Gays & Maryland Continued

[Jo1750]

Holey Schmoley!!!  I don't get to check this for a whole day and another whole page is added!!  

Congratulations, Ken, for being accepted to Law school!!  Also, thanks for answering many of the  questions that I think were directed at me.  You are certainly more qualified to answer the questions concerning the Constitution.

Hessian, John and Vraiblonde....it seems to me that what you three fail to see is that the discriminatory views and actions against gays, by you and others who believe as you do, is what has caused gays and their friends and families to HAVE to come up with an "agenda" to secure EQUAL rights for themselves or the people they love.   There is nothing wrong with an agenda....it is a plan of action, which we all should have because that is the best way to complete any project that you start.

Hessian, the backlash against Christians that you mention isn't against true Christians at all....It's against the Taliban type "Christians" who corrupt the Christian faith by using it as a weapon of hate to try to suppress the rights of others who don't believe and behave as they want them to.  Take a look in the mirror, Hessian.....if you get real, you'll see a striking likeness to Osama Bin Laden.  He corrupts Islam, you and others like you corrupt Christianity.  You keep spewing hate and someday, someone with a striking likeness to the United States will come in and clean your clock!

 

[Jimmyrich]

John,
I love how you keep accusing everyone of "not getting it" and then you make it so obvious that it is you who contintually falls short of understanding here....where do I begin?

How about "It isn't becaus she's fat it's because she won't further the goal of the business."  Well, you're saying that BECAUSE she is fat, she WON'T further the goals of the business. Therefore---and follow me here---IF her BEING FAT, will not FOLLOW THE GOALS of the business, don't hire her. But I don't understand how someone merely BEING GAY, will not further the goals of the business. We've already agreed that lewd behavior or talk will not be tolerated by anyone at the work place. So are you in agreement that as long as they don't bring up inappropriate things at work, that they are ok to hire?

Next--" . If these had been hetrosexual people of some repugnant organizion they would have been rightly arrested for indecent exposure and lewd behavior in public"---oh, you mean like Mardi Gras? Or those Girls Gone Wild videos that they sell?  None of those people are being arrested. It's all done in an acceptable forum. If a gay man shows up wearing nothing but a spielunking cap on your front lawn; have him arrested. But if it's a prade, a SANCTIONED parade, and they report it on the news?  Too freakin' bad.  It's the same as mardi gras etc and that's been going on for a long time. Just because you don't mind seeing a few breasteses when those shots are on, doesn't mean that gay celebrations are any more vile.

And, lastly,--"as many have including Ellens "girlfriend"---Good Christ, you picked a winner there!  The woman thought she was in ANOTHER dimension and even developed her own language for it! So if you don't think there's more going on there than just sexual identity crisis, I don't know what to tell you.
So I can't provide proof that it ISN'T a choice and you can't provide any that it is. It's a logical fallacy to suggest that simply because you can't disprove it, it isn't true. So I'm not going to engage in that. I would suggest that you don't either.  Simply put, we don't know what the reason is but, therefore, you can't use that as a justification for how you would treat them. You can ASSUME that it's a choice all you want. But you can't oppose equal rights based on YOUR determination that, unlike being born black or a woman, you can't be born gay.

I hope this clears some stuff up for you because, seriously, i don't think you realize what it is you're trying to argue.  Are you against hiring gays AT ALL once you find that they are gay?  Or are you merely saying that Gays shouldn't be allowed to flaunt their sexual practices any MORE than anyone else IN THE WORK PLACE? Because, if THAT'S the case, then we're in agreement. So where do you stand?

 

[BigBrothaCon]

Jimmy and whoever this applies too,

I think what John is trying to say is that he does not care if a gay person works with him or even is associated with him period.  It is when the gay person oversteps his boundaries.  He does not want a gay person who flaunts himself around anymore than a heterosexual who flaunts himself around.  If anyone's sexuality or issues affects his business or how the job gets done then he has a problem with that.  I don't believe anything He said was based on bigotry or hate, but on his personal need to work in a constructive environment.  I believe many are going overboard on what he is really saying without first thinking about it.

