Gays & Maryland Continued

[PmoneyandTT]

To get off the subject big time - but it still has a connection.. I worked with someone who was very smart - had her master degree - knew her job in and out.. But she wasn't the best dresser in the world - she didn't have that knowledge of knowing what to wear.. But I liked her - she was cool with me.. But her supervisor would give her a real hard time - and would skip around her promotions.. Well in so many words - they said - your appearance isn't appropriate.. Well she may not knew how to coordinate colors - but she wore the basic.. And her dress kept her from being promoted on time.. Why - because someone didn't like her style of dress.. Regardless if this law is passed or not - people are still going to have prejudice.. Especially if you don't fit their need - or you don't fit into their click..

The moral of the story is - people will make judgement regardless of law - I have seen people point out that guy is gay - she is gay - they just happened to be femine or masculine.. If being gay fits you - then you better be able to deal with peoples fear of homophobia.. When I made a decision to be in an inter-racial relationship I knew the downside to people igorance.. Do you think that stopped me.. Heck no - It made me wanna parade it more.. So in a way - I understand why Gay's feel they need to parade their differences about.. If we didn't hype it up - then maybe they would feel no reason to do so.. So I can say I understand why Gay's feel the need to parade around - they are happy in their choice of life - Just like me parading my christianity.. Im proud of the choice I made.. Everyone isn't going to like it - but its who I am..

 

[andwhat]

Anon, I can totally agree with you on this so I'm cool.
Ken, I side with you and thank you for tying so many things in together. Since we are discussing the ACLu and thanks so much to Hessien, religion here's something I thought you all would be interestd in and I thought would never happen. If you ask me, this might be the first sign of the apocalypse, somethign about cats and dogs lying down together (that was a joke guys, I don't want someone to go off and try to prove that the seventh seal was just broken or something had enough of that on the other forum).ACLU supports longtime critic
Falwell in property lawsuit against
Virginia

The Associated Press
11/28/01 12:32 PM

LYNCHBURG, Va. (AP) -- The American Civil Liberties Union offered to
support the Rev. Jerry Falwell in his challenge of Virginia laws that restrict
how much property a church can own.

Though Falwell often chides the activist group, the offer was welcomed by
Jerry Falwell Jr., who is representing his father in the case.

Falwell Jr. said he hopes other groups also come forward, especially
churches.

"It will make more of a statement if other denominations support us," the
younger Falwell said.

The ACLU offered to file a friend-of-the-court brief in the federal suit against
the state and the city of Lynchburg.

"We agree with your position that such laws discriminate against religion
in both purpose and effect," Rebecca Glenberg, the ACLU's legal director,
wrote in Tuesday's letter.

Kent Willis, executive director of the state ACLU, said his organization
has always operated along clear legal lines, which sometimes makes for
"very different bedmates. ... This is an instance we believe Rev. Falwell is
absolutely right."

Falwell is a longtime critic of the ACLU. Two days after the Sept. 11
terrorist attacks, he said on Pat Robertson's "The 700 Club" show that
God allowed the attack because of the work of abortion rights supporters,
feminists and civil liberties groups, specifically the ACLU. Falwell later
apologized.

Falwell's suit, filed Nov. 9, grew out of plans for a new sanctuary at his
church, Thomas Road Baptist. Thomas Road could not own the sanctuary
because state law prohibits any church from owning more than 15 acres in
a city and 250 acres in a county. A municipality can increase its local
limit to 50 acres, which Lynchburg did in the 1980s.

Jerry Falwell Jr. said Virginia and West Virginia are the only states that
have such laws.

The suit said Virginia is violating the First Amendment right to free
expression of religion and freedom of assembly, as well as the 14th
Amendment's prohibition against excessive government entanglement with
religion.

Falwell's suit also challenges laws that prohibit churches from becoming
incorporated and require court oversight for land transactions.

"We're not filing this suit just for Thomas Road Baptist Church," Falwell
said, "but for every church in Virginia."

 

[PmoneyandTT]

I've learned that everyone that calls himself a christian doesn't always follow down the right path.. I would never judge any of those people you have listed.. But they will have to answer to God - if what they are saying is incorrect.. God does correct his people..

 

[AnonymousPenguin]

To continue TT's post...

<b>If</b> homosexuality is incorrect, God will correct them.  Humans don't need to interfere.  Again they are not harming anyone.  So, just leave them alone and let live.  If their lifestyle is wrong, they will answer to God.  They don't have to answer to you.

John mentioned "sexual deviance" ...for some, premarital sex can be categorized under "sexual deviance" ...does that mean employers should be allowed to deny employment to those engaging in premarital sex?!  The truth is what anyone does in the bedroom is not the business of any employer and it is not suggestive of a worker's performance at the job.  So, equal rights should be guaranteed and hatred must be stopped.  America is better than that!!

John, you say "Appearance, manner and rapport factor in as well" when considering employing an individual.  True... However, does that make it ok for Company A to deny a Black person employment...because the predominantly white Company B will not want to deal with a black representative of Company A????
Should we encourage the thinking, "well, this Black person can perform the job in an excellent manner....but, Company B won't like him...and won't want to deal with us...it'll hurt our business....so, no we won't hire any black people" ....
Americans should know better about discrimination of a group.

