login
Boehner blocks democracy again (Page 3)
-
No new posts
|
 2013-11-12 1:30 PM in reply to: Left Brain |
Expert  2180    Boise, Idaho |  Subject: RE: Boehner blocks democracy againOriginally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by pga_mike Originally posted by uclamatt2007 Originally posted by jeffnboise Boehner isn't allowing the vote for the same reason the Senate hasn't passed a budget for the past 3 years. Both parties are trying avoid votes that will be "no wins" with their constituency. Both parties play the same games. And do you really think that both parties aren't funded by old, rich white guys? I agree with some of this.......HOWEVER, you use the word "VOTE" over and over again. BOEHNER isn't allowing the VOTE! This is only a PR move, because it highlights the problem with the Republican party in Washington...they're being funded by old, white, rich biggots.
Thanks for returning to my subject? Is there anyone else who finds it ironic that Boehner who professes his love for the Constitution is the one who stops the legislative process? OK, Boehner is an idiot.....that's established. The best part of this thread is that it's beenpointed out more than a few times that Reid/Democrats do the exact same thing....and do you know what you get from LIberals on that point?..........................crickets. The other thing you can't make up is the...oh, I don't know what the word is.....maybe PANIC. The PANIC that is everywhere in the Republican Party. Those folks are in such disarray, and it's sooo new to them. The silence aka 'crickets' from Liberals?? Of course we're being quiet.... we don't have to say a thing. The Repubs themselves are doing ALL the heavy lifting for us. HEEE LAIR EEE OUS! |
You can't make it up.| 2013-11-12 3:09 PM in reply to: jeffnboise |
Pro 15655  | Subject: RE: Boehner blocks democracy again Originally posted by jeffnboise Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by pga_mike Originally posted by uclamatt2007 Originally posted by jeffnboise Boehner isn't allowing the vote for the same reason the Senate hasn't passed a budget for the past 3 years. Both parties are trying avoid votes that will be "no wins" with their constituency. Both parties play the same games. And do you really think that both parties aren't funded by old, rich white guys? I agree with some of this.......HOWEVER, you use the word "VOTE" over and over again. BOEHNER isn't allowing the VOTE! This is only a PR move, because it highlights the problem with the Republican party in Washington...they're being funded by old, white, rich biggots.
Thanks for returning to my subject? Is there anyone else who finds it ironic that Boehner who professes his love for the Constitution is the one who stops the legislative process? OK, Boehner is an idiot.....that's established. The best part of this thread is that it's beenpointed out more than a few times that Reid/Democrats do the exact same thing....and do you know what you get from LIberals on that point?..........................crickets. The other thing you can't make up is the...oh, I don't know what the word is.....maybe PANIC. The PANIC that is everywhere in the Republican Party. Those folks are in such disarray, and it's sooo new to them. The silence aka 'crickets' from Liberals?? Of course we're being quiet.... we don't have to say a thing. The Repubs themselves are doing ALL the heavy lifting for us. HEEE LAIR EEE OUS! Well....there is that. |
| 2013-11-12 3:23 PM in reply to: jeffnboise |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Boehner blocks democracy again Originally posted by jeffnboise Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by pga_mike Originally posted by uclamatt2007 Originally posted by jeffnboise Boehner isn't allowing the vote for the same reason the Senate hasn't passed a budget for the past 3 years. Both parties are trying avoid votes that will be "no wins" with their constituency. Both parties play the same games. And do you really think that both parties aren't funded by old, rich white guys? I agree with some of this.......HOWEVER, you use the word "VOTE" over and over again. BOEHNER isn't allowing the VOTE! This is only a PR move, because it highlights the problem with the Republican party in Washington...they're being funded by old, white, rich biggots.
Thanks for returning to my subject? Is there anyone else who finds it ironic that Boehner who professes his love for the Constitution is the one who stops the legislative process? OK, Boehner is an idiot.....that's established. The best part of this thread is that it's beenpointed out more than a few times that Reid/Democrats do the exact same thing....and do you know what you get from LIberals on that point?..........................crickets. The other thing you can't make up is the...oh, I don't know what the word is.....maybe PANIC. The PANIC that is everywhere in the Republican Party. Those folks are in such disarray, and it's sooo new to them. The silence aka 'crickets' from Liberals?? Of course we're being quiet.... we don't have to say a thing. The Repubs themselves are doing ALL the heavy lifting for us. HEEE LAIR EEE OUS! I'll bet it's slightly less than the panic in the white house about the ACA. |
| 2013-11-12 3:26 PM in reply to: tuwood |