 

[John]

Where have I spewed hate Lightning?

I couldn't find an example for Vrai either.
Again I have not advocated harming, harrassing or killing these people in any forum or post!

Explain to me how my "Choice", lefties seem to love that word, not to associate them with my life, my business or my family has in any way endagered them?

Do you feel that each citizen is entitled to a specific job somewhere? Hell I want the CEO position of Microsloth! Sure pays well.

Jimmy,

I get it just fine. It's you who have chosen not to debate the points here. That giving "protected" status to a group based on a given, objectionable to some, behavior affords them an unfair avenue of litigation. What they will claim is that they have been "targeted" because of their sexual practices, not that they were causing discomfort or disruption in the workplace. And they will use this in all cases.

At least go back and read each post thoroughly then come back and we'll discuss it further.

It's like using statistics to claim discrimination against blacks, hispanics, women etc. The weight would now be on an employer to prove innocence of a charge. Not on the plaintiff to cite example!

As for Marti Gras I've never seen sexual acts displayed at that carnival nor do I recognize he other example you cited. But if it's in the same catagory as what gets displayed at so many of the gay functions then they needed to spend an day in the hoos-gow too!

I think you fail to grasp this because we are arguing over something very basic. In the simplest terms this is an argument over where we draw the line on unacceptable behavior. You wouldn't answer so I guess you feel there should be no lines!

And don't hammer on me about the Ellen thing....They were a banner "couple" for those groups! I didn't go out of my way to pick her the media held it up there for all to see.

BBC,

Thanks for the assist but I think we're both wasting time here. The only side they choose to see is their own. And regardless of my posts now I'm supposed to be some monster out murdering lesbians.

I wonder what colour the sky is in their world? I've always liked the blue myself!

 

[foxylady]

John  ---

I've been to a few gay pride marches and parades and picnics so far in my life and have NEVER seen ANYONE, male or female, totally naked.  Sure, some guys run around with barely nothing on and once in a great while you'll see some young girl without a shirt or anything except tape over her nipples.  But jeez .... straight men go to topless bars all the time to see boobs, what's your problem.  Any other straight guy I know would look at that as an opportunity for a free show!
There are tons of examples of heterosexuals doing the same thing.  Just think about "spring break" and Mardi Gras.  Tons of people running around scantily clothed or naked.  No one is stopping to ask them if they are straight or not.  
The media always has a way of making sure to show the most shocking part of a newsreel to the public.  They don't show you all the perfectly nice PFLAG people marching in the parade.  Or the beautiful floats and fancy costumes displayed.  No, they want the shock value.  And they do it just for people like you that don't know any better.
You'd be surprised at how down to earth and family oriented most of these events are.  Gays and lesbians are normal, law-abiding citizens and DO have a moral compass and a sense of public decency, whether you want to beleive that or not.

 

[PmoneyandTT]

John - I always thought of you as a very intelligent person.

We have different ways of life - but I truly understand your side of things - and the examples you displayed were very explainable..

You seem to have more of an open-mindness even if you chose to disagree - whats good for the goose isn't always good for the gander.. I can respect that.. Since it seems posters like picking sides - I will have to say Im picking your side on this one..

 

[John]

Foxy,
Lets break this down into smaller bits here....

Quote: from foxylady
I've been to a few gay pride marches and parades and picnics so far in my life and have NEVER seen ANYONE, male or female, totally naked.  Sure, some guys run around with barely nothing on and once in a great while you'll see some young girl without a shirt or anything except tape over her nipples.  But jeez .... straight men go to topless bars all the time to see boobs, what's your problem.  Any other straight guy I know would look at that as an opportunity for a free show!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have seen examples of this. Work around a city, any city, when one of these Gay parades comes up. You won't have to look hard. As for the free peepshow...That's fine! A topless bar isn't a public place. It's a private establishment inside an enclosed structure. This doesn't belong on the street! Is that soooooooo hard to see a difference?

