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

[rareboy]

Trump is capitalizing on the discriminzation against whites, and it will be a major factor in the election. Democrat hypocrisy on discrimination is their major weakness. It may not be sufficient, but it is a factor. Democrat discrimination on the bathroom issue may also become a issue, testing whether the "right" of transpersons to use other rooms outweighs the majority right to privacy.
As usual, the democrat creation of democrat districts will be factor. Democrats inserted into the Voters Rights Act, an approval and encouragment of the creation of democrat-minority-majority districts. They forgot that if you gerrymand a democrat district you will often create several surrounding districts with democrat minorities. Hoist on their own petard.

So having been soundly defeated on your one attempt at thread derailment...you are moving on to another off-topic talking point.

 

[rareboy]

While those are theoretical possibilities, until gays suffer sigificantly in practise, the government should not intervene. I point out that gay have the same rights to refuse employment by someone they do not like and may quit for no reason at all. Why should their rights be superior to the employer?
Not ever detail "not nice" should be regulated by the government.
We all want and value the ability to choose our friends and associates. We Should not give up that ability without a very good reason, or try to force ourselves upon others.

This is the same bullshit argument you had for homo marriage....that we already had equal rights because we could marry women.

It is untenable that in this day and age that you can be fired just for being gay.

 

[Kulindahr]

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.

After all the evidence from the last thirty years, that you can seriously maintain that the GOP is in favor of a "free enterprise economy" shows incredible ignorance of reality.

The only question is whether that ignorance is intentional.

 

[Kulindahr]

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.

You sound like a Virginia planter from the 1770s, wanting to limit government participation to the 0.5% who owned major tracts of land, because to include even those who owned only fifty acres would be bad for (their) business. Is absence of lawsuits to you really more important than the principles of the Declaration of Independence?

 

[Kulindahr]

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.

Kikes, Niggers, Wops, Chinks, faggots... and back in the day, colonists. Americans didn't deserve equal rights because they were just colonists, not real Englishmen. Ben's is the eternal cry of the privileged fighting to keep anyone else from sharing that privilege.

 

[Kulindahr]

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.

That's bullshit.

Actually, he's probably right: hiring the best for the job tends to result in a higher proportion of minorities than in the general population.

That's why he opposes immigration: he doesn't want employers to be able to hire the best people for the job, he wants them to have to hire those who happen to be here already, regardless of skill.

 

[Benvolio]

After all the evidence from the last thirty years, that you can seriously maintain that the GOP is in favor of a "free enterprise economy" shows incredible ignorance of reality.

The only question is whether that ignorance is intentional.

I doubt if anyone in the world shares your idiosyncratic definition of free enterprise, or libertarian for that matter. You always come down on the side of total government control--with sole exception of your precious guns.

 

[Kulindahr]

The thread is entirely about the OPs claim that the GOP opposes the proposed statute--prohibiting discrimination against gay by Federal contractors --out of intolerance. My answer is no, the GOP supports the right of employer to hire the best person for the job without being sued. The democrat proposal and the GOP positions are consistent with decades-long established positions, respectively opposing employers by dems and supporting them by the GOP. My position is neither baiting nor hijacking. The intent of the GOP is what the thread is all about.

The only reason to oppose a law that would allow people better suited for a position to get that position regardless of the personal prejudices of the employer -- which is what the law under discussion would do --is because of personal prejudices.

If you were correct, then the GOP would be supporting efforts to disallow employers from even asking about gender, age, orientation, religion, etc. The only reason they wouldn't is either to support bigotry or because of the liberal belief that people are inherently good. So you're either a liberal being paid to say this stuff or you're supporting bigotry -- or you're so intellectually challenged that you don't even see the issue.

Again, I have to conclude that you are neither a lawyer nor even a college graduate, since you either can't or refuse to follow simple logic.

 

[Benvolio]

Actually, he's probably right: hiring the best for the job tends to result in a higher proportion of minorities than in the general population.

That's why he opposes immigration: he doesn't want employers to be able to hire the best people for the job, he wants them to have to hire those who happen to be here already, regardless of skill.

Clearly minorities as a group are not as well educated, and not the best for many jobs. But i would agree that employers should at least be allowed to prefer Americans over immigrants.

 

[Kulindahr]

You know as well as I as we have discussed it before: Section 342 C (1) provides "The Director of each Office shall develop and implement standards and procedures to ensure, to the maximum extent possible, the fair inclusion and utilization of minorities, women, and minority-owned and women-owned businesses in all business and activities of the agency at all levels, including in procurement, insurance, and all types of contracts."
So, while it includes the word "fair", the substance of the section is the requirement of including minorities "to the maximum extent possible". "Fair" does not help, because liberals, who will be appointed to administer it, will believe the affirmative action is "fair", so the effect of the statute is to require affirmative action to the maximum extent possible. Notice, that it does not say "white men, women, and minorities". There is no thought of fairness to white males. The purpose of the section is to promote or force preference for the democrat constituency of minorities. That has been the democrat strategy for decades and it is working to move us toward a one party socialist state.

