GOP House leadership makes it clear that gay equality is NOT tolerated in their party

[rareboy]

We already know you oppose government "dictating" things like equality and liberty. So I ask you the same thing I aimed at Ryan: if government isn't allowed to protect inalienable rights, why do we even have it?

Precisely this.

 

[CoolBlue71]

Republicans do not hate gays. The belive firmly in economic freedom and free enterprise. The people who start a business, pay the taxes and the all the burdens the government imosses on them should be able to hire whom they choose for the job. They should not be forced to send the jobs overseas to gain that freedom.
I do not believe that gays have a harder time finding good jobs than others because of their orientation, and I can not understand why a gay person would want to work for someone who does not want him or her.
Finally i point out that these special rights to sue make the "protected" less desireable as employees. Who wants to hire someone who has superior rights to sue anytime he does not get what he wants? Didn't get the promotion? Must be discrimination. Didn't get the raise he wanted? Might as well sue.
Better not take the chance--don't hire him to begin with.

In short, Benvolio—you not only support discrimination against LGBT persons; you want discrimination against LGBT persons.

You have put forth an effort to craft an argument as one which states that an economic theory is more important than how human beings, targeted for discrimination by people with animus toward LGBT persons, are treated domestically.

I sense there is more worth revealing of yourself, personally, which you are refraining from mentioning. Self-hatred, perhaps; but you do, quite comfortably, direct it at other LGBT persons.

 

[Benvolio]

We already know you oppose government "dictating" things like equality and liberty. So I ask you the same thing I aimed at Ryan: if government isn't allowed to protect inalienable rights, why do we even have it?

First and foremost to protect the people from foreign invasion. Of couse it should protect rights, such as the right of a employer to chose his employees.

 

[Benvolio]

In short, Benvolio—you not only support discrimination against LGBT persons; you want discrimination against LGBT persons.

You have put forth an effort to craft an argument as one which states that an economic theory is more important than how human beings, targeted for discrimination by people with animus toward LGBT persons, are treated domestically.

I sense there is more worth revealing of yourself, personally, which you are refraining from mentioning. Self-hatred, perhaps; but you do, quite comfortably, direct it at other LGBT persons.

Nonsense. I see no reason to believe that gays are significantly more unemployed than others. I see no reason why LGBT people should have rights superior to employers or other people. Gays, for instance are free to choose or reject an employer for any reason, including discriminatory ones. Employers are encouraged to discriminate against straight, white males, by affirmative action "to the maximum extent possible." I am gay but I have never felt that it entitled me to superior "rights". Worse, the number of privileged groups is continually expanding, reducing everyone's freedom. The government has now decided that it is discrimination to have men's rooms and women's rooms. What in life cannot be regulated by a government with claims of "equality" and "discrimination"?

 

[TX-Beau]

Nonsense. I see no reason to believe that gays are significantly more unemployed than others. I see no reason why LGBT people should have rights superior to employers or other people. Gays, for instance are free to choose or reject an employer for any reason, including discriminatory ones. Employers are encouraged to discriminate against straight, white males, by affirmative action "to the maximum extent possible." I am gay but I have never felt that it entitled me to superior "rights". Worse, the number of privileged groups is continually expanding, reducing everyone's freedom. The government has now decided that it is discrimination to have men's rooms and women's rooms. What in life cannot be regulated by a government with claims of "equality" and "discrimination"?

What a lovely hodgepodge of bullshit, bigotry, right wing propaganda, and ignorance Ben has spewed up.

 

[rareboy]

^ Right.

It must be Friday.

 

[jbrown329]

Nonsense. I see no reason to believe that gays are significantly more unemployed than others. I see no reason why LGBT people should have rights superior to employers or other people. Gays, for instance are free to choose or reject an employer for any reason, including discriminatory ones. Employers are encouraged to discriminate against straight, white males, by affirmative action "to the maximum extent possible." I am gay but I have never felt that it entitled me to superior "rights". Worse, the number of privileged groups is continually expanding, reducing everyone's freedom. The government has now decided that it is discrimination to have men's rooms and women's rooms. What in life cannot be regulated by a government with claims of "equality" and "discrimination"?

Oh here we go with the "special rights" bullshit. It's NOT special rights to DEMAND equal treatment under the law. And you have the freedom to take a long walk off a short pier.

 

[Kabluey]

Republicans believe in free enterprise, Democrats believe in total government control.

Except that certain Republicans believe in total government control over things like marriage, vaginas, contraception, death, religion, citizenship, public protest, sexuality, gender, association and privacy.

They seek to limit the freedom of people from oppression.

 

[Benvolio]

Except that certain Republicans believe in total government control over things like marriage, vaginas, contraception, death, religion, citizenship, public protest, sexuality, gender, association and privacy.

