Gay Rights in West Virginia (Hinton, War: houses, restaurant, lawsuit)

[Sundance]

Originally Posted by wdc65c02

First thing we hear when moving into a new neighborhood is one of our neighbors telling us how upset he is because his two nieces are gay. A girl my wife knows, her girlfriend got fired because she was gay. I would not call that acceptance.

Guess what - no one HAS TO accept gays. They don't have to accept gays, they don't have to accept Muslims, they don't have to accept CHRISTIANS, and gays don't have to accept heterosexuals - this is America, get over it.

Live your own life and quit worrying about how someone feels about it.

[Francois]

Originally Posted by Greatday

While understanding your feelings, the FACT is, there are laws, Federal and/or State laws that prohibit someone from being discriminated against on a number of various factors - including race, religion, sexual preference, sex, age etc.

If you want to run a business, you will have to comply with these laws.

WRONG. There are NO Federal laws protection sexual orientation. Some states and municipalities have them, but at the Federal level, there are none--this is the crux of most gay-rights activism (or it was, until the marriage issue eclipsed it).

[GottaHerdOn]

Originally Posted by Francois

WRONG. There are NO Federal laws protection sexual orientation. Some states and municipalities have them, but at the Federal level, there are none--this is the crux of most gay-rights activism (or it was, until the marriage issue eclipsed it).

This is true

The only city in WV that offers protections in employment and housing is Charleston.

[Hinton Bound]

Originally Posted by GottaHerdOn

This is true

The only city in WV that offers protections in employment and housing is Charleston.

So if you work in Charleston, and your employer gets complaints, or loses work from customers that don't want gays in their house/business, he can't fire you? The employer should eat your salary, and have you do something other that what you were hired for? What about the employers protection? Certainly you don't think he should be forced to lose business because the people who pay him (and you in turn) don't want to be around a gay person? What about his rights, and the other employees who may also suffer?
The government, federal and state/local, have demonstrated their absolute incompetence is running the country - we should let them run (ruin) private industry as well?

How about you enjoy the same privilege to work as the rest of us- if you aren't making the company money, or cause a disruption, you get terminated? The owner of the business should have sole discretion over who he employs, and if he feels the need to terminate a person for the good of the company - he should be able to do that.

Same argument can apply to housing; if a guy loses tenants because they don't want to live with a gay neighbor, why must he be forced to take that loss to accommodate you? Should he be forced to have empty units because he can't ask you to leave?

[xGrendelx]

Originally Posted by Hinton Bound

So if you work in Charleston, and your employer gets complaints, or loses work from customers that don't want gays in their house/business, he can't fire you? The employer should eat your salary, and have you do something other that what you were hired for? What about the employers protection? Certainly you don't think he should be forced to lose business because the people who pay him (and you in turn) don't want to be around a gay person? What about his rights, and the other employees who may also suffer?

The other employees, if they truly don't want to be even near a homosexual, should find other jobs (and seek therapy, imo), but if the owner of that company engages in interstate commerce, he legally cannot fire a person for being gay - the fact this hypothetical business owner is losing money because he/she hired a hypothetical gay person is irrelevant. That's wrongful firing and encroaches on that person's civil rights. It's not that business owners right to make money. That's why some businesses make money and others don't. There's no law that says a business has to make money, but there are laws that say one cannot be fired for the sole reason of being homosexual, or a minority, or a female. The word of the day: Civil Rights.

Originally Posted by Hinton Bound

How about you enjoy the same privilege to work as the rest of us...

How can this happen if the threat of being fired as a result of sexual orientation looms overhead?

Originally Posted by Hinton Bound

...if you aren't making the company money, or cause a disruption, you get terminated?

Because one can't get fired if that company doesn't make money because people don't want to be a part of that business, no matter the alleged reason. Sure, if the employee makes too many mistakes, does the job incorrectly, steals, takes too many sick days, etc then yes, that business owner has every right to fire that person, but being gay does not mean you are a bad employee.

