US House Approves Protections for Gay Workers

[Schmidty]

Just saw this thread.

1. I'm glad that tax-payers are being given the same rights as others, even if it's in name only.

2. It's nice to see those pussies in congress focusing on important things like getting us the fuck out of Iraq, and doing proactive things to stimulate the economy.

I'm watching V for Vendetta right now. I hated it before, thinking of it as liberal propaganda, but I'm feeling it this time. Liberals want to take the guns out of our hands. What do I mean by this?

Even if we wanted to revolt, or rise up against this increasingly totalitarian government (a Democrat in office won't make any difference either - semantics), we'd be screwed. A) We can't arm ourselves well enough B) Even if we could, we'd be fucked because the government has access to weapons we can't even imagine.

In the past, such as the American Revolution, it was an even playing field weapons-wise. Since the mid-1900's, it hasn't even been close. The government owns us. We'd be totally annihilated if anyone rose up.

I have been having a few beverages (my mini once-a-month drinkathon), so this stuff wouldn't usually come out, but..........there it is. Probably poorly thought-out, incorrectly-based, and generally shitty, but oh well.

[Raiders Army]

So, Dr. House approved use of condoms for Gay Workers? Is that what this thread is about?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Schmity

I have been having a few beverages

You don't say!

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

Probably poorly thought-out, incorrectly-based, and generally shitty, but oh well.

I think it is important to be able to reach common ground when possible. We found it here!

[Honolulu_Blue]

Here is a positive effect of the alcohol.

Originally Posted by Schmidty

I'm watching V for Vendetta right now. I hated it before, thinking of it as liberal propaganda, but I'm feeling it this time.

Now the below statement....

Originally Posted by Schmidty

Even if we wanted to revolt, or rise up against this increasingly totalitarian government (a Democrat in office won't make any difference either - semantics).

This is...

Originally Posted by Schmidty

... poorly thought-out, incorrectly-based...

So, all in all, could be worse.

Sparty on, Schmidty. Sparty on...

[Schmidty]

Good Lord, I'm an idiot. WTF was that????

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

Good Lord, I'm an idiot. WTF was that????

That, son, was the Drunk Rider.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by molson

While true, you're not going to prove it unless the employer is quite literally retarded. You'll have some straight white guy standing by that is just as qualified, and hiring him won't cause offense to anyone.

Firing is a whole other story.

Can't agree with you in most instances. For instance, in a firing decision, poor performance (if it happened) and lack of discriminatory treatment can easily be documented to provide a successful defense. In a hiring decision, all you got is a resume and an interview to prove your defense.

Now with that said, in terms of a one or two-time decision by an employer, you are correct. But if you are talking about a systematic decision making process to weed out hiring minorities (as has been argued here as to why gays won't get hired as much), it will show up. Having one white, heterosexual male standing by is a lot different than having 10 white, heterosexual males standing by as consecutively hires (especially when it's shown that resumes have been equal or lesser with minorities in many instances).

In addition, in any company of decent size, such a weeding out process would have to be an understanding between those making the hiring decisions. You get one of those former employees/managers to spill the beans, a casual email during the process, and a poor proportional representation of minorities in the employer's workforce, and you are home free as the plaintiff.

Now, if you mean hiring 5-10 straight consecutive white, heterosexual males in light of equal resumes is "retarded" then you are right. So, if you don't do that, well then in fact you then are opening up your hiring process to minorities, which is the goal of the legislation to begin with.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by molson

If there's two equal candidates - one married, one in his 40s and single, you might as well hire the married guy. Right or wrong, people will think like that. People don't have faith in the government, or legal system. And if someone's actually known to be in a committed gay relationship, forget it. This only adds to the discrimination, it will just occur in hiring.

You're not supposed to ask that kind of question in a job interview.

[molson]

Originally Posted by clintl

You're not supposed to ask that kind of question in a job interview.

True. But I think there's always kind of game in the job interview process where the applicant tries to hide some information, and the employer tries to uncover it.

A perfect example is maternity leave - if you're a young, married woman, they're going to be concerned about you taking off for a while (and maybe not coming back). They can't ask you that, but they'll try to find out in other subtle ways.

In Idaho, being a Morman can be a obstacle to getting a job. An interviewer isn't going to be dumb enough to ask that up front, but I'm 100% aware of employers who "screen" resumes in other ways for clues. (And this also ties in with maternity leave, is it is assumed that a young Morman woman will only be in the workplace for a very, very brief time)