Veteran 1019 St. Louis | Subject: RE: Boehner blocks democracy again Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by mr2tony Originally posted by tuwood So in your opinion, America has moved past it? You believe that discrimination based on race, gender and/or sexual orientation doesn't exist or isn't strong enough to warrant having laws against it? Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by tuwood Says the affluent, majority-religion-practicing white guy... Originally posted by sbreaux Originally posted by Jackemy1 So are you OK with removing all anti-discrimination laws from the books? Originally posted by Justin86 I'll try. Employers are risk adverse. So with all things being equal, they will always make their investment in the one with the lowest risk. This is no different when employers are investing in human resources. If there are two candidates equal in talent but one carries a higher risk, such a a potential discrimination lawsuit, the candidate with the lower risk will always get hire. It is an unintended consequence of legislating special and protected classes. Originally posted by Left Brain He claimed it would cause people to lose their jobs. I'm sorry this is complete BS. You will never convince me of this. Ever. Originally posted by Justin86 I assume you are referring to ENDA (His latest amongst many). This is like a punch in the face to me. I don't see an issue with this one. One step forward this week, one step back. For the life of me, I can't figure out why gay/lesbian/transgender issues are even debated anymore. Who cares? There is quite a bit of hope on the horizon if my teenage kids and their friends are any indication....they don't care at all about someone's sexual orientation. I consider myself a Republican........Boehner is on my last nerve. I think as a country we've moved past most of the need for discrimination laws....  Correction, says the poor white kid who was heavily discriminated upon because he was homeless and living on welfare throughout much of his childhood. So in your opinion, America discriminates today just as much as it did 50 years ago and we as a nation will never move past it? Therefore, all laws regarding discrimination should never be changed. I believe I said we've moved past "most" of the need. There's no question there was heavy discrimination 50+ years ago, and there's no question that it is significantly less today then it was then. Perhaps it's better stated that we've moved past "some" of the need verse "most" because there's no real way to quantify it. I was more trying to convey the viewpoint that there is a point where the discrimination laws can create more harm than good. I don't know if we're at that point now or not. I'm a business owner, I make all of our hiring decisions and I don't discriminate toward anybody in any way based on sex, race, religion, or sexual orientation. You guys know me as a pretty religious guy, but two of my 8 employees are pretty hard core atheists and one is going to skepticon next weekend. So, I truly don't discriminate. With the example above about ENDA. Today, I have zero issues with hiring anyone who is LGBT because I hire based on qualifications. However, if this law were to pass I would be far more hesitant to hire an equally qualified candidate who was LGBT or even had mannerisms that would lead me to believe they may be LGBT out of the fear of being sued if I were to legitimately need to fire them. As I mentioned above, I've been on the pointy end of a civil rights lawsuit and it's not a good place to be. If I had even one person file a suit it would likely put me out of business, even if I won the lawsuit. So, I feel that a law like that, which is meant to protect a class, will ultimately make the members of this class less likely to be hired. Just curious, were you hesitant to hire the atheists? If one of them deserved to be fired, would you be afraid to do it for fear that they will file that civil rights lawsuit claiming their termination was due to them not sharing your religious beliefs? You're pretty open and honest about your religion here, so I'm guessing your beliefs are not a secret at the office. |
| 2013-11-12 8:03 PM in reply to: Left Brain |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Boehner blocks democracy again Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by pga_mike Originally posted by uclamatt2007 Originally posted by jeffnboise Boehner isn't allowing the vote for the same reason the Senate hasn't passed a budget for the past 3 years. Both parties are trying avoid votes that will be "no wins" with their constituency. Both parties play the same games. And do you really think that both parties aren't funded by old, rich white guys? I agree with some of this.......HOWEVER, you use the word "VOTE" over and over again. BOEHNER isn't allowing the VOTE! This is only a PR move, because it highlights the problem with the Republican party in Washington...they're being funded by old, white, rich biggots.
Thanks for returning to my subject? Is there anyone else who finds it ironic that Boehner who professes his love for the Constitution is the one who stops the legislative process? OK, Boehner is an idiot.....that's established. The best part of this thread is that it's beenpointed out more than a few times that Reid/Democrats do the exact same thing....and do you know what you get from LIberals on that point?..........................crickets. The "but the other side does it too" is a tiresome argument that goes without saying, hence the crickets. When Liberals make the exact same argument, you hear crickets from the conservative side. So what? It doesn't make what Boehner's doing any less reprehensible. Besides, it's hardly the best part of the thread. The best part was the person saying that your post was like a therapy session. |
| 2013-11-12 8:39 PM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Boehner blocks democracy again Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by Left Brain The "but the other side does it too" is a tiresome argument that goes without saying, hence the crickets. When Liberals make the exact same argument, you hear crickets from the conservative side. So what? It doesn't make what Boehner's doing any less reprehensible. Besides, it's hardly the best part of the thread. The best part was the person saying that your post was like a therapy session. Originally posted by pga_mike Originally posted by uclamatt2007 Originally posted by jeffnboise Boehner isn't allowing the vote for the same reason the Senate hasn't passed a budget for the past 3 years. Both parties are trying avoid votes that will be "no wins" with their constituency. Both parties play the same games. And do you really think that both parties aren't funded by old, rich white guys? I agree with some of this.......HOWEVER, you use the word "VOTE" over and over again. BOEHNER isn't allowing the VOTE! This is only a PR move, because it highlights the problem with the Republican party in Washington...they're being funded by old, white, rich biggots.
