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

[Kabluey]

If you hire the best people, you will probably not end up with a crossection of society...

That's bullshit.

 

[opinterph]

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."

False.

We’ve discussed this issue multiple times previously. You appear to deliberately misrepresent the purpose and regulatory requirements of the Dodd-Frank Act. If you wish to revisit that issue, please add any information you've newly discovered in the appropriate thread. If you have no new information to add, then you lost the debate – so please stop posting false information to hijack new discussions or use these false talking points to bait other members.

What in life cannot be regulated by a government with claims of "equality" and "discrimination"?

The government should regulate whatever needs regulating to ensure equality and non-discrimination.

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.

Employment law would not be necessary if everyone did the right thing.

 

[Benvolio]

That's bullshit.

Doyou think blacks and hispanics are as well educated as whites, Asians and Jewish people?

 

[Benvolio]

False.

We’ve discussed this issue multiple times previously. You appear to deliberately misrepresent the purpose and regulatory requirements of the Dodd-Frank Act. If you wish to revisit that issue, please add any information you've newly discovered in the appropriate thread. If you have no new information to add, then you lost the debate – so please stop posting false information to hijack new discussions or use these false talking points to bait other members.




The government should regulate whatever needs regulating to ensure equality and non-discrimination.




Employment law would not be necessary if everyone did the right thing.

The statute says what it says. You would understand the outrage if it read "white males to the maximum extent possible".
People have different abilities, talents, goals and work ethics. If equality is the goal, we are doomed to totalitarianism, which is the direction in which we are inexorably going.
The employment laws are enacted by democrats to give employment preferences to democrats to attract votes. It is doing irreparable damage to our economy.

 

[opinterph]

The statute says what it says. You would understand the outrage if it read "white males to the maximum extent possible".

You are continuing a pattern of generalized baiting and thread hijack.

---

What does the statute say?

 

[Benvolio]

You are continuing a pattern of generalized baiting and thread hijack.

---

What does the statute say?

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.

 

[opinterph]

My answer is no, the GOP supports the right of employer to hire the best person for the job without being sued.

What does the statute say?

 

[Kabluey]

Doyou think blacks and hispanics are as well educated as whites, Asians and Jewish people?

Well educated black and Hispanic people are better educated than poorly educated white, Asian and Jewish people.
You have no point.

 

[hotatlboi]

The statute says what it says. You would understand the outrage if it read "white males to the maximum extent possible".
People have different abilities, talents, goals and work ethics. If equality is the goal, we are doomed to totalitarianism, which is the direction in which we are inexorably going.
The employment laws are enacted by democrats to give employment preferences to democrats to attract votes. It is doing irreparable damage to our economy.

You've indicated that you favor "white males to the maximum extent possible".

 

[Benvolio]

You've indicated that you favor "white males to the maximum extent possible".

No, I did not.

 

[rareboy]

But to repeat the moderator's question directly to you:

What does the Statute say?

 

[Benvolio]

What does the statute say?

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.

 

[lambdaboy]

Please all of us whether you dislike Bernie or Hilary please vote for the democrat that has got the nod. The republican are in many ways no better than Nazi's and they killed s many of us.

 

[Kabluey]

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.

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?

 

[rareboy]

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.

I agree. There's no way that an actual lawyer would impose such a bizarre interpretation and broad scope to something that is as clear as this. Your ravings are based on the imaginings that only liberals are appointed to administer agencies, which we know is not always the case.

To begin with, the act applies to:

(g) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply:
(1) AGENCY.—The term ‘‘agency’’ means—
(A) the Departmental Offices of the Department of the Treasury;
(B) the Corporation;
(C) the Federal Housing Finance Agency;
(D) each of the Federal reserve banks;
(E) the Board;
(F) the National Credit Union Administration;
(G) the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency;
(H) the Commission; and
(I) the Bureau.

You want people to somehow believe that this Act, written to address consumer protection and economic recovery, somehow was a blanket edict that reached across the board as some kind of edict for all public and private hiring practises and contract procurement.


The Applicability states:

(d) APPLICABILITY.—This section shall apply to all contracts of an agency for services of any kind, including
the services of financial institutions, investment banking firms, mortgage banking firms, asset management firms,
brokers, dealers, financial services entities, underwriters, accountants, investment consultants, and providers of legal
services. The contracts referred to in this subsection include all contracts for all business and activities of an agency,
at all levels, including contracts for the issuance or guarantee of any debt, equity, or security, the sale of assets, the
management of the assets of the agency, the making of equity investments by the agency, and the implementation by
the agency of programs to address economic recovery

Your paranoiac obsession with this act and your interpretation of it can only be the result of the fermentation of your own racist, white supremacist ideology. You are stuck in the Stormfront bubble where you all only see that ensuring fair opportunities for others is a direct assault and loss for white, anglo-european males. Y'all just don't want anyone else to have a chance.

At the end of the day, all these years after the Act was passed...none of the dire consequences you keep predicting have come to pass. The news is not full of disenfranchised white males wailing about unfair treatment by any agency. And trust me, just like the people who don't want to bake a cake for homos, we'd hear about them.

As far as the economic recovery went...the white males....as usual made out like bandits. The reality is that more wealth aggregated to white males or whites generally, than any other group.

Once again...behind all the smoke and noise and rage...you've got nothing.

http://www.frbsf.org/our-district/files/Dodd_Frank_Act_Section_342.pdf

 

[kallipolis]

At the end of the day, all these years after the Act was passed...none of the dire consequences you keep predicting have come to pass. The news is not full of disenfranchised white males wailing about unfair treatment by any agency. And trust me, just like the people who don't want to bake a cake for homos, we'd hear about them.

As far as the economic recovery went...the white males....as usual made out like bandits. The reality is that more wealth aggregated to white males or whites generally, than any other group.

Noteworthy..........................

 

[Benvolio]

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.

 

[jbrown329]

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.

IOW, a employer should be able to fire someone for the crime of being gay. No other reason, just that they are gay. No job for you faggot.

A landlord should be able to kick you out of housing for being gay. No other reason, you're gay. Out on the street for you.

Repukes refuse to bring up ENDA for a vote.

No shirt, no shoes, no service. Then they decided that included lgbt.

 

[jbrown329]

Doyou think blacks and hispanics are as well educated as whites, Asians and Jewish people?

Go back to Stormfront, they're missing you.

 

[Benvolio]

IOW, a employer should be able to fire someone for the crime of being gay. No other reason, just that they are gay. No job for you faggot.

A landlord should be able to kick you out of housing for being gay. No other reason, you're gay. Out on the street for you.

Repukes refuse to bring up ENDA for a vote.

No shirt, no shoes, no service. Then they decided that included lgbt.

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.