There are tons of examples of heterosexuals doing the same thing.  Just think about "spring break" and Mardi Gras.  Tons of people running around scantily clothed or naked.  No one is stopping to ask them if they are straight or not.

Spring break and bikinis are one thing......Performing lewd acts and mock sex on a public street is another. And agaaaaaaaaaaain! IT DOESN"T MATTER WHAT THEIR SEX-Preference IS...

It's that these groups are doing this to gain visibility. I.E. Queer Nation.....you know the ones wearing the T-shirts on the streets "I'm Here! I'm Queer!".........
I don't know of even one woman that has ever demostrated a BJ on the street but it's happened in at least three of these DC parades that made the news.
 

The media always has a way of making sure to show the most shocking part of a newsreel to the public.  They don't show you all the perfectly nice PFLAG people marching in the parade.  Or the beautiful floats and fancy costumes displayed.  No, they want the shock value.  And they do it just for people like you that don't know any better.

I've been to a few Veterens parades over the course of my life and never saw topless flag wavers. Nor anyone copulating on a float!

I guess I don't get out much!  

You'd be surprised at how down to earth and family oriented most of these events are.  Gays and lesbians are normal, law-abiding citizens and DO have a moral compass and a sense of public decency, whether you want to beleive that or not.

Then let them go about their business in their own lives and stop trying to force acceptance on others. Like I said before...I don't single them out. I don't approve of the druggies, boozers or mutilators either!

 

[Ken King]

John,  

Law school is something I have thought about for several years and this is a late in life return to school again (I'm on the downhill slide to 50, which means over 45 but not quite 50).  It was only three years ago that I finished my degree in aeronautical engineering.   All I have to do is figure out how to pay for it while I still work to pay for all the other bills we have.  It will probably take me a little longer then the four years that the program requires but what the heck.  

Back to the discussion, did you know that the junkies and alcoholics that were added to the discussion are protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act?  They get preferential treatment in several areas, including employment.  It would probably upset most of you to see how the system is being used by some of these people.  That however is another completely different topic.

I think it is still clear that many of you do not think that a person who is gay (whether by choice or natural selection) deserves to be treated equally with all other Americans.  That was the basic reasoning behind the Maryland law, that all people be treated equally when dealing with employment, housing, and public accommodations.  

Your comment, “I'd be curious if you'd answer the questions I posed earlier about the business owners rights to an employee that better represents his business. Or do you too believe that society owes them employment?”  I would be glad to give it a shot.  I don’t believe that anyone is owed anything by society other then the opportunity to prove one’s worth.  I feel that if you are qualified to do the job and are the best candidate then you should get the job.  It is when employers use race, sex, age, disability, and now, sexual orientation as a qualifier that you violate the law.  None of these factors are applicable to the performance of the job.  

Another comment of yours I would like to touch on is, “I object to the "in you face" nature of the freak parades, the forced acceptance, and an agenda that teaches this deviance in the classroom to children. (Yes: Ken there are states that have added this to their sex education programs).”  Parades are parades, many organizations request and get approval to march down the streets espousing their agenda, if the KKK can do it then why not the gays?  I have yet to see any forced acceptance that you talk about, all I am saying is as Americans they are equal to the rest of us and should be treated as such.  As far as teaching sexual orientation in schools the Maryland law does not require that and even provides for discriminatory actions by educational facilities in this act.  That is not an issue in Maryland, though I do understand your fear of it.  What other states choose to do is pretty much their business.  

It would be nice if people would live their life to the fullest without wanting others to do or have less.  