Originally Posted by Hinton Bound

The owner of the business should have sole discretion over who he employs, and if he feels the need to terminate a person for the good of the company - he should be able to do that.

And that owner does! If he feels that person isn't fit for the job, he doesn't have to hire that person, but like I said before, being gay doesn't make you a bad employee. Just like how being white, black, Christian, Jewish, fat, skinny, bald, Asian, female, and so on doesn't hinder your ability to be a good employee.

Originally Posted by Hinton Bound

Same argument can apply to housing; if a guy loses tenants because they don't want to live with a gay neighbor, why must he be forced to take that loss to accommodate you? Should he be forced to have empty units because he can't ask you to leave?

I don't know of many home owners that would allow the breaking of a lease for as childish of a reason as "My neighbor's gay and I don't like that." It's not the gay person's fault their neighbors don't like gay people so much they feel they have to move away. But all in all, the reason he can't ask that person to leave is because being gay doesn't make you a bad tenant. If that person pays their rent on time and abides by the rules set by the home owner, there is no legal way that owner can throw them out. Could I be forced to throw you out because you're religous and I'm not? No. What if an atheist lived next door to you and moved because he can't stand to be around you? It would suck to lose a tenant, but the last thing I would do is kick out another one (you) right away and lose even more money. And, since I'm such a good property manager and home owner, I'd bet that my apartment building or complex wouldn't become deserted because of one theist living in a unit. You really believe that one person can cause the desertion of an entire apartment building because of what they believe in or practice in the private of their own home? C'mon.

[GottaHerdOn]

Originally Posted by xGrendelx

The other employees, if they truly don't want to be even near a homosexual, should find other jobs (and seek therapy, imo), but if the owner of that company engages in interstate commerce, he legally cannot fire a person for being gay - the fact this hypothetical business owner is losing money because he/she hired a hypothetical gay person is irrelevant. That's wrongful firing and encroaches on that person's civil rights. It's not that business owners right to make money. That's why some businesses make money and others don't. There's no law that says a business has to make money, but there are laws that say one cannot be fired for the sole reason of being homosexual, or a minority, or a female. The word of the day: Civil Rights.



How can this happen if the threat of being fired as a result of sexual orientation looms overhead?



Because one can't get fired if that company doesn't make money because people don't want to be a part of that business, no matter the alleged reason. Sure, if the employee makes too many mistakes, does the job incorrectly, steals, takes too many sick days, etc then yes, that business owner has every right to fire that person, but being gay does not mean you are a bad employee.



And that owner does! If he feels that person isn't fit for the job, he doesn't have to hire that person, but like I said before, being gay doesn't make you a bad employee. Just like how being white, black, Christian, Jewish, fat, skinny, bald, Asian, female, and so on doesn't hinder your ability to be a good employee.



I don't know of many home owners that would allow the breaking of a lease for as childish of a reason as "My neighbor's gay and I don't like that." It's not the gay person's fault their neighbors don't like gay people so much they feel they have to move away. But all in all, the reason he can't ask that person to leave is because being gay doesn't make you a bad tenant. If that person pays their rent on time and abides by the rules set by the home owner, there is no legal way that owner can throw them out. Could I be forced to throw you out because you're religous and I'm not? No. What if an atheist lived next door to you and moved because he can't stand to be around you? It would suck to lose a tenant, but the last thing I would do is kick out another one (you) right away and lose even more money. And, since I'm such a good property manager and home owner, I'd bet that my apartment building or complex wouldn't become deserted because of one theist living in a unit. You really believe that one person can cause the desertion of an entire apartment building because of what they believe in or practice in the private of their own home? C'mon.

Sorry, I tried giving you rep. points again but it said I have to spread it around some more. But REP to you!

Great post

[xGrendelx]

Originally Posted by GottaHerdOn

Sorry, I tried giving you rep. points again but it said I have to spread it around some more. But REP to you!