Thanks for returning to my subject? Is there anyone else who finds it ironic that Boehner who professes his love for the Constitution is the one who stops the legislative process? OK, Boehner is an idiot.....that's established. The best part of this thread is that it's beenpointed out more than a few times that Reid/Democrats do the exact same thing....and do you know what you get from LIberals on that point?..........................crickets. Yeah, I'm going to put the people of TAN on the couch next. |
| 2013-11-13 8:17 AM in reply to: Left Brain |
Champion 34263 Chicago | Subject: RE: Boehner blocks democracy again Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by Left Brain The "but the other side does it too" is a tiresome argument that goes without saying, hence the crickets. When Liberals make the exact same argument, you hear crickets from the conservative side. So what? It doesn't make what Boehner's doing any less reprehensible. Besides, it's hardly the best part of the thread. The best part was the person saying that your post was like a therapy session. Originally posted by pga_mike Originally posted by uclamatt2007 Originally posted by jeffnboise Boehner isn't allowing the vote for the same reason the Senate hasn't passed a budget for the past 3 years. Both parties are trying avoid votes that will be "no wins" with their constituency. Both parties play the same games. And do you really think that both parties aren't funded by old, rich white guys? I agree with some of this.......HOWEVER, you use the word "VOTE" over and over again. BOEHNER isn't allowing the VOTE! This is only a PR move, because it highlights the problem with the Republican party in Washington...they're being funded by old, white, rich biggots.
Thanks for returning to my subject? Is there anyone else who finds it ironic that Boehner who professes his love for the Constitution is the one who stops the legislative process? OK, Boehner is an idiot.....that's established. The best part of this thread is that it's beenpointed out more than a few times that Reid/Democrats do the exact same thing....and do you know what you get from LIberals on that point?..........................crickets. Yeah, I'm going to put the people of TAN on the couch next. There's no help for those crazy bastages. |
| 2013-11-13 9:06 AM in reply to: kevin_trapp |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Boehner blocks democracy again Originally posted by kevin_trapp Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by mr2tony Originally posted by tuwood So in your opinion, America has moved past it? You believe that discrimination based on race, gender and/or sexual orientation doesn't exist or isn't strong enough to warrant having laws against it? Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by tuwood Says the affluent, majority-religion-practicing white guy... Originally posted by sbreaux Originally posted by Jackemy1 So are you OK with removing all anti-discrimination laws from the books? Originally posted by Justin86 I'll try. Employers are risk adverse. So with all things being equal, they will always make their investment in the one with the lowest risk. This is no different when employers are investing in human resources. If there are two candidates equal in talent but one carries a higher risk, such a a potential discrimination lawsuit, the candidate with the lower risk will always get hire. It is an unintended consequence of legislating special and protected classes. Originally posted by Left Brain He claimed it would cause people to lose their jobs. I'm sorry this is complete BS. You will never convince me of this. Ever. Originally posted by Justin86 I assume you are referring to ENDA (His latest amongst many). This is like a punch in the face to me. I don't see an issue with this one. One step forward this week, one step back. For the life of me, I can't figure out why gay/lesbian/transgender issues are even debated anymore. Who cares? There is quite a bit of hope on the horizon if my teenage kids and their friends are any indication....they don't care at all about someone's sexual orientation. I consider myself a Republican........Boehner is on my last nerve. I think as a country we've moved past most of the need for discrimination laws.... Correction, says the poor white kid who was heavily discriminated upon because he was homeless and living on welfare throughout much of his childhood. So in your opinion, America discriminates today just as much as it did 50 years ago and we as a nation will never move past it? Therefore, all laws regarding discrimination should never be changed. I believe I said we've moved past "most" of the need. There's no question there was heavy discrimination 50+ years ago, and there's no question that it is significantly less today then it was then. Perhaps it's better stated that we've moved past "some" of the need verse "most" because there's no real way to quantify it. I was more trying to convey the viewpoint that there is a point where the discrimination laws can create more harm than good. I don't know if we're at that point now or not. I'm a business owner, I make all of our hiring decisions and I don't discriminate toward anybody in any way based on sex, race, religion, or sexual orientation. You guys know me as a pretty religious guy, but two of my 8 employees are pretty hard core atheists and one is going to skepticon next weekend. So, I truly don't discriminate. With the example above about ENDA. Today, I have zero issues with hiring anyone who is LGBT because I hire based on qualifications. However, if this law were to pass I would be far more hesitant to hire an equally qualified candidate who was LGBT or even had mannerisms that would lead me to believe they may be LGBT out of the fear of being sued if I were to legitimately need to fire them. As I mentioned above, I've been on the pointy end of a civil rights lawsuit and it's not a good place to be. If I had even one person file a suit it would likely put me out of business, even if I won the lawsuit. So, I feel that a law like that, which is meant to protect a class, will ultimately make the members of this class less likely to be hired. Just curious, were you hesitant to hire the atheists? If one of them deserved to be fired, would you be afraid to do it for fear that they will file that civil rights lawsuit claiming their termination was due to them not sharing your religious beliefs? You're pretty open and honest about your religion here, so I'm guessing your beliefs are not a secret at the office. We have call to prayer at 9:00 12:00 and 3:00 in the office I could be splitting hairs, but I don't think religion has any bearing on someone being hired because it simply never comes up. Yes, I could discriminate upon somebody that works here after I find out they're an atheist, but I would never ask the question prior to hiring somebody. I'll also throw out that in the case of the two individuals who work for me, they were obviously way more qualified than any other candidates. So, even if I did have an "issue" with it I wouldn't find out until long after they were hired. I do have religious art in my office and a Bible on my desk, so I don't hide the fact that I'm a Christian to any potential employees. The cool part about these guys is that because of me wearing my religion on my sleeve they feel free to discuss their beliefs with me and we have a lot of fun conversations. I think if I didn't have a bible on my desk I'd have no idea about their beliefs. |
