Fired for Being Gay!

[CunningLinguist]

Recently the office of Special Council removed the job protections for GLBT Federal Workers.

They said that since alternative lifstyles are not protected by law, then Federal empoyers have every right to fire someone just for being gay.

News Article (http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/03/031704fedWorkers.htm )

[Sugarsprinkles]

Looks like that may be a huge block of voters GW can kiss goodbye.

[Lilith]

Well that has been the long standing policy of some chains such as Cracker Barrel. I will starve to death on a trip before I will give them one dime.

[SuccubusKitty]

Damn....cracker barrel feels that way? Man now one of my favorite places to eat on trips has been added to my don't go list...sigh

Of course I get this news just after I accept a government job...go figure

[BlueSwede]

Bad news twice--Bush appointed that idiot for 5 years and Cracker Barrels discriminate. I'll be avoiding them in the future.

[jseal]

Gentlefolk,

Is anyone here suggesting that the Republicans were expecting the homosexual community block vote?

[axe31]

what about sueing them for gender discirnination i will explane
they fire a man for being gay so in fact they fired him for being atracted to men so wy
hy are the not fireing al there (hetro)women for the same thing
if they say because they are women then this is discrianatin against men and is against the law;)

[Belial]

Originally posted by axe31
what about sueing them for gender discirnination i will explane
they fire a man for being gay so in fact they fired him for being atracted to men so wy
hy are the not fireing al there (hetro)women for the same thing
if they say because they are women then this is discrianatin against men and is against the law;)
Good point.

[jseal]

CunningLinguist,

The law, 5 USC 2302(b)(10), prohibits discrimination against federal employees or job applicants on the basis of off-duty conduct that does not affect job performance. There is no explicit reference to sexual orientation in the statute.

http://www.mspb.gov/mspb_laws.html#5%20U.S.C.%20§%202302

Elaine Kaplan interpreted the law to include sexual orientation. She served a five year term as the Special Counsel, U.S. Office of Special Counsel, nominated by President Clinton.

Scott J. Bloch was nominated to serve as Special Counsel by President Bush on June 26, 2003, and was confirmed by the Senate. He has taken a strict reading of the statute.

What is the problem here? It happens to be the case that there is no reference to sexual orientation in the legislation. Both counsels were nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. One of them interpreted the legislation to include sexual orientation, and one did not. Take a look at the legislation. Take the time to actually read what it says. Not what it should say, but what it does say.

Think about this for a moment: do you want your rulers to implement what the laws of the land say, or do you want them to implement only those bits that they feel like doing? Do you want them to interpret the laws as they are written or as they feel like?

[Sugarsprinkles]

Originally posted by jseal
Gentlefolk,

Is anyone here suggesting that the Republicans were expecting the homosexual community block vote?



Well, probably not, but any of those who may have planned to vote for him certainly won't now. Not to mention parents and friends of gays/lesbians and other supporters of gay rights in general.

[eliza261]

sorry but u guys should all move to Canada.. u can get married here in some places if you are gay/ lesbian.. and its not as huge an issue.. teehee
sorry i love bugging americans.
img onna get my big canadian ass kicked when i moved down there to steal rich peoples money soon!!

[jseal]

eliza261,

Interesting.

So in some places in Canada marriages can take place between same sex partners and in some places they cannot?

[Wicked Wanda]

NOW do you understand why I keep a low profile at work? And why I rant here time after time about Women's issues and discrimination against us??
Lesbianism is NOT acceptable to the Church. They certainly don't want their clinic mangers leading such a lifestyle.
The Sisters would let me go sooo quickly if they ever found out!!!
I am glad Father *****, who hears my occaional (rare) confession, doesn't know I am employed by the Sisters.
He would never violate the Sanctity of the Confession, but these things do "happen"

In Secret,

WW

[Lilith]

((WW))~ I have hope cause I know we are evolving! On a less serious note: I would kill to be a moth on the wall of that confessional:D:D:p

[Wicked Wanda]

I had to avoid one elderly Father in particular when he was hearing Confession.
When I started confessing my more.... intense sins, he would take his hearing aid out and start tapping it on the shelf, louder and louder, until I finished. Everyone nearby could hear it, and I was always blushing bright red when I left the confessional.
Frances, (my partner at the time) thought it was hysterically funny.


Awash in the Blood of the Lamb

Wanda

[jseal]

Wicked Wanda,

In the situation you describe, it may be best to remain discreet. The world outside this one can be unforgiving of what it doesn’t understand.

I know I sound like a broken record (thereby dating myself) but your best hope lies in the ballot box. The passengers in one or two 747s would have changed the outcome of the last election.

The same people could change the next one.

[nikanik]

Originally posted by jseal
CunningLinguist,

The law, 5 USC 2302(b)(10), prohibits discrimination against federal employees or job applicants on the basis of off-duty conduct that does not affect job performance. There is no explicit reference to sexual orientation in the statute.

http://www.mspb.gov/mspb_laws.html#5%20U.S.C.%20§%202302


What is the problem here? It happens to be the case that there is no reference to sexual orientation in the legislation. Both counsels were nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. One of them interpreted the legislation to include sexual orientation, and one did not. Take a look at the legislation. Take the time to actually read what it says. Not what it should say, but what it does say.

Think about this for a moment: do you want your rulers to implement what the laws of the land say, or do you want them to implement only those bits that they feel like doing? Do you want them to interpret the laws as they are written or as they feel like?



If you take it as written it does not give people the right to fire you if you are gay as long as it doesn't affect your job performance, i.e. your lover coming on your job and acting up, which can go hetero or homo, you shouldnt be fired for your lifestyle. So dont take your at home shit to work or your work shit home.

[jseal]

nikanik,

Keep you private life private? Madam, I like how you think!

[Bardog]

I just wish I could fire half of the people here in my office for being stupid. That should be more offensive than gay IMO.

[jseal]

Bardog,

You're right. Being stupid IS more offensive.

[Lilith]

Originally posted by Bardog
I just wish I could fire half of the people here in my office for being stupid. That should be more offensive than gay IMO.

Bardog,
Sharni will make you signs for them!

[nikanik]

What about firing people who take credit for other people's work. I hate that y not just admit that you are a lazy ass that dont do squat . sorry bad day!

[jseal]

nikanik,

Well, they can't all be bad. Perhaps tomorrow will be a good one.