(Edited by AnonymousPenguin at 4:07 pm on Nov. 28, 2001)

 

[John]

Penguin,

Again back to equating ethnicity to behavior! It's not the same. I have no desire to argue this further since the lot of you keep going back to the same tired line.
Being Black, Chinese, White, Green or Handicapped are NOT in any way = to a form of behavior. Or do you believe ALL ethnics are bound by some common genetic behavior patterns?  That is bigotry my friends! Plain and simple.

I think I'll have to discontinue this and we'll have to simply agree to disagree!

 

[andwhat]

John, you seem to be constantly equating someone's personal behavior at home with their behavior in the workplace. If someone is acting inappropriately at work then they should be reprimanded or fired. this law does nothign more than syas if someone is doing a fine job and you have no reason to fire them then you hear from a little birdie that when they are on their own free time away from work then prefer the company of other men, then that is wrong.
Pmoney brought up a great point in that perception is part of the world we live in and thats undeniable, thats why many gays attempt (especially in the work place) to hide their sexuality b/c they know that we are all the subject of stereotypes.
John you seem to keep trying to give this law more power than it has, it simply says you can't discriminate against someone becasue of the strict fact that they are homosexual. It doesn't mean that if they are gay they can't be fired for any reason. It just means that if you wouldn't fire someone if they weren't gay, then you can't fire them just b/c they are gay.

 

[PmoneyandTT]

The only difference I see with being Black and being Gay. Is that you can't change your color when you go outside - but you can hide being gay.. Please stop using color to illustrate your examples.. Because color and sex is different.. You can hid what you do in the closet - but you can't wipe off your skin color when you walk out the door.

Maybe compare witchcraft or christianity.. Both can be hidden if that person choses to do that..

 

[John]

Actually lets try one more time...

Scenario 1

A man owns a restaurant in a predominately black and hispanic area.
He hires employees for his business.
He learns to his dismay that one of his cooks is a Ku-Klux-Klan member.

1. What effect do you suppose this would have on his employees should it come to light?

2. What effect do you suppose this would have on his customers?

3. Since he can't prove the man has done anything criminally to him, his employees or customers is he obligated to continually employ this man?

4. Can he fire this man and replace him with someone who won't adversly effect his business?

 

[AnonymousPenguin]

No one has suggested that being Black and being Gay are on the same level....  so, chill out...

I, myself, am using the anology because people have a good understanding of the race issue.  Believe it or not, at one point in time...people disagreed and debated the race issue in the same manner....with the same type of reasoning ... and it was wrong then and it sill is!!

The issue at hand is that....
If someone performs their job well, they should be hired.
If they don't, they should be fired.
That should be what the decision to hire/fire should be based upon...and nothing but that...
Involving any of the other factors (race/age/sex/sexual orientation/religion/etc) ...is wrong... it shows nothing except your disapproval and hatred of a group....and it is wrong whether you are firing someone for being Black, a christian, a homosexual, a female....it is wrong in each and every one of those... because you are judging someone and not their work ethics.... it is unfair and should be stopped by the government!!!

How much simpler can I get!!!!

 

[andwhat]

Up until he actually hurts business in anyway, then no you can't b/c you are discriminating against him. You cannot punish someone strictly for their beliefs, this is guaranteed in the constitution, see the 1st ammendment. John, this law is merely an extension of the civil rights act. would you argue that someone should be allowed to be fired simply b/c they are black or a woman or asian? Yes I know that we want to get off of equating homosexuality and ethnicity as well we should b/c they are definitely different. So how about we change it to say that a christian was fired b/c the boss believes that christians are scum and don't deserve to be on the face of the earth. This is most definitely discrimination.

 

[Jimmyrich]

True, and, true...

John, what you are doing is making allowances for the prejudices and bigotry of others.  Say you are running a business and you hire an employee and word leaks out to one of your customers that this employee is gay. Now, this customer is a card carrying member of the Christian Right and refuses to do business with you because he hates gays. You know what?  F*ck him.  Because you, and the rest of this country, are not about to bend over and take it (pardon the pun) from all the bigots, racists, and prejudice asses that we have in this country. We live in a country that has decided to make discrimination illegal. You also can feel free to say or feel about any group of people the way you want. But you CAN'T act on it and you CAN'T deny someone life, liberty or the persuit of happiness because of it. That is what this boils down to. Gays should not have to "hide" who they are because there are still some backwards individuals who think that gays are dispicable and evil.  That is THEIR hang up and THEY are the ones that have to legally abide by the written laws.  
So, John, if you feel that the people that you are in business with are going to leave your company when they find out your accountant is gay, then maybe you need to reevaluate who you're in business with in the first place. NOT sit there and make allowances for their hatred.

 

[AnonymousPenguin]

TT,

At a certain time in a certain place, practicing Christianity was considered wrong....reading the Bible was forbidden... I am sure you know this as you are a devoted Christian.... these "Bible readers" and "Chrisitans" for punished solely for believing in the Bible and Christ and God.... they were punished for their beliefs.  It is wrong to punish someone for their beliefs.... why is that so hard to comprehend???