| 2013-11-13 11:10 AM in reply to: tuwood |
Veteran 1019 St. Louis | Subject: RE: Boehner blocks democracy again Originally posted by tuwood We have call to prayer at 9:00 12:00 and 3:00 in the office I could be splitting hairs, but I don't think religion has any bearing on someone being hired because it simply never comes up. Yes, I could discriminate upon somebody that works here after I find out they're an atheist, but I would never ask the question prior to hiring somebody. I'll also throw out that in the case of the two individuals who work for me, they were obviously way more qualified than any other candidates. So, even if I did have an "issue" with it I wouldn't find out until long after they were hired. I do have religious art in my office and a Bible on my desk, so I don't hide the fact that I'm a Christian to any potential employees. The cool part about these guys is that because of me wearing my religion on my sleeve they feel free to discuss their beliefs with me and we have a lot of fun conversations. I think if I didn't have a bible on my desk I'd have no idea about their beliefs. Well, if ENDA ever passes, you wouldn't be able to ask about sexual orientation prior to hiring somebody either I guess the point I'm trying to make is that I don't see how giving LGBT protected class status is going to lead to some dramatic increase in frivolous civil rights lawsuits. The bulk of the LGBT community is going to fall under one of the other protected classes already. If you fire a lesbian, and she's willing to lie and sue you on a discrimination case, she can already make the claim that you fired her solely because she's a woman. Any black homosexual can make the claim that it was race related. Really, the only people that currently have no way to file a discrimination lawsuit that ENDA would effect is a gay, white, American-born, able-bodied man under the age of 40 with the same religious beliefs as his supervisor. There's always going to be somebody who's working to abuse the system, whether it's discrimination or workman's comp or disability. The man you mentioned that sued three former employers for example. It's a shame people like that exist, and you were lucky to find out about him before you offered him a job. But it doesn't mean you stop interviewing all black individuals based on that one guy being a d-bag. Just means you need to do your due diligence in trying to figure out who the individual is. If frivolous lawsuits are the GOP's true concern, then they need to mount an effort to end all discrimination laws. Or tort reform, some type of penalty for the people found to be abusing the system. Make the loser pay for both side's legal fees or punish the lawyers that file the frivolous claims. But I find Boehner disingenuous when he claims that giving protected class status to this tiny fraction of the American population is going to have some grand impact on frivolous litigation and kill jobs. |
| 2013-11-13 11:40 AM in reply to: tuwood |
Champion 34263 Chicago | Subject: RE: Boehner blocks democracy again Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by kevin_trapp Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by mr2tony Originally posted by tuwood So in your opinion, America has moved past it? You believe that discrimination based on race, gender and/or sexual orientation doesn't exist or isn't strong enough to warrant having laws against it? Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by tuwood Says the affluent, majority-religion-practicing white guy... Originally posted by sbreaux Originally posted by Jackemy1 So are you OK with removing all anti-discrimination laws from the books? Originally posted by Justin86 I'll try. Employers are risk adverse. So with all things being equal, they will always make their investment in the one with the lowest risk. This is no different when employers are investing in human resources. If there are two candidates equal in talent but one carries a higher risk, such a a potential discrimination lawsuit, the candidate with the lower risk will always get hire. It is an unintended consequence of legislating special and protected classes. Originally posted by Left Brain He claimed it would cause people to lose their jobs. I'm sorry this is complete BS. You will never convince me of this. Ever. Originally posted by Justin86 I assume you are referring to ENDA (His latest amongst many). This is like a punch in the face to me. I don't see an issue with this one. One step forward this week, one step back. For the life of me, I can't figure out why gay/lesbian/transgender issues are even debated anymore. Who cares? There is quite a bit of hope on the horizon if my teenage kids and their friends are any indication....they don't care at all about someone's sexual orientation. I consider myself a Republican........Boehner is on my last nerve. I think as a country we've moved past most of the need for discrimination laws.... Correction, says the poor white kid who was heavily discriminated upon because he was homeless and living on welfare throughout much of his childhood. So in your opinion, America discriminates today just as much as it did 50 years ago and we as a nation will never move past it? Therefore, all laws regarding discrimination should never be changed. I believe I said we've moved past "most" of the need. There's no question there was heavy discrimination 50+ years ago, and there's no question that it is significantly less today then it was then. Perhaps it's better stated that we've moved past "some" of the need verse "most" because there's no real way to quantify it. I was more trying to convey the viewpoint that there is a point where the discrimination laws can create more harm than good. I don't know if we're at that point now or not. I'm a business owner, I make all of our hiring decisions and I don't discriminate toward anybody in any way based on sex, race, religion, or sexual orientation. You guys know me as a pretty religious guy, but two of my 8 employees are pretty hard core atheists and one is going to skepticon next weekend. So, I truly don't discriminate. With the example above about ENDA. Today, I have zero issues with hiring anyone who is LGBT because I hire based on qualifications. However, if