Bloch said that the while a gay employee would have no recourse for being fired or demoted for being gay, that same worker could not be fired for attending a gay Pride event.
Im interested in what you all think of this statment. It means that anyone can be fired for "being gay" and have no recourse.

Bloch has said that being fired for being gay is a legitimate practice. I wanna here why this makes any sense to anyone.

This is a bit of cut-and-paste, but I've got a bit of training on this:At the state level, however, there is more cause for hope. Thirteen states have laws prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination in both private and public jobs: California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin. The District of Columbia also prohibits sexual orientation discrimination in both the public and private sectors. In addition, eight states have laws prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination in public workplaces only: Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Montana, New Mexico, Pennsylvania and Washington.Gays and lesbians aren't protected under Title VII of the civil rights act. Gays and lesbians aren't protected under the ADEA. Gays and lesbians aren't protected under the Equal Pay Act. Gays and lesbians aren't protected under the Immigration Reform and Controll Act. Gays and lesbians aren't protected under the ADA.

The EEOC has a pretty good overview of what *IS* protected. www.eeoc.gov/abouteeo/ove...tices.html (http://www.eeoc.gov/abouteeo/overview_practices.html)

I work for a company that has a policy that says (quoting verbatim), "...or discriminate based on any other non-work-related characteristic."

In my state, I could fire with the reason of "Sir, we prefer Pepsi drinkers here, not Coke drinkers. Your constant Coke drinking is an affront to our sensibilities." Coca-Cola is not a protected class of worker. Similarly, lacking law to the contrary, I could just as easily say "Sir, we prefer that our men here lick labia, not phalus!" -- Fortunately, our company says both of those things are unacceptable.

BUT, those 13 states above are a sign of the times. Discrimination based on sexual orientation is going to be law pretty much everywhere soon enough.

Our policy (no "non-work-related characteristic") makes sense to me. We'll even hire Scientoligists... ...if they weren't stupid.

I'm personally of the opinion that companies should be allowed to entertain whatever hiring policies they wish, wether it be equal oppurtunity, or no blacks/gays/hispanics/coke drinkers allowed.

Well equal oppurtunity is nice, I dont see the equal "Fairness" in more or less telling companies who they *must* consider, when its thier money to spend hiring, just like I'd be upset if the government forced me to only buy certain brand names of products.

I've seen equal oppurtunity abused by minorities far more then seen it working to protect them.

I've seen equal oppurtunity abused by minorities far more then seen it working to protect them.Uh, I'm confused. How is simply not discriminating against someone (you know, providing an EQUAL OPPORTUNITY) abusable?

You provide any two applicants an equal opportunity for a position in your company. The better of them receives it. That's equal opportunity. You provide equal opportunity, by casting the net wider. If you lack an 12% Hispanic work force in Phoenix, you don't adjust your test scores, you just make sure that you're advertising your positions in the South Phoenix Technical College graduating newsletter.

Don't consuse EQUAL opportunity with affirmative action. Equal opportunity provides a level playing field. If my best applicant is a wheelchair-bound over-40 black lesbian, then I'll hire her, and I'll make reasonable acomodations for her to perform her job. If my best applicant is a 24 year old male WASP, I'll hire him. THAT is providing equal opportunity. I'll do it because it's the right thing to do, and I'll do it because it's the law.

Damned Pepsi-drinkers. I'd fire 'em all if I could!

Darus, you're welcome to not hire ANYONE you don't want to for any reason -- unless that reason is that they're over 40, that you don't like their ethnicity, that you don't like that they're in a wheelchair, you don't like that they're male/female, or that you don't like that they were born in Calcutta. [And, possibly, depending on your state, that you don't like their sexual orientation.]

As a side note, there's some pretty obvious exceptions to that rule. The BFOQ -- the Bona Fide Ocupational Qualification. That basicly says, if you're looking to hire a Catholic Priest, you can hire someone based on their religion. Looking for exotic dancers? Over-40 males need not apply. Want to cast the role in your new movie on slavery? Hire a black man. Those are BFOQs. Hiring *pretty women* for airplane "in flight attendants," however, is not a BFOQ.

Well, isn't *this* interesting, speaking of equal rights (not affirmative action) regarding the rights of homosexuals to equal employment protection under the law:

BUSH ALLOWS GAYS TO BE FIRED FOR BEING GAY

Despite President Bush's pledge that homosexuals "ought to have the same
rights" (1) as all other people, his Administration this week ruled that
homosexuals can now be fired from the federal workforce because of their
sexual orientation.