They seek to limit the freedom of people from oppression.

Nonsense. Their agenda is limit to traditional governmental functions.

 

[Benvolio]

Oh here we go with the "special rights" bullshit. It's NOT special rights to DEMAND equal treatment under the law. And you have the freedom to take a long walk off a short pier.

My post was in response to the claim that the GOP is anti gay. NO, we are pro job, pro employer, and try to preserve the free enterprise economy.

 

[rareboy]

Nonsense. Their agenda is limit to traditional governmental functions.

Wrong. Republican state governments are constantly introducing ways to limit the rights and freedoms of classes citizens. They have been doing it for the last 200 plus years.

To say that their agenda is limited to traditional government functions when it has been shown that they are constantly meddling in everything from trying to preserve slavery through Jim Crow laws, in addition to contraception, abortion, marriage, sexuality, religious promotion, voter suppression, immigration and a plethora of other areas they have no right to be...is simply cynical or utterly ingenuous.

 

[Kabluey]

My post was in response to the claim that the GOP is anti gay. NO, we are pro job, pro employer, and try to preserve the free enterprise economy.

What do your 'pros' have to do with anything?

If they're not anti-gay, why are they voting against bills that include provisions for gays?

 

[Benvolio]

What do your 'pros' have to do with anything?

If they're not anti-gay, why are they voting against bills that include provisions for gays?

Because many of those provisions provide more lawsuits, penalties and burdens against employers and job creators. Employers should be allowed to hire and promote the person they believe best for the job without having without being forced to prefer minorities and democrats to avoid lawsuits.

 

[rareboy]

^ So using this logic...slavery should still be legal too. I mean, who wants to stand in the way of business?

 

[Benvolio]

^ So using this logic...slavery should still be legal too. I mean, who wants to stand in the way of business?

By your logic no amount of governmental control can ever be be too much. Slavery is fine with you if the democrats get to be your masters.

 

[vulgar_newcomer]

I do not believe that gays have a harder time finding good jobs than others because of their orientation, and I can not understand why a gay person would want to work for someone who does not want him or her.

This certainly is spoken from someone who is a outsider, not one who is actually part of a group with personal experience. This sounds like my red neck Uncle trying to talk about, but he just doesn't get it and is trying to voice a opinion on............... yet comes to some half ass conclusion for a answer. Total lack of empathy or understanding as usual. Why would a gay dude want to work at a job where the boss doesn't like gays!!!! Pathetic.

Tell us more how gay people should behave?

 

[cocksucker4use]

Republicans believe in free enterprise, Democrats believe in total government control. The democrat party is a collection of minorities, so, of course, their legislation is designed to require favored treatment of democrats, i.e. minorities, to the maximum extent possible. Republicans believe that the employer creates the job, pays all the wages, taxes and burdens, so he should be able to hire and promote the best person for the job. Jobs and the economy are too important to be destroyed by greedy politicians pandering to their voters. Legislation encouraging disgruntled employees and would be employees to sue for not getting their way, are in the long run destructive of jobs and harmful to employees. No one wants to hire trouble makers, and minority employees armed with special rights to sue are easily seen as trouble makers and less desirable as employees. Logically, non-union white males are the best employees because they have the fewest rights to make trouble against their employees. Better still are employees in third world countries, because they want to work, have few if any rights to make trouble, and because government burdens are fewer.

One finds it difficult to know where to begin. Words seem inadequate. Benvolio begins with the premise that Republicans believe in free enterprise and concludes that employees in third wold countries make the best employees because they have few if any rights. Okay, one has to agree that children working in factories in Bangladesh or Malaysia don't have any rights at all, thus allowing their employers to maximize profits, unfettered by "special laws" that other employees there don't have. Domestically, then, would our pursuit of "free enterprise" pull our society back to the days of the Robber Barons of the Industrial Revolution, 7 day work weeks, 14 hour days. No time off. Take what pay your given and be grateful. Hurt yourself, and get thrown out. What do you do when you lose a muppet? You buy another muppet, of course. The history of the Labor Movement and what it accomplished for all workers in this country is manifest.

And why would you want to work where you're not wanted? Here are three scenarios:

Well, Mr. Goldberg, why would you want to work/live/eat/stay/buy here, anyway? We don't like Kikes.
Well, Mr. Washington, why would you want to work/live/eat/stay/buy here, anyway? We don't like Niggers.
Well, Mr. Benvolio, why would you want to work/live/eat/stay/buy here, anyway? We don't like faggots.

In the first two instances, what do you think would happen? Quite a bit more than in the third instance. Lawsuit, public outrage vs. a yawn.