this law were to pass I would be far more hesitant to hire an equally qualified candidate who was LGBT or even had mannerisms that would lead me to believe they may be LGBT out of the fear of being sued if I were to legitimately need to fire them. As I mentioned above, I've been on the pointy end of a civil rights lawsuit and it's not a good place to be. If I had even one person file a suit it would likely put me out of business, even if I won the lawsuit. So, I feel that a law like that, which is meant to protect a class, will ultimately make the members of this class less likely to be hired. Just curious, were you hesitant to hire the atheists? If one of them deserved to be fired, would you be afraid to do it for fear that they will file that civil rights lawsuit claiming their termination was due to them not sharing your religious beliefs? You're pretty open and honest about your religion here, so I'm guessing your beliefs are not a secret at the office. We have call to prayer at 9:00 12:00 and 3:00 in the office I could be splitting hairs, but I don't think religion has any bearing on someone being hired because it simply never comes up. Yes, I could discriminate upon somebody that works here after I find out they're an atheist, but I would never ask the question prior to hiring somebody. I'll also throw out that in the case of the two individuals who work for me, they were obviously way more qualified than any other candidates. So, even if I did have an "issue" with it I wouldn't find out until long after they were hired. I do have religious art in my office and a Bible on my desk, so I don't hide the fact that I'm a Christian to any potential employees. The cool part about these guys is that because of me wearing my religion on my sleeve they feel free to discuss their beliefs with me and we have a lot of fun conversations. I think if I didn't have a bible on my desk I'd have no idea about their beliefs. So if someone's religion isn't an issue because "it simply never comes up" then why would someone's sexual orientation be an issue? |
| 2013-11-13 11:49 AM in reply to: kevin_trapp |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Boehner blocks democracy again Originally posted by kevin_trapp Originally posted by tuwood We have call to prayer at 9:00 12:00 and 3:00 in the office I could be splitting hairs, but I don't think religion has any bearing on someone being hired because it simply never comes up. Yes, I could discriminate upon somebody that works here after I find out they're an atheist, but I would never ask the question prior to hiring somebody. I'll also throw out that in the case of the two individuals who work for me, they were obviously way more qualified than any other candidates. So, even if I did have an "issue" with it I wouldn't find out until long after they were hired. I do have religious art in my office and a Bible on my desk, so I don't hide the fact that I'm a Christian to any potential employees. The cool part about these guys is that because of me wearing my religion on my sleeve they feel free to discuss their beliefs with me and we have a lot of fun conversations. I think if I didn't have a bible on my desk I'd have no idea about their beliefs. Well, if ENDA ever passes, you wouldn't be able to ask about sexual orientation prior to hiring somebody either I guess the point I'm trying to make is that I don't see how giving LGBT protected class status is going to lead to some dramatic increase in frivolous civil rights lawsuits. The bulk of the LGBT community is going to fall under one of the other protected classes already. If you fire a lesbian, and she's willing to lie and sue you on a discrimination case, she can already make the claim that you fired her solely because she's a woman. Any black homosexual can make the claim that it was race related. Really, the only people that currently have no way to file a discrimination lawsuit that ENDA would effect is a gay, white, American-born, able-bodied man under the age of 40 with the same religious beliefs as his supervisor. There's always going to be somebody who's working to abuse the system, whether it's discrimination or workman's comp or disability. The man you mentioned that sued three former employers for example. It's a shame people like that exist, and you were lucky to find out about him before you offered him a job. But it doesn't mean you stop interviewing all black individuals based on that one guy being a d-bag. Just means you need to do your due diligence in trying to figure out who the individual is. If frivolous lawsuits are the GOP's true concern, then they need to mount an effort to end all discrimination laws. Or tort reform, some type of penalty for the people found to be abusing the system. Make the loser pay for both side's legal fees or punish the lawyers that file the frivolous claims. But I find Boehner disingenuous when he claims that giving protected class status to this tiny fraction of the American population is going to have some grand impact on frivolous litigation and kill jobs. Nope, it wouldn't bother me in the least to find out that one of them were an atheist before I hired them. It might even help them because it's somebody I could work on and help see the light. hehe. Also, for the record I'm not GOP so I don't in any way represent what they're trying to do. I'm only speaking for myself. You touched on some good points about who the ENDA would specifically protect and ways it could potentially get abused. I haven't read the law, but I do wonder how one "proves" in a court of law their sexual orientation. In a way it almost sounds like a law that could be ripe with abuse that any white male (who is currently an unprotected class) could just say he was bi-sexual and sue. What's the defense? He has a girlfriend, well ya it's because he's Bi. I don't in any way shape or form omit protected classes from my employment. I have two women, and 6 guys working here and if a minority candidate was the most qualified I would absolutely hire him/her. I was more talking about equally qualified candidates where I as a business owner have to chose between two. If one has the potential to sue me for violating his civil rights and the other doesn't I will go with the path of least risk, and I feel most other business owners would do the same. I'm a big proponent of loser pays type tort reform when it comes to civil proceedings as well. Perhaps that's a good compromise these knuckle heads could work on. OK, we'll give you a protected class if you give us loser pays tort reform. I'm hoping I live past 2043 when whites are projected to be the minority in America. Then I'll get me some of that protected class action. |