According to the Federal Times, the president's appointee at the Office of
Special Counsel ruled that federal employees will now "have no recourse if
they are fired or demoted simply for being gay." (2) While the Bush
Administration says it is legally prohibited from firing a person for their
conduct, they have the legal right to fire or demote someone based on their
sexual orientation. To carry out the directive, the White House has begun
removing information from government websites about sexual orientation
discrimination in the workplace. (3)

Not only does the new directive contradict the president's own promise to
treat homosexuals as equals under the law, but it also contradicts what the
Administration told Congress. As noted in a bipartisan letter from four
Senators to the Administration, "During the confirmation process [of the
president's appointee], you assured us that you were committed to protecting
federal employees against unlawful discrimination related to their sexual
orientation." (4)

Sources:
1.&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp Debates, 10/11/2000.
2.&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp "OSC to study whether bias law covers gays", Federal Times, 03/15/2004,
daily.misleader.org/ctt.a...5&l=23802. (http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1146875&l=23802.)
3.&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp "Gay Rights Information Taken Off Site", Washington Post, 02/18/2004,
daily.misleader.org/ctt.a...5&l=23803. (http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1146875&l=23803.)
4.&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp "Special Counsel Under Scrutiny", Washington Post, 02/23/2004,
daily.misleader.org/ctt.a...5&l=23804. (http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1146875&l=23804.)

In the interests of full disclosure, the above report came from The Daily Misleader, a self-titled 'Chronicle of Bush Administration Distortion'. But the report is no less interesting or disturbing nonetheless...

Regards,
Nydia Ywalmoriel
Autonomous Collective

I don't think Im confusing the two, my point being theres unfair pressure to consider less qualified applicants to positions due to thier minority status from fear of image as discrimmination and/or lawsuit.

This means its *not* equal oppurtunity, and it stems from pressure on the employers, from forces which IMHO should not have any say whatsoever how wide I cast my net.

If I think only white arayan males are good enough to be my product manager, then I should be allowed to express that criteria, even if its stupid of me.

Equality is guarnteed in government, however

Private business =/= Government.

Just like I have the right to spew hateful speech, publish dumbass material, I think it should be an employer's right to spend thier money hiring whoever the heck they want.


As for the abusal statement, as I stated..ive seen "Equal oppurtunity" played out more as minorties whine bitch and sue when they don't get thier way, wether they were legitamatley discriminated against or just wernt qualiafied for the job.

(for the record, I support equal oppurtunity, but I *dont* support its enforcement, I think it should be the sole privledge of the companies in question to determine thier own policies.)

Its been around 15 years since I needed to apply/interview for a job. Do they really ask you what sex you prefer when going to bed these days?

'I wanna here why this makes any sense to anyone. '

- It just doesn't. Most of the civilized world know this and acknowledge this now. But suprise, suprise who lags behind...

"Hey what's the rest of the world doing?"
"Who cares!"

It just sets a precident that anyone who doesnt follow the religious opinion of the right can now be terminated for it. Why not extend it to muslims, or people who eat meat on fridays? We should be able to fire people for that right?

The man who made this decision used the phrase "can be fired for being gay". That means being gay will also prevent you from recieveing unemployment benefits after being fired because its a legitimate terminable offence.

Its been around 15 years since I needed to apply/interview for a job. Do they really ask you what sex you prefer when going to bed these days?

Theres only a check box for Yes, please!:b

Haha Nydia that website is as truthful as The Onion. Don't be like the Chinese.

Why don't we just make everyone a protected class and tell businesses they can't fire anyone at all? That would make everyone feel lovey dovey.

Why don't we just make everyone a protected class and tell businesses they can't fire anyone at all? That would make everyone feel lovey dovey.
We are talking about firing people over things that do not affect their job preformance. That is a problem if you wanna acknowledge it or not. Its really no different than terminating someone because they are a Christian or a republican. If you think gay people are born that way its even worse.

We are talking about firing people over things that do not affect their job preformance sic.

Then why have protected classes at all?

Why not pass a federal law that says no employer can fire any employee without cause? Lawyers would have a field day with it (moreso than the superfund statute). Go ahead with the other liberals and destroy whatever vestiges are left of the 10th amendment.

It's ironic how Democrats use "outsourcing" as the buzz word of the evils of the current administration yet the Dems advocate every anti business proposal imagineable.

