patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,202,973 comments by 14,284 users - Blue, Misc, Onvacation, The_Deplorable online now
invite response« First « Previous Comments 142 - 162 of 162 Search these comments
Here is just another anti gay reality.
Kind of funny since.. in California the law isnt about discrimination as some believe, but rather at will employment.
You can quit anytime and they can get fired anytime!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment :
"any hiring is presumed to be "at will"; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals "for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all," and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work."
But to fire people for immutable characteristics, (such as race, age, physical ability, etc.) as well as mutable (religious preferences) are protected against firing for simply having these traits or beliefs. Being fired because one is gay should not be allowed just like firing someone because they choose to be Catholic or because they happen to be 55 years old should not be either.
Being fired because one is gay should not be allowed
Once again you are misinformed..
Typical. I just cited a bunch of court cases that prove that you are misinformed. And a bigot.
I worked with gay people before.. none got fired. they dont walk around
with GAY all over them.. they act and perform as would any other person.
if anyone went to work and acted like a gay drama queen and caused problems
then they should get fired.
you cited no court cases.. just a map!
Like I said, people should not be able to be legally fired for who they are.
Just one source: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/righttomarry.htm
The first state marriage law to be invalidated was Virginia's miscegenation law in Loving v Virginia (1967). Mildred Jeter, a black woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, had been found guilty of violating Virginia's ban on interracial marriages and ordered to leave the state. The Court found Virginia's law to violate the Equal Protection Clause because it invidiously classified on the basis of race, but it also indicated the law would violate the Due Process Clause as an undue interference with 'the fundamental freedom" of marriage.
In Zablocki v Redhail (1978), the Court struck down a Wisconsin law that required persons under obligations to pay support for the children of previous relationships to obtain permission of a court to marry. The statute required such individuals to prove that they were in compliance with support orders and that marriage would not threaten the financial security of their previous offspring. The Court reasoned that marriage was "a fundamental right" triggering "rigorous scutiny" of Wisconsin's justifications under the Equal Protection Clause.
In Turner v Safley (1987), the Court refused to apply strict scutiny to a Missouri prison regulation prohibiting inmates from marrying, absent a compelling reason. Instead, the Court found the regulation failed to meet even a lowered standard of "reasonableness" that it said it would apply in evaluating the constitutionality of prison regulations.
The supreme courts of three states (Massachusetts, California, and Connecticut) have, as of 2009, found bans on gay marriage to violate state constitutional provisions. In November 2008, however, California voters narrowly approved a proposition designed to overturn the decision of that state's supreme court. The legality of the voters' action is now an issue in the California courts. Meanwhile, many states have, by legislation or voter initiative, enacted "defense of marriage" laws to keep marriage an institution exclusively for a man and a woman.
Peter P
2012 Aug 4, 6:06am
Like I said, people should not be able to be legally fired for who they are.
Ideally, people ought to to able to fired for any reason at any time.
Biased employers will not last very long in an efficient economy. Therefore the government should focus on making the economy efficient instead.
On the other hand, I strongly support gay marriage rights. If one wants to defense marriage, he should oppose divorce.
Like I said, people should not be able to be legally fired for who they are.
Ideally, people ought to to able to fired for any reason at any time.
Because of their colour, their age, marital status, sex, religion, handicap, etc? Most would disagree, even hard core capitalists.
On the other hand, I strongly support gay marriage rights. If one wants to defense marriage, he should oppose divorce.
Totally agree.
Peter P
2012 Aug 4, 6:18am
Like I said, people should not be able to be legally fired for who they are.
Ideally, people ought to to able to fired for any reason at any time.
Because of their colour, their age, marital status, sex, religion, handicap, etc? Most would disagree, even hard core capitalists.
Yes. In an ideal world. The best way to remove bigotry is to let its perpetrators fail so hard in the market that they have no more influences. Remember, unwarranted biases are exploitable inefficiencies.
But I understand that the ideal world does not exist.
Tenpoundbass
2012 Aug 4, 8:04am
@Buster, Oh Bullcrap, the only Gays discriminated against in this country are the fat ones.
Bap33
2012 Aug 4, 10:20am
was there a Sexual Deviant Nation election for a leader named "Buster"?
New Renter
2012 Aug 4, 11:24am
the lord jesus christ will come donw on the soddomites dont you worry, Buster!!
readin is 4 pussies
Almost 2000 years and we're still waiting... Jesus? Are you out there?
Makes a guy wonder...
The next liberal trump card for raw power in the future, after that is making it perfectly legal for a man to pee in a public bathroom with your 11 year old daughter is .... lower the age of consent.
The line "The Man Boy Love Association" have been standing in is getting shorter and they are licking their chops.
The perversion of society is simply a raw power grab by depraved under achievers: Liberals.
If the man needs to pee and just does that, so what? These issues - and ironically a lot of the perverted crimes they are trying to prevent - seem to be prevalent in the US only. I guess I must be a criminal at times, when I need to piss or crap, I use whatever bathroom is available (starting with the men's room first of course). Sorry, I really don't care who else is in the bathroom ;)
Dan8267
2012 Aug 4, 1:21pm
On the other hand, I strongly support gay marriage rights. If one wants to defense marriage, he should oppose divorce.
Totally agree.
If you got rid of divorce, no one would get married. It would be too big of a risk.
Dan8267
2012 Aug 4, 1:50pm
If you got rid of divorce, no one would get married. It would be too big of a risk.
Whole countries (e.g. Ireland) prohibited divorce for long periods of time. People still got married.
It would be too big of a risk in America. We live in a disposable culture.
Peter P
2012 Aug 4, 3:38pm
if there were more brothels, there would be less devorce.
I am all for legalizing prostitution.
The resulting processed food is full of fat and sodium, fattening up the customers even more than the chickens, so the morbidly obese "heavy users" can offload their medical costs onto everyone else via Medicare and Obamneycare
i liked your post, however this is incorrect. Fat and sodium content of the chicken in a chick fila meal, are the last thing that would make a would be consumer overweight. Eating fat doesn't make one fat, and sodium is the boogeyman. The 120g of sugar in the soda pop and the carbs in the bread and the fries are what make people fat.
« First « Previous Comments 142 - 162 of 162 Search these comments
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,160382,00.html