| 2013-11-13 11:54 AM in reply to: mr2tony |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Boehner blocks democracy again Originally posted by mr2tony Originally posted by tuwood So if someone's religion isn't an issue because "it simply never comes up" then why would someone's sexual orientation be an issue? Originally posted by kevin_trapp Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by mr2tony Originally posted by tuwood So in your opinion, America has moved past it? You believe that discrimination based on race, gender and/or sexual orientation doesn't exist or isn't strong enough to warrant having laws against it? Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by tuwood Says the affluent, majority-religion-practicing white guy... Originally posted by sbreaux Originally posted by Jackemy1 So are you OK with removing all anti-discrimination laws from the books? Originally posted by Justin86 I'll try. Employers are risk adverse. So with all things being equal, they will always make their investment in the one with the lowest risk. This is no different when employers are investing in human resources. If there are two candidates equal in talent but one carries a higher risk, such a a potential discrimination lawsuit, the candidate with the lower risk will always get hire. It is an unintended consequence of legislating special and protected classes. Originally posted by Left Brain He claimed it would cause people to lose their jobs. I'm sorry this is complete BS. You will never convince me of this. Ever. Originally posted by Justin86 I assume you are referring to ENDA (His latest amongst many). This is like a punch in the face to me. I don't see an issue with this one. One step forward this week, one step back. For the life of me, I can't figure out why gay/lesbian/transgender issues are even debated anymore. Who cares? There is quite a bit of hope on the horizon if my teenage kids and their friends are any indication....they don't care at all about someone's sexual orientation. I consider myself a Republican........Boehner is on my last nerve. I think as a country we've moved past most of the need for discrimination laws.... Correction, says the poor white kid who was heavily discriminated upon because he was homeless and living on welfare throughout much of his childhood. So in your opinion, America discriminates today just as much as it did 50 years ago and we as a nation will never move past it? Therefore, all laws regarding discrimination should never be changed. I believe I said we've moved past "most" of the need. There's no question there was heavy discrimination 50+ years ago, and there's no question that it is significantly less today then it was then. Perhaps it's better stated that we've moved past "some" of the need verse "most" because there's no real way to quantify it. I was more trying to convey the viewpoint that there is a point where the discrimination laws can create more harm than good. I don't know if we're at that point now or not. I'm a business owner, I make all of our hiring decisions and I don't discriminate toward anybody in any way based on sex, race, religion, or sexual orientation. You guys know me as a pretty religious guy, but two of my 8 employees are pretty hard core atheists and one is going to skepticon next weekend. So, I truly don't discriminate. With the example above about ENDA. Today, I have zero issues with hiring anyone who is LGBT because I hire based on qualifications. However, if this law were to pass I would be far more hesitant to hire an equally qualified candidate who was LGBT or even had mannerisms that would lead me to believe they may be LGBT out of the fear of being sued if I were to legitimately need to fire them. As I mentioned above, I've been on the pointy end of a civil rights lawsuit and it's not a good place to be. If I had even one person file a suit it would likely put me out of business, even if I won the lawsuit. So, I feel that a law like that, which is meant to protect a class, will ultimately make the members of this class less likely to be hired. Just curious, were you hesitant to hire the atheists? If one of them deserved to be fired, would you be afraid to do it for fear that they will file that civil rights lawsuit claiming their termination was due to them not sharing your religious beliefs? You're pretty open and honest about your religion here, so I'm guessing your beliefs are not a secret at the office. We have call to prayer at 9:00 12:00 and 3:00 in the office I could be splitting hairs, but I don't think religion has any bearing on someone being hired because it simply never comes up. Yes, I could discriminate upon somebody that works here after I find out they're an atheist, but I would never ask the question prior to hiring somebody. I'll also throw out that in the case of the two individuals who work for me, they were obviously way more qualified than any other candidates. So, even if I did have an "issue" with it I wouldn't find out until long after they were hired. I do have religious art in my office and a Bible on my desk, so I don't hide the fact that I'm a Christian to any potential employees. The cool part about these guys is that because of me wearing my religion on my sleeve they feel free to discuss their beliefs with me and we have a lot of fun conversations. I think if I didn't have a bible on my desk I'd have no idea about their beliefs. It doesn't and never has been an issue for me. I've only had one applicant that I was "pretty sure" was gay. My suspicions were due to him being somewhat effeminate and he referenced his "partner" twice in the interview. I really liked him and offered him the job. I even got into a bidding war with another company and ultimately lost out when he chose the other company. I was pretty bummed. |
| 2013-11-13 2:42 PM in reply to: tuwood |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Boehner blocks democracy again Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by kevin_trapp Originally posted by tuwood We have call to prayer at 9:00 12:00 and 3:00 in the office I could be splitting hairs, but I don't think religion has any bearing on someone being hired because it simply never comes up. Yes, I could discriminate upon somebody that works here after I find out they're an atheist, but I would never ask the question prior to hiring somebody. I'll also throw out that in the case of the two individuals who work for me, they were obviously way more qualified than any other candidates. So, even if I did have an "issue" with it I wouldn't find out until long after they were hired. I do have religious art in my office and a Bible on my desk, so I don't hide the fact that I'm a Christian to any potential employees. The cool part about these guys is that because of me wearing my religion on my sleeve they feel free to discuss their beliefs with me and we have a lot of fun conversations. I think if I didn't have a bible on my desk I'd have no idea about their beliefs. Well, if ENDA ever passes, you wouldn't be able to ask about sexual orientation