOL, how anyone can turn a bill promoting human rights into a nazi loving gay bashing nose picking turmoil, and bash the democrats for trying to help rationalize society is incredible. No, your employer should not have the right to fire you based on his opinion of your sexual status. Firing should be based on job performance and sexual orientation left off the table. Any rational compassionate human being should see this clearly. It's funny how all the Bible thumpers want to make your sexual orientation an issue, I don't believe Jesus, (Who I think supercedes all old testament bullshit), would make an issue out of a persons sexual orientation, Nosepickers, maybe.-

And, do the employers not have "human rights?"

Vi

7xstall · Sep 24, 2007

what are you talking about, med? i've already said i don't care about your sexual preferences. it's about the rights of business owners to make their own decisions.

how can you defend laws that force people to overlook something that might be fundamentally important to them? i bet you think it was a-ok when the city of San Fran forced those firefighters to walk in that gay pride parade didn't you? you think it's fine to bulldoze any opinions that aren't like yours.

who's the nazi? your hypocrisy is sickening.

.

Kant · Sep 24, 2007

I can understand a business trying to project an image but if a person is qualified to do the job asked then why should they be denied?

you brought up the point: what if the person is flagrantly gay? how is that different from some who is just a natural jackass OR if you're worried about the sexual advances, then what about people who constantly flirt with customers? my point is if they're acting unprofessionally in a way that costs the company some business then fire them for professional misconduct. If their sexuality doesn't interfere with their job then they should be allowed the job (assuming the person is qualified).

Kant · Sep 24, 2007

Well what about us? Should be be denied jobs or fired from jobs because we smoke pot? It doesn't interfere with our jobs, we're still very productive, so certainly not. The only grounds employers have right now is that it is illegal but what if pot were legalized? employers would still go after us because we would still be considered "druggies". What about companies that are trying to promote a certain image where we don't fit because of our personal lives?

7xstall · Sep 25, 2007

Kant said:
I can understand a business trying to project an image but if a person is qualified to do the job asked then why should they be denied?

you brought up the point: what if the person is flagrantly gay? how is that different from some who is just a natural jackass OR if you're worried about the sexual advances, then what about people who constantly flirt with customers? my point is if they're acting unprofessionally in a way that costs the company some business then fire them for professional misconduct. If their sexuality doesn't interfere with their job then they should be allowed the job (assuming the person is qualified).

they should be denied that job if the employer does not agree with the lifestyle choice of job candidates. many, many, many people view the dramatic presentation of one's sexual orientation as something extremely unprofessional.

i don't grope every woman i see, nor do i say provocative things or stair at her boobs. when you have a man who is intentionally acting feminine it's an outward behavior that could be abstained from.

that's the only issue. no one should be forced to hire people who intentionally present a certain set of behaviors if those behaviors are contradictory to the views or beliefs of the employer.

it's very simple, really.

you can't force people to accept something and you shouldn't even want to.

.

7xstall · Sep 25, 2007

Kant said:
Well what about us? Should be be denied jobs or fired from jobs because we smoke pot? It doesn't interfere with our jobs, we're still very productive, so certainly not. The only grounds employers have right now is that it is illegal but what if pot were legalized? employers would still go after us because we would still be considered "druggies". What about companies that are trying to promote a certain image where we don't fit because of our personal lives?

free people must have the right to discriminate according to their own beliefs. we need to learn to be accepting of people even if we don't agree with them.

i don't want to see old naked fat ladies, who are you to force me to look at them and tell me i'm a hateful fat-lady-phobe because i don't want to see it?

instead of trying to create a better society that is ACTUALLY tolerant, the far left wants to force a facade of ACCEPTANCE down everyone's throat. completely wrong and hateful.

.

medicineman · Sep 25, 2007

7xstall said:
free people must have the right to discriminate according to their own beliefs. we need to learn to be accepting of people even if we don't agree with them.

i don't want to see old naked fat ladies, who are you to force me to look at them and tell me i'm a hateful fat-lady-phobe because i don't want to see it?

instead of trying to create a better society that is ACTUALLY tolerant, the far left wants to force a facade of ACCEPTANCE down everyone's throat. completely wrong and hateful.