What in the world makes you think that "job performance" isnt what your employment should be based on?

You like the word "protected" because it makes me seem like a radical but seriously your the radical. Your advocating that employers should be using other criteria for employment than the persons ability to do their job.

Its okay for you if your car is made like shit and falls apart as long as those fags didnt build it? Its okay for movies to be stupid and guns not to fire as long as faggots didnt make them? Do you really believe this?

It seems hard enough to get good help these days let alone intentionally excluding part of the population because of something that doesnt even consern the work place. Thats not just discrimination its bad business.

I like the word protected because that's the proper term to use.

I believe in employment-at-will. In your terms I believe an employer should have the right to fire someone for "a good reason, a bad reason, or no reason at all." If it's a bad business decision then the employer will go out of business. It's that simple. Having lawyers swooping down to second guess every single employment decision made by an employer (your position) is an unnecessary drain on the economy. You keep pushing your position and more employers will simply outsource.

In your terms I believe an employer should have the right to fire someone for "a good reason, a bad reason, or no reason at all."
Like being Black, or Gay or not sucking his cock?

So lets say a single mom is working somewhere, not kicking ass, but making enough to support her kid(s). Her employer thinks shes hot and wants to screw her, knows her rent is coming and makes continued employment contingent on her satisfying his sexual desires.
Thats OK with you eh?
People rely on work. Understand that? A employer can use influence to OWN a person if left unchecked.
Seriously.. whats wrong with you?

You keep pushing your position and more employers will simply outsource.
If you knew anything at all about the REAL outsource issue you would not have said this... but I had no idea it was fags in the work place that causes outsourcing.

Seriously you dont have a clue. It isnt employers that have created this issue, its the GOVERNMENT. Hello, what planet are you on. Employers dont say "O look we have too many fags lets send some of these jobs to India"

Lets look at Outsourcing (http://www.robarnieanddawn.com/RobsSoapbox.htm)

Employment-at-will is not an unusual concept. Do some research before making yourself look like an idiot. Many states are employment-at-will and haven't fallen apart. Employment at will doesn't apply to "protected" classes. See, e.g., here (http://www.usatoday.com/money/jobcenter/workplace/employmentlaw/2002-12-02-at-will-employees_x.htm) for a very cursory summary.

As for outsourcing Bowler you're the only one who has stated the belief that "fags in the workplace causes outsourcing." I disagree with your assertion. One cause of outsourcing, however, is the increasing cost of employment in this country compared to other countries.

The law you want, i.e. the position you have advocated, would prevent an employer from firing any employee without "cause" without a cap on damages for wrongful termination. That situation would greatly increase the cost of employing a person; once you hire them it would be extremely difficult to terminate them without inviting a lawsuit. I have terminated employees in countries with those statutes and inevitably it's easier to simply pay more to the employee than they would get for a wrongful termination (at least in those countries damages were capped). In some countries it's small enough not to matter. As litigious as the U.S. is, uncapped damages for any termination without sufficient "cause" would be high enough to matter.

Greater cost of employment in my opinion leads to more outsourcing (although I believe outsourcing has a net positive effect -- outsourcing because of artificially increased employment costs is not a good thing).

Employment-at-will is not an unusual concept. Do some research before making yourself look like an idiot. Many states are employment-at-will and haven't fallen apart.
I realize you are not paying attention over and over but I am talking about GOVERNMENT JOBS. Your yack yack yack about private companies is not really an issue being discussed here. Government Jobs, especially with an antigay President are dangerous ground to allow this to happen. Do you even know the issue or are you just talking to look cool?

Outsourcing is a bullshit line from the Democrats to make Bush look bad. Its the same shit its been for years. I wanna see my company outsource the checkers. Thats quite a checkout line. Perhaps they could outsource the truck drivers. Then they would only have to fly here from india to make deliveries.

Did you even comprehend the article I posted about outsourcing?

I wanna comment on something else that Palimax touched on without meaning to:

I think State policy should be OVER federal government on most if not all civil/local issues. I think we should be able to pick a state that we like and live there. If you dont like fags move out of the fags states ETC. The smaller the area of control for a governmental body the smaller the likelihood that one persons demands can override the freedom of others.

Excuse me well I drink out of my straight only fountain.

Darus, that's a bidet...