prior to hiring somebody either I guess the point I'm trying to make is that I don't see how giving LGBT protected class status is going to lead to some dramatic increase in frivolous civil rights lawsuits. The bulk of the LGBT community is going to fall under one of the other protected classes already. If you fire a lesbian, and she's willing to lie and sue you on a discrimination case, she can already make the claim that you fired her solely because she's a woman. Any black homosexual can make the claim that it was race related. Really, the only people that currently have no way to file a discrimination lawsuit that ENDA would effect is a gay, white, American-born, able-bodied man under the age of 40 with the same religious beliefs as his supervisor. There's always going to be somebody who's working to abuse the system, whether it's discrimination or workman's comp or disability. The man you mentioned that sued three former employers for example. It's a shame people like that exist, and you were lucky to find out about him before you offered him a job. But it doesn't mean you stop interviewing all black individuals based on that one guy being a d-bag. Just means you need to do your due diligence in trying to figure out who the individual is. If frivolous lawsuits are the GOP's true concern, then they need to mount an effort to end all discrimination laws. Or tort reform, some type of penalty for the people found to be abusing the system. Make the loser pay for both side's legal fees or punish the lawyers that file the frivolous claims. But I find Boehner disingenuous when he claims that giving protected class status to this tiny fraction of the American population is going to have some grand impact on frivolous litigation and kill jobs. Nope, it wouldn't bother me in the least to find out that one of them were an atheist before I hired them. It might even help them because it's somebody I could work on and help see the light. hehe. Also, for the record I'm not GOP so I don't in any way represent what they're trying to do. I'm only speaking for myself. You touched on some good points about who the ENDA would specifically protect and ways it could potentially get abused. I haven't read the law, but I do wonder how one "proves" in a court of law their sexual orientation. In a way it almost sounds like a law that could be ripe with abuse that any white male (who is currently an unprotected class) could just say he was bi-sexual and sue. What's the defense? He has a girlfriend, well ya it's because he's Bi. I don't in any way shape or form omit protected classes from my employment. I have two women, and 6 guys working here and if a minority candidate was the most qualified I would absolutely hire him/her. I was more talking about equally qualified candidates where I as a business owner have to chose between two. If one has the potential to sue me for violating his civil rights and the other doesn't I will go with the path of least risk, and I feel most other business owners would do the same. I'm a big proponent of loser pays type tort reform when it comes to civil proceedings as well. Perhaps that's a good compromise these knuckle heads could work on. OK, we'll give you a protected class if you give us loser pays tort reform. I'm hoping I live past 2043 when whites are projected to be the minority in America. Then I'll get me some of that protected class action. With your luck, by then, the US will have abolished discrimination laws. And anyway, no need to wait that long-- you'll be over 40 before that, assuming you're not already. Over 40 is a protected class. |
| 2013-11-13 2:59 PM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Boehner blocks democracy again Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by tuwood With your luck, by then, the US will have abolished discrimination laws. And anyway, no need to wait that long-- you'll be over 40 before that, assuming you're not already. Over 40 is a protected class. Originally posted by kevin_trapp Originally posted by tuwood We have call to prayer at 9:00 12:00 and 3:00 in the office I could be splitting hairs, but I don't think religion has any bearing on someone being hired because it simply never comes up. Yes, I could discriminate upon somebody that works here after I find out they're an atheist, but I would never ask the question prior to hiring somebody. I'll also throw out that in the case of the two individuals who work for me, they were obviously way more qualified than any other candidates. So, even if I did have an "issue" with it I wouldn't find out until long after they were hired. I do have religious art in my office and a Bible on my desk, so I don't hide the fact that I'm a Christian to any potential employees. The cool part about these guys is that because of me wearing my religion on my sleeve they feel free to discuss their beliefs with me and we have a lot of fun conversations. I think if I didn't have a bible on my desk I'd have no idea about their beliefs. Well, if ENDA ever passes, you wouldn't be able to ask about sexual orientation prior to hiring somebody either I guess the point I'm trying to make is that I don't see how giving LGBT protected class status is going to lead to some dramatic increase in frivolous civil rights lawsuits. The bulk of the LGBT community is going to fall under one of the other protected classes already. If you fire a lesbian, and she's willing to lie and sue you on a discrimination case, she can already make the claim that you fired her solely because she's a woman. Any black homosexual can make the claim that it was race related. Really, the only people that currently have no way to file a discrimination lawsuit that ENDA would effect is a gay, white, American-born, able-bodied man under the age of 40 with the same religious beliefs as his supervisor. There's always going to be somebody who's working to abuse the system, whether it's discrimination or workman's comp or disability. The man you mentioned that sued three former employers for example. It's a shame people like that exist, and you were lucky to find out about him before you offered him a job. But it doesn't mean you stop interviewing all black individuals based on that one guy being a d-bag. Just means you need to do your due diligence in trying to figure out who the individual is. If frivolous lawsuits are the GOP's true concern, then they need to mount an effort to end all discrimination laws. Or tort reform, some type of penalty for the people found to be abusing the system. Make the loser pay for both side's legal fees or punish the lawyers that file the frivolous claims. But I find Boehner disingenuous when he claims that giving protected class status to this tiny fraction of the American population is going to have some grand impact on frivolous litigation and kill jobs. Nope, it wouldn't bother me in the least to find out that