 

[Jo1750]

John, please go back and reread my last post...the spewing of hate was in a paragraph for Hessian only...Vraiblonde wasn't included in that one either.
Sexual orientation is not a behavior, it is a gay, straight or bi-sexual person, i.e. who they are....it's who they are attracted to, even though they may decide to remain virgins all their lives.   Anne Heche is obviously bi-sexual and has a choice, unlike straights and gays.  And even then, shouldn't she have the right to choose??  Do you have a choice, John, are you equally attracted to the same sex as you are to the opposite sex.  If you are, then you are bi-sexual and choose the straight life. If you are only attracted to the opposite sex, you are straight and don't have a choice except whether to have sex or not.  If you are only attracted to the same sex, you are gay and don't have a choice except whether to have sex or not.  These are the facts...distort them if you wish.

(Edited by Lightning at 4:09 pm on Nov. 28, 2001)

 

[AnonymousPenguin]

Ok...

I have something to say about these "Gay Parades" or whatever that I've never been to.

I don't know how they are like...
but...from the posts here...it seems that at these parades there are a few exhibitionists... I understand that it is a few... but ...if these parades occur for the purpose of "Gay Awareness" ...I would think that the gays that attend these type of events would want to provide the public with a positive impression of gays...so why would they present themselves as exhibitionists??

I know there are lotsa exhibitionists attending MardiGras and such things.... but they are not expecting respect from the public...nor demanding it...

Bottom line, if you want respect you have to earn respect...

So, I would thing that the gay population would want to prevent or discourage the exhibitionists from adding a negative aspect to the positive event.

 

[AnonymousPenguin]

I don't know...

but maybe it is these images of the exhibitionists that has caused some of the public...to have such a negative perception of gays... the perception that gays are just seeking sexual pleasure...immediate gratification ...and don't have meaningful relationships...

Remember, even if it is only a few gays that present themselves to the public that way....this will be repeatedly broadcasted as images of the "Gay Awareness" events...  I guess since I don't watch much T.V, I can see gays with more open arms since I don't have preconceived notions... however, some of the public will form a bad view of gays from those images...

...kinda explains to me some of the perspectives of those that dislike gays...

 

[andwhat]

Anon, from what I've seen of these parades and from what my gay friends have told me, alot of these exhibionists are sort of looked down upon. Of course it depends on the parade, who's sponsoring it etc.  
Quite frankly the exhibionism in these parades is nothing compared to one mardi gras float, or anything I've seen at spring break (ahh the memories, anyway). The parades are show of strength for other gays and lesbians and a show of support that yes we know what you are going through and we've been through it too and we're here for you. Its not about making society believe as they do, its them saying hey I'm not ashamed of who I am. Of course there are those that do some rather untastely things, but that is by far the minority.

 

[John]

Ken,

Again, good luck on law school. I went back to college in my mid thirties! That was bad enough. I wouldn't want to try it in my fourties.  

As for the ADA reference I didn't know that! That does make me angry also. I have personally never heard of anyone being sued over firing a junkie or drunk though. But as you say that's another topic.

I think you misinterpreted what I have posted each time. I am in no way attempting to infringe upon their "Life, Liberty and Happiness" as long as they don't force me to accept it. By making me hire them, under threat of litigation, it is "forced" endorsement! I am being obligated to use this person as an ambassador of my business. Qualification is only a portion of how someone is hired and I'm sure you are aware of this. Appearance, manner and rapport factor in as well. Some will not have a favorable relationship with these people and if they take their business elsewhere it has a detremental effect. In that scenario does an employer have a right to replace them?

Next, using race, age etc. are things beyond the control of any applicant. Again this is apples and oranges! These aren't behaviors.

I've never said they couldn't have parades! Have I Ken? I described the content of those gatherings and the depraved nature of it. If they did have a normal parade, without all the mock copulations and other acts and kept their clothes on I wouldn't have a problem with that either. Ken, I'm really not being unreasonable here.
As for the KKK if they started down the street wearing white hoods and nothing else then lock them up too.

Again. By making us accept this into our lives. By placing burden of hiring people that owners feel may be a detriment to their business, by giving a legal "status" to them it is a forced acceptance. The state is saying in effect either you fold these people into your daily lives or else!