.

You are a hypocrite of the highest order. You base your perscription for society on what you consider normal or out of bounds. Maybe some of us don't like uptight white hateful assholes, then we could fire guys like you for our beliefs. Get over yourself and start accepting people that are different than you. Employers should be held to a performance criteria before yanking someones livelyhood from them. Firing someone is a traumatic experience for the person being fired and there needs to be sufficient cause for termination. An employer should be held to certain parameters in the hiring phase as well. all these people that you seem to eliminate from the job market because of your views, need employment to survive. So, are you saying that they should not be allowed to find employment. Maybe we should just take all the people that don't fit your criteria out and shoot them. Would that suit you?

Kant · Sep 25, 2007

7xstall said:
they should be denied that job if the employer does not agree with the lifestyle choice of job candidates. many, many, many people view the dramatic presentation of one's sexual orientation as something extremely unprofessional.

i don't grope every woman i see, nor do i say provocative things or stair at her boobs. when you have a man who is intentionally acting feminine it's an outward behavior that could be abstained from.

that's the only issue. no one should be forced to hire people who intentionally present a certain set of behaviors if those behaviors are contradictory to the views or beliefs of the employer.

it's very simple, really.

you can't force people to accept something and you shouldn't even want to.

You have point. i do agree with that. My concern is, if it's ok to say you can't work here because you're gay, that's not very far from saying, "well we don't want you in our establishment because you're gay". Which again is the business owners choice. These promote the idea that gay people are bad and it's that idea that have gay people fighting for basic rights such as marriage and adoption. The fact that anyone has to fight for these rights, I do have a problem with.

I'm not saying, "yes you have to hire gay people". I'm saying, "if the person is the most qualified for the job, and behaves appropriately, they should not be denied the job based on personal preferences."

7xstall · Sep 25, 2007

medicineman said:
You are a hypocrite of the highest order. You base your perscription for society on what you consider normal or out of bounds. Maybe some of us don't like uptight white hateful assholes, then we could fire guys like you for our beliefs. Get over yourself and start accepting people that are different than you. Employers should be held to a performance criteria before yanking someones livelyhood from them. Firing someone is a traumatic experience for the person being fired and there needs to be sufficient cause for termination. An employer should be held to certain parameters in the hiring phase as well. all these people that you seem to eliminate from the job market because of your views, need employment to survive. So, are you saying that they should not be allowed to find employment. Maybe we should just take all the people that don't fit your criteria out and shoot them. Would that suit you?

med, you do know that you have to inhale some fresh air along with that smoke don't you? at least every other hit.

where have i stated that i don't accept people?

i have said that i do accept people. i also accept the people who don't accept people. see how that works? it's called 'consistency' and it means that i never have to try to rationalize flaws in non-logical arguments like you will if you follow your selective reasoning to any kind of conclusion.

you chose to force people to be like you, i prefer to let people be themselves. liberty is a great thing!

.

7xstall · Sep 25, 2007

Kant said:
You have point. i do agree with that. My concern is, if it's ok to say you can't work here because you're gay, that's not very far from saying, "well we don't want you in our establishment because you're gay". Which again is the business owners choice. These promote the idea that gay people are bad and it's that idea that have gay people fighting for basic rights such as marriage and adoption. The fact that anyone has to fight for these rights, I do have a problem with.

I'm not saying, "yes you have to hire gay people". I'm saying, "if the person is the most qualified for the job, and behave appropriately, they should not be denied the job based on person preferences."

again, let's go with your "adverse" scenario. the establishment owner should be able to discriminate as to who receives his service. this happens every day in business; ex. people with bad credit get turned down for loans.

if someone refuses to serve groups of people they are making market selection choices that they have the right to make. most likely, those decisions will have an economic impact that is unfavorable. let them learn their lessons. get the government out of the way of progress and social growth.

how do you know that the employer won't hire the less qualified straight applicant and then come to realize he made a mistake? who are you to take that lesson from him and dictate that he should abandon his beliefs?