Great post

Haha, well thanks anyway!

[Hinton Bound]

Originally Posted by xGrendelx

The other employees, if they truly don't want to be even near a homosexual, should find other jobs (and seek therapy, imo),

So the many should be expected to change to accomodate the few? How's that going to work out for the employer? He has to lose several employees because he should be required by law to keep a "protected" one? Makes no sense. It was mentioned somewhere else in the thread; laws like this actually HURT employability of gays. If I suspected there may be a backlash from straight employees, I wouldn't hire a gay. Not based on personal feelings, just on sound business practice.

Originally Posted by xGrendelx

but if the owner of that company engages in interstate commerce, he legally cannot fire a person for being gay - the fact this hypothetical business owner is losing money because he/she hired a hypothetical gay person is irrelevant. That's wrongful firing and encroaches on that person's civil rights. It's not that business owners right to make money. That's why some businesses make money and others don't. There's no law that says a business has to make money, but there are laws that say one cannot be fired for the sole reason of being homosexual, or a minority, or a female. The word of the day: Civil Rights.

Wow. Even if it costs him his business, he MUST keep the gay guy on the payroll?? That is the most ridiculous statement I've ever heard. Think about it. You're telling a guy that is trying to run a business that if he hires a gay guy, and it doesn't work out, he has to let his business crash because he isn't allowed to decide what is best for his company?? Again, with your statement in mind - why would anyone want to hire a gay? You're correct; a business owner doesn't have a RIGHT to make money. And no one has a RIGHT to be employed. NO ONE!

Originally Posted by xGrendelx

Sure, if the employee makes too many mistakes, does the job incorrectly, steals, takes too many sick days, etc then yes, that business owner has every right to fire that person, but being gay does not mean you are a bad employee.

I'm not saying that being gay makes you a bad employee. My point is that if a business is losing money because of an employee, he should be able to terminate said employee. It is a private business. Since when should the government dicatate who a business must employ? Are you of the mindset that the government should control all business decisions? They have done such a superb job with our national economy, I can see how you might want them to regulate your business as well.

Originally Posted by xGrendelx

If he feels that person isn't fit for the job, he doesn't have to hire that person, but like I said before, being gay doesn't make you a bad employee. Just like how being white, black, Christian, Jewish, fat, skinny, bald, Asian, female, and so on doesn't hinder your ability to be a good employee.

So if he doesn't hire a person that isn't fit for the job because they're any one of the groups mentioned above, is that illegal? Why doesn't Hooters restaurant employ obese waitresses? Why doesn't Ebony magazine hire white editors? Why isn't the NAACP hiring whites to run it? Because they aren't what their target audience is interested in, and those people are the ones paying the bills. Special protection laws only hurt the group they try to protect.

Originally Posted by xGrendelx

I don't know of many home owners that would allow the breaking of a lease for as childish of a reason as "My neighbor's gay and I don't like that." It's not the gay person's fault their neighbors don't like gay people so much they feel they have to move away. But all in all, the reason he can't ask that person to leave is because being gay doesn't make you a bad tenant. If that person pays their rent on time and abides by the rules set by the home owner, there is no legal way that owner can throw them out. Could I be forced to throw you out because you're religous and I'm not? No. What if an atheist lived next door to you and moved because he can't stand to be around you? It would suck to lose a tenant, but the last thing I would do is kick out another one (you) right away and lose even more money. And, since I'm such a good property manager and home owner, I'd bet that my apartment building or complex wouldn't become deserted because of one theist living in a unit. You really believe that one person can cause the desertion of an entire apartment building because of what they believe in or practice in the private of their own home? C'mon.

My point is exagerated to make it clear. As with the employee discussion, I'm not saying gays are bad tenants. The point I'm making is that you, as the proprty owner, should have the right to do what is in your best interest. Not the best interest of the government, or a minority. The gay guy may be a great tenant, but is one good tenant worth two vacancies? Not if you want to be in business long.