I'm sorry we can't seem to come together on this but in no way have I anywhere showed intent to harm or harrass these people as others have been claiming. I simply don't need them in my daily life.

BTW...Don't bet your boots against MD developing an educational program to introduce it in spite of what they may say. I've lived in this state too long to believe it isn't on the burner somewhere. And here again it would be taught to children as "acceptable". Undermining the parents upbringing.

One side bar if you will....What's your position on the ACLU and the NAMBLA cases?

 

[AnonymousPenguin]

Maybe I am wrong...

Under my impression, the purpose of sex education is to teach kids about STD's and pregnancy ...it is education from a medical/health perspective.  Since when did sex education involves teaching kids <b>how</b> to have sex or <b>with whom</b> they should have sex.  If the schools of today are teaching the "how's" and "who's" involving sex ...that is horrible!! I really hope society has not come to that!!!  Help....

 

[PmoneyandTT]

Hey I can understand a man not wanting to see another naked man.. Especially if he is not gay.. Being a women I don't want to see another naked women - I got tits myself.. I know Mardi Gras has been turned into a freak show.. One of my co-workers goes every year - she has film and video to prove that they get buck wild.. Gay or straight.. Knowing that - I don't wanna see that.. Its like a young male going to a nude beach expecting to see young females with beautiful bodies - and all they get is fat - flabby skin - senior citizens naked bodies.. I think the young male would be disappointed..  Mardi gras wasn't that way before - it just became that way..

Oh Ken congrats on the move to law school.. I have to give you all the love - just knowing laws in government is difficult enough.. Have you decided what type of law you plan to study? Or maybe I missed that..

 

[andwhat]

John, most of the parades are "normal" parades. There are a few that aren't, i'd suggest you stay away from thsoe, just as I stay away from any Klan parades.
John, I think you are giving this law more power than it really has. All the bill is saying is that if someone works for you, and they do a great job adn you have no problem with their work and you somehow find out they are gay and fire them simply b/c they are gay, then that is illegal. If they are flaunting their sexuality and being a disuption in the workplace, than that is another story. You can still fire them if they're not doing their job,a dn though theysome might take it to court, they'll lose b/c they would ahve to prove that they were fired just b/c they were gay and for no other reason.
I also am not so naive as to say that in most cases society would tend to side more with the fired employee then with the business, but ask yourself when was the last time you heard a woman cry rape and immediately sided with the guy?
The point is that this law just says that in the same way you can't fire someone simply b/c they are black or a woman, you can't fire them b/c they are gay or a lesbian. If a lawsuit comes up, which i'm sure will inevitably happen, then it comes up. But with Granny's makign millions off of McDonalds b/c they spill hot coffee all over themselves, a few gay people tkaing their former employer to court over a firing is the least of our societies worries.

 

[John]

Andwhat,

Again I'm repeating myself here...
I've never! I repeat....NEVER...witnessed anything like those scenes I described at any Mardi Gras or Spring Break!  I'm well aware of how extreme it can get. But there was a line drawn.

Penguin,

I think we've found some common ground on your second post there...Incredible. That is the problem I have with that group. The "in your face" nature of their lives brought to our doors. At home or work, it's wrong.
It also interferes with the environment for both the co-worker and the customer.

By putting the onerous on the employer you are in effect taking the success or failure of his business away from him. I'm not saying this would be the case in ALL circumstances, however, it will affect a damn good number of small establisments.

Lightning,

Everyone has choices....I'd love to have six women at once. It'd probably kill me but I'd like to try it.

BUT>.........
I know you heard that coming?
If my sleezy behavior of nightly orgies with six women is known to my neighbors, co-workers or customers they have every right to disapprove!!! WOW!  
If that disapproval takes the form of them not wanting my services at work then guess what? I get to hit the bricks. My employer has every right to expect me to represent his business in a positive manner.
If I feel it's just fine for me but society thinks otherwise then Id better keep it to myself....And of course Rachel, Susie, Rhonda, Marie, Wendy and Kate!!!  