Anyway, there's a big misconception earlier in this thread. Companies aren't pressured to "look like" they're maintaining good hiring practices. Good hiring practices involve keeping good records and choosing good applicants. I have ZERO fear of being taken to court for anyone I've ever chosen for a position - because we chose the most qualified applicant from a widely cast net.

My company made some poor decisions in the 90's before the dot-com boom. There was a time when jobs were plentiful and skilled labor wasn't. So, they took out ads looking for people of good character they could TRAIN to be good technicians. They took out an ad looking for "Junior Military Officers." I'm not sure if you've looked recently, but Junior Military Officers aren't handicapped, over-40, black female immigrants. :) They've since gotten their shit together. They meant well, of course.

I believe in employment-at-will. In your terms I believe an employer should have the right to fire someone for "a good reason, a bad reason, or no reason at all." If it's a bad business decision then the employer will go out of business. It's that simple. Having lawyers swooping down to second guess every single employment decision made by an employer (your position) is an unnecessary drain on the economy. You keep pushing your position and more employers will simply outsource.

Furtivus goes on to state Employment at will doesn't apply to "protected" classes.

So, I suppose i'm a little confused on your stance. You state you support at-will employment because you can fire anyone without cause, however, at-will employment states that people cannot be terminated simply for belonging to a protected class. Are you saying that you support the US Government being able to fire anyone at anypoint reguardless of protected status or that you support at-will employment in its current form (which excludes gays from the umbrella since they are not considered protected)?

In my 14years of experience as a US,state, and city government worker, and working in a right-to-work state that protects gays, it is much to the US/state,city's advantage to maintain their workforce. It is more cost effective to maintain a skilled worker than to go through the process of finding and developing another person. It is simply mind boggling from a business perspective to terminate qualified productive employees.

Now, since you brought up the issue of monetary caps on litigation. Being in Nevada, as is Bowler, there is a cap on punative awards (as a result of Tailhook). So stating he advocates a system without caps is premature and presumptive. I would actually support them if they weren't so low as to be pointless in most cases.

And I tend to go a little further to the left on this issue as history has taught us that our progress as a nation is demonstrably tied to legally enforced social inclusion policies.

Xir~

Darus, that's a bidet...

Rofl!

/wipes spewed breakfast taco crumbs off of the keyboard and goes to throw her over 40, queer, handicapped self into the shower before she toddles off to her State job teaching immigrants and foreign nationals... ;)

Regards,
Nydia Ywalmoriel
Autonomous Collective

at-will employment in its current form

I've never advocated a change to at-will employment. By its definition it excludes termination for a protected class. I was simply responding to Bowler's push for a law requiring "cause" only terminations. It makes good business sense to only fire for "cause" but having 12 jurors second guess every termination decision is bad for business in general in my opinion.

That article you posted Bowler did not have a lot of substance. Does outsourcing happen? Without a doubt. Is it occurring more frequently? I haven't seen any statistics to support that it is. Is it bad for the economy? No, as I stated earlier I think it results in a net positive for our economy.

Furtivus, do you have tenure at a university or something?

I haven't seen any statistics to support that it is. Is it bad for the economy? No, as I stated earlier I think it results in a net positive for our economy.
So your guessing its bad without data but you really dont believe its bad anyway. WTF chuck.

LOL btw Rob Arnie and Dawn is a morning show and not to be taken TOTALLY seriously. Although they do kick ass.

I can only speak for my state (Alabama).
We dont discriminate.
The companies here hire/fire at will, it doesnt matter what race/sex/orientation you are.
I worked (past tense) in a CNC machine shop, the Owner walked up to me and asked me (no lie) if I liked Alabama or Auburn football. I replied "Auburn".
He told me to pack my toolbox and get out.
There is no debate here, read the application. You have no rights when it applies to keeping a job.
If you wanna go suck a mans cock and pound his ass all nite go ahead, it has no effect on your employment.

Now if you are looking for attention cause you like to suck dicks, well you got your 15 minutes. Grats.

Deecee's story goes back to my first one. "Auburn football fan" isn't a protected class of worker. While my company has INTERNAL policy against firing people (or making hiring decisions) based on any non-work-related characteristic (like what football team you prefer), lacking one of your own you're free to hire nothing but 'bama fans if that's how you want to make your hiring decisions. Just as long as all of your 'bama fans aren't amazingly under-40 same-race same-sex :)

"Auburn football fan" isn't a protected class of worker

Actually most Auburn fans could be considered disabled under the ADA. :rollin

http://www.sadeurofaces.com/images/immigrant.gif