Yeah anyone arguing it against this who doesn't want to remove race, religion, pregnancy status etc from ENDA, is just a bigot plain and simple. Some of those are even clearly personal choices yet protected.
Like what?
A lot of those companies get fed subsidies as well or contract with the fed, and it's clearly wrong for them to discriminate. But that could be dealt with by executive order, only obama refuses to.
Yeah anyone arguing it against this who doesn't want to remove race, religion, pregnancy status etc from ENDA, is just a bigot plain and simple. Some of those are even clearly personal choices yet protected.
Yeah anyone arguing it against this who doesn't want to remove race, religion, pregnancy status etc from ENDA, is just a bigot plain and simple. Some of those are even clearly personal choices yet protected.
I want to repeal all public accommodation laws. The problem is that getting rid of such laws is most likely impossible, so any expansion on those laws will only extend the damage and put more laws on the books that we can't get rid of. I don't consider that a better situation.
Quantify that damage.
Quantify that damage.
Don't lecture me on human rights progressive. Until I see a progressive that understand rights, in which I haven't yet, I will not accept any lecturing from them on the subject. They have no rights on the table and I do. There is no conflict of rights taking place. Learn about the subject before you speak of it.
That has no effect on my rights and I have no reason to compromise.
Already did.
You mean the people that were trespassing on private property and refused to leave when ordered to do so.
This bill dissolves the NSA? No? Then it protected no such thing. You got played for a fool.It is only right that a person's private life is no damn business of the government, nor the business of whoever employs that person.
Thank you for going above and beyond the call of duty in making my point. Haters gonna hate.
Bottom line is that, if someone has a business that serves the public, then he must serve ALL of the public. He can't decide to kick people out because they are black, or because they are gay.
cant be done cause there isnt any REAL damage, there are benefits though
discrimination loses and rights are protected
When hiring or firing and employee his or her sexual preference should not come into play.........And employer that owns a private business should be a able to hire or fire as he sees fit...That is a fact.
No, that's a belief. Your use of the word "should" is the way to identify that.
And they will.
1.)It really has very little to do with that....
2.)If and employee is not hacking it the employer should be able to fire him whether he is straight or gays and when and employee using his gayness when it has nothing to do with it is wrong.
3.)Keep your sexual preference to yourself do your job and you will be fine.
From your link; nos 1 & 4 lost their jobs at 'religious based' employment which is exempted in the Senate bill
Nos 2 & 3 got their jobs back
No. 5 hasn't lost his job...yet
People are actually fighting for a so called "right' to discriminate. You agree with that? You think gays should be able to be fired just because they are gay? Really? Do you REALLY want to fight for that right? What's next, fired for being Black? Christian? Muslim?I understand, you're more than willing to sacrifice liberty for your pet causes, you've made that abundantly clear.
You really have to look at both sides of the coin and a employee who uses his sexual preference to keep him job when is incompetent is just as bad.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?