One strength that we have as LGBT, is that we are Everyman. All color, race, religion, profession, income, rural, urban...in every state and every burg across America, and the World, for that matter. We are citizens and undocumented aliens. We are Black, Latino, White, Muslim, Christian and Jew. The rights that we deserve are no more special or different from those of our peers in any sense. No different from those that we would have otherwise. They are only denied us when we stand up and say, "I am Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and/or Transgender." And for that reason alone, we are treated "specially." We don't even have to say it...just BE it. And we can be denied housing, employment, public services and public accommodations available to virtually anyone else. Because I exist, letting me work for, purchase things or sell things like anyone else can be refused because of not who, but what I am. How do I violate someone's religious beliefs by paying $800 for a fucking cake? I didn't say I wanted to fuck your husband in the ass for $800, I just want to pay you for a business service. To the thread: The Republicans voted against their own appropriations bill because they were afraid of some of the Right Wing Christian Groups calling them out for supporting Gay Rights. They don't hate us as much as they fear THEM.

 

[Kabluey]

Because many of those provisions provide more lawsuits, penalties and burdens against employers and job creators.

It's their choice whether they discriminate or not, just like it's their choice to face law suits by breaking other laws.
Penalties and burdens exist because of them, not despite them. Why do you think companies need to provide auditable accounts? It's because of the bad eggs who defraud - they are the reason for compliance and records burdens.

Employers should ...hire and promote the person ...best for the job...

There - fixed that for you.
The best person for the job might be the conscientious employee who holds suitable qualifications, has proven themselves competent, excelled in their performance metrics, has received commendations from external clients, undergone specialist training for the role and who the hiring manager feels uncomfortable around after the best person for the job was seen having a romantic dinner with her wife.

 

[Benvolio]

One finds it difficult to know where to begin. Words seem inadequate. Benvolio begins with the premise that Republicans believe in free enterprise and concludes that employees in third wold countries make the best employees because they have few if any rights. Okay, one has to agree that children working in factories in Bangladesh or Malaysia don't have any rights at all, thus allowing their employers to maximize profits, unfettered by "special laws" that other employees there don't have. Domestically, then, would our pursuit of "free enterprise" pull our society back to the days of the Robber Barons of the Industrial Revolution, 7 day work weeks, 14 hour days. No time off. Take what pay your given and be grateful. Hurt yourself, and get thrown out. What do you do when you lose a muppet? You buy another muppet, of course. The history of the Labor Movement and what it accomplished for all workers in this country is manifest.

And why would you want to work where you're not wanted? Here are three scenarios:

Well, Mr. Goldberg, why would you want to work/live/eat/stay/buy here, anyway? We don't like Kikes.
Well, Mr. Washington, why would you want to work/live/eat/stay/buy here, anyway? We don't like Niggers.
Well, Mr. Benvolio, why would you want to work/live/eat/stay/buy here, anyway? We don't like faggots.

In the first two instances, what do you think would happen? Quite a bit more than in the third instance. Lawsuit, public outrage vs. a yawn.

One strength that we have as LGBT, is that we are Everyman. All color, race, religion, profession, income, rural, urban...in every state and every burg across America, and the World, for that matter. We are citizens and undocumented aliens. We are Black, Latino, White, Muslim, Christian and Jew. The rights that we deserve are no more special or different from those of our peers in any sense. No different from those that we would have otherwise. They are only denied us when we stand up and say, "I am Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and/or Transgender." And for that reason alone, we are treated "specially." We don't even have to say it...just BE it. And we can be denied housing, employment, public services and public accommodations available to virtually anyone else. Because I exist, letting me work for, purchase things or sell things like anyone else can be refused because of not who, but what I am. How do I violate someone's religious beliefs by paying $800 for a fucking cake? I didn't say I wanted to fuck your husband in the ass for $800, I just want to pay you for a business service. To the thread: The Republicans voted against their own appropriations bill because they were afraid of some of the Right Wing Christian Groups calling them out for supporting Gay Rights. They don't hate us as much as they fear THEM.

Get down off your cross Mary, we need the wood. All that is involved here is the right of employers to hire the best person for the job, rather than every job being a form of welfare by "affirmative action".

 

[Benvolio]

It's their choice whether they discriminate or not, just like it's their choice to face law suits by breaking other laws.
Penalties and burdens exist because of them, not despite them. Why do you think companies need to provide auditable accounts? It's because of the bad eggs who defraud - they are the reason for compliance and records burdens.



There - fixed that for you.
The best person for the job might be the conscientious employee who holds suitable qualifications, has proven themselves competent, excelled in their performance metrics, has received commendations from external clients, undergone specialist training for the role and who the hiring manager feels uncomfortable around after the best person for the job was seen having a romantic dinner with her wife.

If you hire the best people, you will probably not end up with a crossection of society and you need to fend off suits by preferred people who think they were entitled.