You are entitled to believe homosexuality is wrong.  Morning is entitled to believe homosexuality is right.  You are different people with different beliefs.  Neither of you are harming another.  Live your life in such a way that reflects your beliefs...don't force someone else to abide by your beliefs.  Homosexuals, like Blacks and Christians, should not be punished for their beliefs... and the government has a responsibility to protect their rights if other humans deprive them of their rights.

 

[AnonymousPenguin]

I really don't understand how this subject is controversial in any manner.  Likewise, I don't understand why we have had to spend 25 or so pages discussing this.

Think of the Taliban, they kill women for walking in public with a man that is not a husband/brother/father.
They think that it is wrong to do that...according to their religion.  Those women did not harm anyone.  They just didn't see things the same way the Taliban saw them...they beliefs were not the same...and so they were punished.  And it was wrong!!!

 

[Ken King]

John,

To your post of 28 November@3:39PM.  If you would fire the employee because of an inability to conduct the business at hand without taking into account any of the protected categories set out by law then it is okay.  It might be coincidental that the employee was gay.  This is a performance issue.  Now if you fire them simply because they are gay and you are not exempted by the statute because of the type business you engage in then you are subjected to the decisions of the commission.

PmoneyandTT,

To your question back a page or so, "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?"  I am leaning towards federal sector labor law as a specialty.  



(Edited by Ken King at 5:42 pm on Nov. 28, 2001)

 

[John]

Penguin,

I think your right...twenty-five pages proves this is going nowhere. I think I'll end my part of it.

Again. We'll have to respectfully agree to disagree!

 

[Jo1750]

John, one last thought .... now that sexual orientation is included in the Anti-Discrimination Act....Gays will be working everywhere so customers won't boycott your business if you hire them because they'll have no business to go to who doesn't have gays.   You're off the hook, buddy!!!  

(As if there weren't gays working everywhere before...the only difference is, now they won't have to hide that they are gay if someone asks them who they're dating)

 

[vraiblonde]

Penguin writes

I really don't understand how this subject is controversial in any manner.

I'll tell you why:

Any time you force people to be tolerant, all you get is more resentment.  So if this was the goal of gays, mission accomplished.  You all might want to think about how the Civil Rights movement went down - the good things and the bad - and take a page.  When it was MLK with passive resistance and boycotts, there was great headway being made in attitudes, which is a smart, long-term way to do it.  When he was murdered, it all became a power play and the destructive militancy wasted all those years of work.

Gays need to think about what it is they really want.  Do you want a job?  There are a million places that will hire you and only a handful that won't.  Want to go out to eat?  A million restaurants that will serve you and only a handful that won't.  You all act like every gay person is homeless, starving and unemployed, which I know personally isn't true.

But it seems what you <i>really</i> want is the Hessians and TTs to accept you and, honey, you can pass laws until you're blue in the face and it ain't gonna happen.  You can't legislate feelings and beliefs.

Gays need to find a MLK to further their cause instead of the divisive Louis Farrakhans they've got.

(Edited by vraiblonde at 10:31 pm on Nov. 28, 2001)

 

[PmoneyandTT]

Oh Chilly Willy I think you need to chill out.. I have sat on this forum reading your post - and I think they are very passive - and you wanting everyone to get on this same level of thinking.. It's not going to happen.. If my opinion is I think comparing color to sex is not the same then let it be so.  You are so quick to tell someone to chill.. If it seems Im jumping to defense I am.. And believe me I know christian's get persecuted every single day in other countries - right now as we speak.. So don't try to stroke my ego.. I tried to stay clear of the things you say - that I don't agree with - but you keep pushing and pushing.. So I guess I will have to put my game face on with you also..

 

[Ken King]

John,

Regarding your comment, “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.”  

I found the legal brief submitted to the court by the ACLU.  Guess what, I agree with what the ACLU is saying that this is a violation of Constitutional rights.  Do not read this as an endorsement of NAMBLA in any manner.  I think their group is a bunch of whacked out individuals trying to get the legal age of consent changed so that they can have their way with children.  I am sure that most states will prevent this from happening.

I base my point of view on the legal prespective that the ACLU raises and feel that the case against NAMBLA should be dismissed.

 

[John]

Ken,

I said I was getting out of this thread as it was a waste of time...However, you seem to debate rather than cast dispersions or run through the "I'm right and your a Nazi!" forms others take I'd like to come back to the Nambla thing.

Nambla has devoted literature that describes, in detail, how to entice, abduct and harm these children. They created this information for their sleezy members to use.
I find this akin to the infamous "Yelling Fire! in a crowded theatre".

It isn't speech, it's designed to "cause harm" and "evade detection and prosecution".

I think that "DOES" excede the protection of the first amendment!

I can't imagine how anyone can view it as anything other than that. There may be wiggle room in other topics but this one I can't imagine ANY logical argument that they shouldn't be held liable as accessories or accomplices to the harm it has assisted!