Damn we may almost be at an understanding here.........Though my cynical nature say's "NOT!"

 

[AnonymousPenguin]

Ok, let' see if Jimmy & Co and Johh can come to an agreement here....

Can the both sides agree that an employer should have the right to deny anyone of bad character employment....whether they are black/18/homosexual....
bad character is bad character and makes a bad worker.

Now, can both sides agree that an employer does not have the right to deny anyone employment solely based on race/sexual orientation/religion?? .... good character is good character and makes a good worker.  
Can we agree on that?? ....

Just trying to offer some direction...
since it seems you guys keep repeating yourselves....
and missing where it is that you disagree (if you do)...

 

[Ken King]

John,

I don’t think I misinterpreted what you have said though I might not have clearly understood your intended meaning.  No one is forcing you to hire a gay person.  It is that you cannot use the fact that they are gay to make the decision.  It is also not under a threat of litigation but a threat of a fine if the aggrieved person can prove that that was the only reason for being fired or denied employment.  My understanding of the law is that you would be brought before the Human Relations Commission for suspected or charged violations and not a court of law.   If they never mention the fact that they are gay and you never ask if they are then there should be no problem.  After all, of the dozen or so gay friends I have none of them have any outwardly visible indications as to their sexual preference.  Most appear very nice and carry themselves very professionally when in the work area.  I see you grasping at straws here.  

Maybe I missed something in between all the posts that happen while trying to develop a response but I was under the impression that your comment “I object to the "in you face" nature of the freak parades” was referring to any parade organized by the gay rights activists.  As I have never went to view any of these parades I have no idea what it is you are talking about.  But as long as the participants of an approved parade conduct themselves according to the law then they should be able to have a parade.  If as you allude they expose themselves indecently then by all means cart them off to jail, no one is above the law.

While you might think it is apples and oranges, Maryland doesn’t and for that matter neither does the United States.  At the bottom of job applications for the government comes the following statement, “All qualified candidates will receive consideration without regard to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, marital status, political affiliation, sexual orientation, or any other non-merit factor.”

I don’t think I have accused anyone of wanting to harm a person here, though the very initial post by Hessian and the comment about the shovel and burying those on the dig with him seemed to my reasonable mind that that was his intent.  I haven’t felt that or read anything like that from you.  I too wish we could reach a point of agreement that all Americans should be treated the same until such time as they break a law or injure someone they should be able to enjoy life to the fullest as they determine.  

For clarity, I personally would have a problem with the state if they started teaching specifics concerning sexual orientation, as I don’t feel it is the proper forum for that.  Simply defining it as the law does isn’t a major problem for me, though it seems that it would be difficult to remove personalities from the issue.  

On your side bar note concerning ACLU and NAMBLA (I take this to mean that NAMBLA is defended by the ACLU in their effort and not every case that the ACLU is involved with) I think this is deplorable because it is not about consenting adults but about men interacting and having sexual encounters with boys.  I see that as pedophilia and against the law.  I don’t think I can be any clearer then that.

 

[John]

Ken,

Unfortunately the ACLU is defending them as a matter of "Free Speech" over some rape and murder of a child. I don't remember all the details but if I happen by them I'll pass the link along.

Back to one thing though....I resubmit the following...

I am being obligated to use this person as an ambassador of my business. Qualification is only a portion of how someone is hired and I'm sure you are aware of this. Appearance, manner and rapport factor in as well. Some will not have a favorable relationship with these people and if they take their business elsewhere it has a detremental effect. In that scenario does an employer have a right to replace them?

?

If we replace this catagory with a heroin user/alky etc.....Do I have a right to find someone else there too or am I now obligated to assist him in destroying the customer base and closing the business?

Perception is a large portion of what brings customers back to a business. This can undermine the owners ability to ensure good rapport with his customers.

(Edited by John at 3:45 pm on Nov. 28, 2001)