Business decisions should be just that- based on what is best for the bottom line, and in turn what is best for the employer and his employees as a whole. Forcing a business to endure a losing situation to accomodate a specialty group is absurd. The only person that should decide what course a business takes is the owner. There should be no govermental interference in his hiring and firing.

I am an Atheist. You would only know if I told you. I accept any holiday greeting, and return it, say "thank you" when I sneeze and someone say "bless you", readily take religious holidays off, attend baptisms, confirmations... you get the idea. I do not demand people change to accomodate me. I won't apply to a religious institue, then sue them for discriminating against an Atheist. I do not FORCE my beliefs on anyone, and I certaily DO NOT want the government to do it on my behalf. I am the minority in the group. I recognize it, and accept it.

[xGrendelx]

Originally Posted by Hinton Bound

So the many should be expected to change to accomodate the few? How's that going to work out for the employer? He has to lose several employees because he should be required by law to keep a "protected" one? Makes no sense. It was mentioned somewhere else in the thread; laws like this actually HURT employability of gays. If I suspected there may be a backlash from straight employees, I wouldn't hire a gay. Not based on personal feelings, just on sound business practice.

If the gay person was never hired in the first place, then this whole discussion has no point. You're saying that an employer can fire a person already hired because that person is gay, and that is illegal. I'm sorry that owner's business has such severe prejudice around it that NO one will patronize it because of one gay employee, but legally that owner cannot fire a person for the sole reason of being gay.

Originally Posted by Hinton Bound

Wow. Even if it costs him his business, he MUST keep the gay guy on the payroll?? That is the most ridiculous statement I've ever heard. Think about it. You're telling a guy that is trying to run a business that if he hires a gay guy, and it doesn't work out, he has to let his business crash because he isn't allowed to decide what is best for his company?

If you think it's ridiculous, take it up with the Supreme Court, where this interstate commerce case was decided. If he hires a gay guy, and it doesn't work out because that guy is a bad employee, sure he can fire him. But like I said before, being gay does not fall under the "bad employee" category.

Originally Posted by Hinton Bound

Again, with your statement in mind - why would anyone want to hire a gay?

Because this whole discussion is based on your hypothetical situation, and not everyone hates gay people.

Originally Posted by Hinton Bound

You're correct; a business owner doesn't have a RIGHT to make money. And no one has a RIGHT to be employed. NO ONE!

That's right! But you're arguing about someone who's already been hired! This hypothetical gay man is already hired in your discussion, and because of that, it's wrongful firing if he's fired because he's gay and nothing else.

Originally Posted by Hinton Bound

I'm not saying that being gay makes you a bad employee.

So what you are saying is that it's smart to fire a perfectly good employee?

Originally Posted by Hinton Bound

My point is that if a business is losing money because of an employee, he should be able to terminate said employee.

Yes, he should be able to. But that's because most businesses that lose money because of ONE employee (which I've never heard of happening) have probably hired the absolute worst employee in the universe. I'm guessing that person is probably terrible at his/her job and deserves to be fired. But gay people don't deserve to be fired for being gay. Just like you don't deserve to be fired for being straight.

Originally Posted by Hinton Bound

It is a private business. Since when should the government dicatate who a business must employ? Are you of the mindset that the government should control all business decisions? They have done such a superb job with our national economy, I can see how you might want them to regulate your business as well.

This is called a "Red Herring" and it's a fallacious argument that I won't address. Fallacy: Red Herring

Originally Posted by Hinton Bound

So if he doesn't hire a person that isn't fit for the job because they're any one of the groups mentioned above, is that illegal?

Only if that owner says to the person, "I'm not hiring you because you're black, ugly, short, Asian, blonde, gay, Christian, etc..." I'm sorry you disagree, but it's the law. Write a letter to Obama or something. There's not a whole lot you can do. If the person doesn't get the job for other reasons then they just weren't right for the job. No one's rights were violated.

