Debate: The future of our country !!!

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
There are a number of Republicans that would cross party lines and vote against such an amendment, so what is your point exactly? Is there a list somewhere that details exactly which issues Democrats are permitted to vote against and still be considered Democrats?

No, there's no list. However, there are quite a few "planks" in the democratic "platform" that go without saying, and equal rights for all people is one of them, just as gun ownership (more so even than abortion, but then the NRA is better funded) is for Republicans

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
It's illegal? Where? Except in MA, that is.

Can a federal contractor refuse to hire someone they know is gay, using that fact as the sole basis for not hiring them ?

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
Excuse me, but aren't you the one that makes frequent references to others getting nasty and calling names? I've not seen any of that on this thread, until your post. Why even go there?

Normally, I wouldn't have...My apologies.

 

[faithinkarma]

Again, only if you can prove that they CHOOSE to be homosexual, rather than heterosexual.

I have always wondered about this. I personally do not recall ever choosing to be heterosexual. There was never a moment when I had to decide. I suspect, like me, most of you did not decide either. So what makes one person face the decision and not another? And what makes those who face this decision opt for homosexuality? ( I am assuming they all do because I have never heard of anyone saying they were faced with this choice and chose to be hetero )

 

[wdwdvcdad]

Originally posted by wvrevy

Normally, I wouldn't have...

 

[AirForceRocks]

Can a federal contractor refuse to hire someone they know is gay, using that fact as the sole basis for not hiring them ?

It would depend on whether or not the state in which the contractor is based has laws that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. As far as I know, there is no federal law against such discrimination.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by wdwdvcdad

Wow...That's about the normal input to the conversation from you...Well done

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
It would depend on whether or not the state in which the contractor is based has laws that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. As far as I know, there is no federal law against such discrimination.

From the federal EEO's website:

Other federal laws, not enforced by EEOC, also prohibit discrimination and reprisal against federal employees and applicants. The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA) contains a number of prohibitions, known as prohibited personnel practices, which are designed to promote overall fairness in federal personnel actions. 5 U.S.C. 2302. The CSRA prohibits any employee who has authority to take certain personnel actions from discriminating for or against employees or applicants for employment on the bases of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age or disability. It also provides that certain personnel actions can not be based on attributes or conduct that do not adversely affect employee performance, such as marital status and political affiliation. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has interpreted the prohibition of discrimination based on conduct to include discrimination based on sexual orientation. The CSRA also prohibits reprisal against federal employees or applicants for whistle-blowing, or for exercising an appeal, complaint, or grievance right. The CSRA is enforced by both the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) and the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB).

 

[AirForceRocks]

From the federal EEO's website:

The information you quoted pertains to federal employees, not private companies competing for federal contracts, which is what you asked about initially. And as this is an interpretation and not a law, it can realistically be changed on a whim.

 

[InDueTime]

InDueTime

 

[wdwdvcdad]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Actually, I have no problem with Dems or Republicans crossing party lines on most issues...But would you vote for a republican that crossed on a vote for, say, a constitutional amendment banning abortion ? Or how about an amendment revoking the second and getting ridd of Billy-Jo-Bob's right to own an AK47 ?

As for the "Honorable" Senator Byrd...You should certainly feel proud to be on his side of this civil rights issue...Considering his history with the KKK, that's certainly an admirable place to be

As for the "rights" issue...Marrying grants you certain rights under the law. Withholding those rights to certain unions that you don't approve of is a violation of the equal protection clause. I believe that these people do not CHOOSE to be gay, but are born with that inclination, therefore discriminating against them on that basis is repugnant and, fortunately, illegal. (And don't give me that crap about them choosing to follow this "lifestyle, unless you can definitively proove it. We're talking about denying someone equal protection under the law, so you better make damn sure that you've got evidence to back it up.)

As for the oh-so-cute reference to my not answering...I had work to do, is that ok with you ? The day I run from a fight with repugnicans is the day they scatter my ashes over the seven seas lagoon.

Please point out all these "hate-filled" posts of mine.

 

[wdwdvcdad]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Actually, I have no problem with Dems or Republicans crossing party lines on most issues...But would you vote for a republican that crossed on a vote for, say, a constitutional amendment banning abortion ? Or how about an amendment revoking the second and getting ridd of Billy-Jo-Bob's right to own an AK47 ?

As for the "Honorable" Senator Byrd...You should certainly feel proud to be on his side of this civil rights issue...Considering his history with the KKK, that's certainly an admirable place to be

As for the "rights" issue...Marrying grants you certain rights under the law. Withholding those rights to certain unions that you don't approve of is a violation of the equal protection clause. I believe that these people do not CHOOSE to be gay, but are born with that inclination, therefore discriminating against them on that basis is repugnant and, fortunately, illegal. (And don't give me that crap about them choosing to follow this "lifestyle, unless you can definitively proove it. We're talking about denying someone equal protection under the law, so you better make damn sure that you've got evidence to back it up.)

As for the oh-so-cute reference to my not answering...I had work to do, is that ok with you ? The day I run from a fight with repugnicans is the day they scatter my ashes over the seven seas lagoon.

Please point out all these "hate-filled" posts of mine.

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by montessori


A Constitutional Amendment that TAKES AWAY RIGHTS??!!!

It's insane. I can't even stand to think about it.

Yep. I feel the same way about people trying to whittle away at the 2nd amendment.

 

[minniepumpernickel]

Originally posted by InDueTime
InDueTime

Chapter two:

The martian/earthling humanoids grow up and want to come live on Earth and share the same rights that we inhabitants have. Do you think the majority of the population approves? Fat chance! We do not even treat all Earthlings as equals yet! Better off staying on Mars!.........

In Due Time............