You should love the word "fair"; it's a lawyer weasel-word utilized to leave a wide open range for litigation.

Lawyers love imprecise language; it means lots of business for them.


You're right to an extent; the law should read "the best qualified for the job, regardless of race, creed, age, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or other distinguishing characteristic". If you really supported gay rights -- or any other individual rights -- you'd be arguing that point, not opposing the concept entirely.

 

[Kulindahr]

I thought you were a lawyer.
Should we dumb it down to say 'as fair as possible' - is that clear enough?

I guess that really does go to far for someone who's rabidly racist and sexist. But - you know - so what?

Ben should love the Act, since without doubt whites will be just another minority in not too long, and at that point will be included under the language.

 

[Benvolio]

The only reason to oppose a law that would allow people better suited for a position to get that position regardless of the personal prejudices of the employer -- which is what the law under discussion would do --is because of personal prejudices.

If you were correct, then the GOP would be supporting efforts to disallow employers from even asking about gender, age, orientation, religion, etc. The only reason they wouldn't is either to support bigotry or because of the liberal belief that people are inherently good. So you're either a liberal being paid to say this stuff or you're supporting bigotry -- or you're so intellectually challenged that you don't even see the issue.

Again, I have to conclude that you are neither a lawyer nor even a college graduate, since you either can't or refuse to follow simple logic.

You are clearly wrong; the purpose of the statute is to force inclusion of minorities. Nothing is said about ability. An employer without a rainbow of minorities will be in trouble, and there is no suggestion that white man can or should be included.

 

[Kulindahr]

I doubt if anyone in the world shares your idiosyncratic definition of free enterprise, or libertarian for that matter. You always come down on the side of total government control--with sole exception of your precious guns.

Wow, you finally recognized one exception to your claim!

How long will it take you to include all my other exceptions to your claim? Like drugs, religion, and land use, just for starters?

I will always support "total government control" of people who want to restrict the liberty of others -- that's what being libertarian is about.

 

[Benvolio]

You sound like a Virginia planter from the 1770s, wanting to limit government participation to the 0.5% who owned major tracts of land, because to include even those who owned only fifty acres would be bad for (their) business. Is absence of lawsuits to you really more important than the principles of the Declaration of Independence?

During the first years of the Constitution voting was limited to landowners. That was not contrary to the Declaration and the Declaration is not law. The Declaration does not in any way support the democrat schemes to reduce white males to second class citizens.

 

[kallipolis]

Ben should love the Act, since without doubt whites will be just another minority in not too long, and at that point will be included under the language.

Noteworthy...

 

[Kulindahr]

During the first years of the Constitution voting was limited to landowners. That was not contrary to the Declaration and the Declaration is not law.

That's actually a myth; who could vote varied from one state/colony to the next. I've been reading a biography of Thomas Jefferson, who discussed this issue, and it's revealing: limiting the vote to "property owners" was fairly standard, but depending on location, owning a horse, a slave, a ship, a rifle, or a business would qualify, no real estate required.

BTW, the Declaration is law; courts have cited it as giving principles for deciding cases. It just isn't statutory law.

 

[Benvolio]

Noteworthy...

In totalitarian countries, party members always get preferred treatment. The democrats are and will be no different.

 

[Benvolio]

That's actually a myth; who could vote varied from one state/colony to the next. I've been reading a biography of Thomas Jefferson, who discussed this issue, and it's revealing: limiting the vote to "property owners" was fairly standard, but depending on location, owning a horse, a slave, a ship, a rifle, or a business would qualify, no real estate required.

BTW, the Declaration is law; courts have cited it as giving principles for deciding cases. It just isn't statutory law.

Courts sometimes cites poetry and the like, but that does not make it law. No the DOI is not law and it confers no rights.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Courts sometimes cites poetry and the like, but that does not make it law. No the DOI is not law and it confers no rights.

But you do not acknowledge any law which flies in the face of what you desire ideologically, so what does parsing over what is or isn't law truly matter in your case?

 

[Kulindahr]

In totalitarian countries, party members always get preferred treatment. The democrats are and will be no different.

That doesn't require totalitarianism, it just requires what Jefferson and Washington called "party spirit", which they despised. Unfortunately, it's an innate human tendency and one the couldn't figure out how to eradicate from the political system (indeed there are indications that Jefferson was worried that party factionalism would eventually take over appointments to the judiciary, something he was clearly correct on).