Originally Posted by Hinton Bound

Why doesn't Hooters restaurant employ obese waitresses? Why doesn't Ebony magazine hire white editors? Why isn't the NAACP hiring whites to run it? Because they aren't what their target audience is interested in, and those people are the ones paying the bills. Special protection laws only hurt the group they try to protect.

These corporations are required by law to have non-discriminatory policies. If what you say is true, the people who weren't hired were discriminated against and have a right to take action IF they weren't hired for the color of their skin or the size of their jeans.

Originally Posted by Hinton Bound

My point is exagerated to make it clear.

It doesn't make you sound clear, unfortunately. It makes you sound like you want the power to fire people, or kick them out, if they're different from you, which is not a good thing.

Originally Posted by Hinton Bound

As with the employee discussion, I'm not saying gays are bad tenants. The point I'm making is that you, as the proprty owner, should have the right to do what is in your best interest. Not the best interest of the government, or a minority.

Well, unfortunately for YOU, the goverment has already decided otherwise.

Originally Posted by Hinton Bound

The gay guy may be a great tenant, but is one good tenant worth two vacancies? Not if you want to be in business long.

Seriously, man. Where do you live where one person can be the cause of all this wreckage? This is all purely hypothetical! I'm starting to think you would actually move if you knew a homosexual lived next door. I hope that's not true.

Originally Posted by Hinton Bound

Business decisions should be just that- based on what is best for the bottom line, and in turn what is best for the employer and his employees as a whole. Forcing a business to endure a losing situation...

Which you came up with in your own head.

Originally Posted by Hinton Bound

...to accomodate a specialty group is absurd. The only person that should decide what course a business takes is the owner. There should be no govermental interference in his hiring and firing.

I am an Atheist. You would only know if I told you. I accept any holiday greeting, and return it, say "thank you" when I sneeze and someone say "bless you", readily take religious holidays off, attend baptisms, confirmations... you get the idea. I do not demand people change to accomodate me.

That's wonderful! But what if you were hired, your boss found out you were an antheist, and fired you because he didn't like that? You wouldn't feel violated?? You'd say, "Hey, he made the best decision for his business, and because of that, I feel fine being unemployed. I wonder if my landlord will kick me out for being atheist. Oh well, the price of being 'different'." Give me a break.

Originally Posted by Hinton Bound

I won't apply to a religious institue, then sue them for discriminating against an Atheist.

Maybe this is why we don't see obese Hooters girls, or a white president of the NAACP. They probably have the same thought you do!

Originally Posted by Hinton Bound

I do not FORCE my beliefs on anyone, and I certaily DO NOT want the government to do it on my behalf. I am the minority in the group. I recognize it, and accept it.

So because you're different than most, you don't have the same rights? You somehow are less valuable? Your boss can fire you and your landlord can kick you out because they believe in god and you don't, and you're okay with that? I'd like to hear you say "I accept it" when the goverment decides atheists can't get jobs, get married, vote, and so on. If the atheists had to have their own civil rights movement, if your rights were TRULY violated, I have a feeling you'd be singing a different tune. BTW, I'd be harmonizing with you.

[Hinton Bound]

Getting too hard to multi-quote!
If I were hired, and being Atheist caused a loss of business or internal conflight, I would NOT be offended. It is his business, not mine. He makes the calls as the boss.
The government has no business making decisions for private business in the first place.
If I owned a business I WOULD want the right hire and fire whomever I wanted, for whatever reason. Should I arbitrarily do this, I will lose the talent, and go belly-up.
You will not see me in any civil rights movement. I refuse to make myself into a professional victim.

You condone the two biggest issues that are killing (has killed) this country: Overbearing governmental meddling in private affairs and sue happy for being denied employment because your color/sexual desire. Everyone wants to be "special", garnering quotas and jobs not based on skill, but based on what "protected" group you belong to. The politically correct suicide contines to gather speed.