one of them were an atheist before I hired them. It might even help them because it's somebody I could work on and help see the light. hehe. Also, for the record I'm not GOP so I don't in any way represent what they're trying to do. I'm only speaking for myself. You touched on some good points about who the ENDA would specifically protect and ways it could potentially get abused. I haven't read the law, but I do wonder how one "proves" in a court of law their sexual orientation. In a way it almost sounds like a law that could be ripe with abuse that any white male (who is currently an unprotected class) could just say he was bi-sexual and sue. What's the defense? He has a girlfriend, well ya it's because he's Bi. I don't in any way shape or form omit protected classes from my employment. I have two women, and 6 guys working here and if a minority candidate was the most qualified I would absolutely hire him/her. I was more talking about equally qualified candidates where I as a business owner have to chose between two. If one has the potential to sue me for violating his civil rights and the other doesn't I will go with the path of least risk, and I feel most other business owners would do the same. I'm a big proponent of loser pays type tort reform when it comes to civil proceedings as well. Perhaps that's a good compromise these knuckle heads could work on. OK, we'll give you a protected class if you give us loser pays tort reform. I'm hoping I live past 2043 when whites are projected to be the minority in America. Then I'll get me some of that protected class action. I just turned 40 last Thursday (no joke)... Woohoo |
| 2013-11-13 6:20 PM in reply to: tuwood |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Boehner blocks democracy again Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by tuwood With your luck, by then, the US will have abolished discrimination laws. And anyway, no need to wait that long-- you'll be over 40 before that, assuming you're not already. Over 40 is a protected class. Originally posted by kevin_trapp Originally posted by tuwood We have call to prayer at 9:00 12:00 and 3:00 in the office I could be splitting hairs, but I don't think religion has any bearing on someone being hired because it simply never comes up. Yes, I could discriminate upon somebody that works here after I find out they're an atheist, but I would never ask the question prior to hiring somebody. I'll also throw out that in the case of the two individuals who work for me, they were obviously way more qualified than any other candidates. So, even if I did have an "issue" with it I wouldn't find out until long after they were hired. I do have religious art in my office and a Bible on my desk, so I don't hide the fact that I'm a Christian to any potential employees. The cool part about these guys is that because of me wearing my religion on my sleeve they feel free to discuss their beliefs with me and we have a lot of fun conversations. I think if I didn't have a bible on my desk I'd have no idea about their beliefs. Well, if ENDA ever passes, you wouldn't be able to ask about sexual orientation prior to hiring somebody either I guess the point I'm trying to make is that I don't see how giving LGBT protected class status is going to lead to some dramatic increase in frivolous civil rights lawsuits. The bulk of the LGBT community is going to fall under one of the other protected classes already. If you fire a lesbian, and she's willing to lie and sue you on a discrimination case, she can already make the claim that you fired her solely because she's a woman. Any black homosexual can make the claim that it was race related. Really, the only people that currently have no way to file a discrimination lawsuit that ENDA would effect is a gay, white, American-born, able-bodied man under the age of 40 with the same religious beliefs as his supervisor. There's always going to be somebody who's working to abuse the system, whether it's discrimination or workman's comp or disability. The man you mentioned that sued three former employers for example. It's a shame people like that exist, and you were lucky to find out about him before you offered him a job. But it doesn't mean you stop interviewing all black individuals based on that one guy being a d-bag. Just means you need to do your due diligence in trying to figure out who the individual is. If frivolous lawsuits are the GOP's true concern, then they need to mount an effort to end all discrimination laws. Or tort reform, some type of penalty for the people found to be abusing the system. Make the loser pay for both side's legal fees or punish the lawyers that file the frivolous claims. But I find Boehner disingenuous when he claims that giving protected class status to this tiny fraction of the American population is going to have some grand impact on frivolous litigation and kill jobs. Nope, it wouldn't bother me in the least to find out that one of them were an atheist before I hired them. It might even help them because it's somebody I could work on and help see the light. hehe. Also, for the record I'm not GOP so I don't in any way represent what they're trying to do. I'm only speaking for myself. You touched on some good points about who the ENDA would specifically protect and ways it could potentially get abused. I haven't read the law, but I do wonder how one "proves" in a court of law their sexual orientation. In a way it almost sounds like a law that could be ripe with abuse that any white male (who is currently an unprotected class) could just say he was bi-sexual and sue. What's the defense? He has a girlfriend, well ya it's because he's Bi. I don't in any way shape or form omit protected classes from my employment. I have two women, and 6 guys working here and if a minority candidate was the most qualified I would absolutely hire him/her. I was more talking about equally qualified candidates where I as a business owner have to chose between two. If one has the potential to sue me for violating his civil rights and the other doesn't I will go with the path of least risk, and I feel most other business owners would do the same. I'm a big proponent of loser pays type tort reform when it comes to civil proceedings as well. Perhaps that's a good compromise these knuckle heads could work on. OK, we'll give you a protected class if you give us loser pays tort reform. I'm hoping I live past 2043 when whites are projected to be the minority in America. Then I'll get me some of that protected class action. I just turned 40 last Thursday (no joke)... Woohoo Happy birthday! Welcome to the protected classes! Can I offer you a knish? |
|
|
|
|
| Religion in schools again Pages: 1 2 | ||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| Texas cheerleaders win in court again over Bible banners Pages: 1 2 3 |
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK