Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-14-2015, 07:14 AM
 
Location: New Orleans, LA
1,291 posts, read 1,523,460 times
Reputation: 747

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by GHOSTRIDER AZ View Post
All employee and applicants is will covered under the current laws, but the real difference is to not make the LGBT a protected class ( you don't even have to be gay to have the same rights). We as a country is way too Politically Correct and a man and a woman should be judged on their work and their qualifications . What you do or anyone off line is the individuals business.

Too many employers tip toe around Gay employees because those same gay employees use that as a tool of advancement and control. Many LGBT use their new found choice as a weapon of manipulation I have seen this too many times in the Hospitality business.
I promise you that plenty of gay people get fired all the time for performance issues. Nobody here gives a crap if someone is gay, and gay people know that. Maybe if Kansas would create a non hostile environment they wouldn't feel the need to "tip toe" around, because gay people wouldn't have any reason to believe they were fired for their sexual orientation.

Apply that same argument to anywhere that people have integrated well into society, it all applies.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-14-2015, 09:52 AM
 
Location: Boise
2,008 posts, read 3,327,034 times
Reputation: 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by SourD View Post
Stop the propaganda. You can't be fired for being gay. They are covered under the EEOC. Cases have already gone in front of them and the Fed courts. They are covered under the CRA.
If this is something that is federally covered it leaves a question. Why would Kansas go through the motions to bypass it? Either Kansas is wasting their time in the most ignorant way possible or they have the actual power to let people be fired for being gay. Either way they are being ignorant D-bags.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:12 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top