.

medicineman · Sep 25, 2007

7xstall said:
med, you do know that you have to inhale some fresh air along with that smoke don't you? at least every other hit.

where have i stated that i don't accept people?

i have said that i do accept people. i also accept the people who don't accept people. see how that works? it's called 'consistency' and it means that i never have to try to rationalize flaws in non-logical arguments like you will if you follow your selective reasoning to any kind of conclusion.

you chose to force people to be like you, i prefer to let people be themselves. liberty is a great thing!

Actually, I don't smoke. It makes me paranoid. Every once in a while I might try a new crop, but basically when I'm posting on this site I am as sober as a person can be. I haven't had a drink (Of alcohol) in over 15 years, and basically gave up pot smoking then also. I grow for my friends and if my arthritus gets too bad, I'll take a few tokes. So any delusional thinking is not to be blamed on being stoned as I assume you must be, because sometimes you don't make sense with your contradictory thought patterns.

If you chose to let people be as they are and let the people that run the world be themselves and pick and choose as they please, aren't you actually thwarting possibilities for all those that didn't fit the elites criteria? With your "freedom" agenda, you would be dampening any freedoms of the people that didn't fit their mold. That is why there must be fairness doctrines in the workplace. Everyone needs a job regardless of their sexual orientation or political beliefs. Yes they should keep them away from the workplace and try and do their jobs without their mindsets interfering, But your freedom for all bullshit will never work in this society. Maybe in a Hitlerian society, or a plutocracy, but without a fairness doctrine, this would be hell for a certain % of the populace.

.

..................

7xstall · Sep 25, 2007

Actually, I don't smoke. It makes me paranoid. Every once in a while I might try a new crop, but basically when I'm posting on this site I am as sober as a person can be. I haven't had a drink (Of alcohol) in over 15 years, and basically gave up pot smoking then also. I grow for my friends and if my arthritus gets too bad, I'll take a few tokes. So any delusional thinking is not to be blamed on being stoned as I assume you must be, because sometimes you don't make sense with your contradictory thought patterns.

then it's kool aid, and you've been drinking too much.

be a friend and show me where my thoughts appear to contradict so i can ponder these things under the cloud of another sticky bowl.

.

7xstall · Sep 25, 2007

If you chose to let people be as they are and let the people that run the world be themselves and pick and choose as they please, aren't you actually thwarting possibilities for all those that didn't fit the elites criteria? With your "freedom" agenda, you would be dampening any freedoms of the people that didn't fit their mold. That is why there must be fairness doctrines in the workplace. Everyone needs a job regardless of their sexual orientation or political beliefs. Yes they should keep them away from the workplace and try and do their jobs without their mindsets interfering, But your freedom for all bullshit will never work in this society. Maybe in a Hitlerian society, or a plutocracy, but without a fairness doctrine, this would be hell for a certain % of the populace.

again, you can't see the forest for the trees. think about what you're saying here. just read that.

you are "assuming" that if you don't hurry and give control to the government then the bad people will take control and victimize someone.

guess what, they will victimize someone but guess what else, so will the government. the bad part is that government is an empty chasm, it's a void where there is no heart or soul and it interrupts real progress whenever it makes decisions for us. the opportunity for this victimization has been there all along but it wasn't a big deal until the dems, who are in the pocket of these anti-speech lobbys, wanted to get some more free trips and campaign money...

If you chose to let people be as they are and let the people that run the world be themselves and pick and choose as they please, aren't you actually thwarting possibilities for all those that didn't fit the elites criteria?

you have created two groups: people and people that run the world. with no government scaffolding to separate them these groups would be indistinct. harmony existed long before government came along with it's many books of synthetic conscience.

.

ENDA - the end of indepent thought?

Well-Known Member

The Love Doctor

Well-Known Member

The Love Doctor

Well-Known Member

The Love Doctor

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member