Y2HH

I'd like to hear from an actual gay person on this thread...anyone? This is like a bunch of hetros arguing with other hetros bout something they can't possibly understand in a real sense.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 12:55 PM) Right, gay bars are just catering to a subset of people. Just like hipster bars, dance clubs, piano bars, wine bars, biker bars, etc. People choosing to congregate and socialize within a similar group doesn't make it ok for outsiders to discriminate or denigrate that group, especially within a legal framework like DADT. One is a preference of a type of thing you like, IE, type of music, type of food. The other is a genetic trait, like skin color, or being gay. Liking rock and roll vs rap is still liking one form of music or another. Gay vs straight, IMO, is not in the same class.

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 12:56 PM) you realize you can go into gay bars, right? And they realize they can go into regular bars, right? Sure, you can go into them, but should you? If this is the case, why can't I create a "White bar" for white people who want to hang out with other white people? I mean, I wouldn't be banning black people or anything...but I guarantee it wouldn't fly...not for a second.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 12:51 PM) The reason you don't see a listing for hetero bars next to gay bars is because "hetero bars" would be all other bars. I already said that, and still find the existence of gay specific bars to be exclusionary, which goes against wanting to fit in. This is just my opinion on the matter.

QUOTE (knightni @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 12:33 PM) Gay bars exist because of straight people. If there wasn't the fear of being bludgeoned to death by accidentally "hitting on" a homophobic, gays wouldn't need their own bar. Unfortunately, you don't have to be gay to be bludgeoned to death in a bar by some idiot...it's one of the main reasons I rarely go to bars...too many idiots doing too many stupid things.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 11:29 AM) That's a pretty terrible argument. Gay bars exist as a place for gays to go hang out and meet other gays, not to force people to accept them. Just like any other business catering to a specific demographic. I think it's a pretty legit argument, even if you don't. It shows purposed segregation of their own doing, IE, creating gay bars, but when society looks at them differently, they ask why. I understand they're doing it to meet other gays...but you can do that in a regular bar, too...especially if you weren't creating sub sections of your own bar culture so gays are nowhere but those places.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 12:12 PM) The salient point here is, because the laws exist, that means a victim has a chance to file civil suit and possibly succeed. That is very important to note, and you incorrectly stated they can't sue. Even if only a small number actually make it to court AND win, a lot of other cases are settled out of court, which is still a remedy for a victim. So the ability to sue at all, and make it past the first procedural hurdles (legal grounds, frivilous checks), is in itself an inherent value in the law as it stands. Well, I didn't mean they can't file a lawsuit (as anyone can, for any reason, at any time)...but they can't just "sue and win", which is what you're making it sound like. They lose these cases more than often than they win them. Only evidence I have of that is asking company lawyers from here and another business that I know -- they say out of such lawsuits filed, maybe 5% are legit cases over a decade span of time. But this is merely what I hear.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 11:45 AM) They can still be sued, sometimes successfuly, as noted earlier. You can sue anyone at anytime you want...more often than not, these result in nothing other than lawyer fees and a lost case. You need sufficient evidence regardless of what kind of lawsuit. Sure, you can sue your employer if they fire you and say they fired me for "X", but proving X is usually harder than it sounds, especially in these sorts of cases.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 11:12 AM) You are seriously delusional. Well, hold on a second...you have to examine what he said more carefully before calling him delusional. It's not only possible, but highly probable that not all homosexual people want that, [they want people to not only accept the fact that they're gay, but like it and agree with it], but it's also true that some DO act like that, and those may be the ones he's been in contact with. It may not be the norm, but I've had similar experience with some gay people in my life...but others didn't act anything like that.

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 11:07 AM) That's not true. Civil courts have ruled against businesses who claimed it was different reasons. They had adequate proof then, otherwise there is no way to show that's why. Such as an employee that found out the truth and testified on their behalf. I've seen it happen, I've seen it go to court, and I've seen the court dismiss it due to lack of evidence (more than once). Now, I wasn't privy to the actual truth, but I was DAMN sure it was the reason why (illegal reason)...but again, I didn't know that for sure so there was no way I could come forward about it.

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 11:05 AM) but they can also be sued for that. So long as they never say why, no they cannot be. It would be impossible to prove that's the reason, since the at-will law protects them in simply saying, "we were cutting back", or "we felt like it", without citing the actual illegal reason, even if it was the true reason. You would literally have to get them to say that, or be able to prove that is why...which is nearly impossible.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 10:55 AM) You are forgetting half the law here. The law for at-will employment says you can be fired for any reason OTHER THAN conditions solely related to status in a protected class. In other words, you can fire someone for dressing poorly, but you can't fire them becase they are race/religion/orientation/nationality/gender. So the only "special" protection being asked for here within the military is for the military to be subject to the SAME rules that private business is subject to. In other words, not special at all. In fact, equal. Right, you can't fire them for anything "illegal", such as sexual discrimination, race, religion, etc. However...the one thing that law DOES provide business is the power to fire you without reason. So if they found out you are gay, they can fire you so long as they don't say that's the reason...so you can tell the law was written in a way that protects people without actually having to protect them so long as the people doing the firing don't actually "say" it. It's kind of a BS law, as written...as it's easily skirted. Personally, in the business world, I don't care what you are, religion, sexual orientation, or otherwise...so long as you are sane, not murdering people, committing crimes and can get the job done better than someone else...you're hired.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 10:47 AM) When they're bigoted they are stupid. It's just his opinion that he feels the gay community wants people to accept them and their lifestyle as more than "equal", and in some cases, he's right. If he wasn't touching on some sort of truth, something called a "gay bar" wouldn't exist. You can actually do a search in Google for "Gay Bars in Chicago", and it brings up a list, complete with map locations, phone numbers, reviews, etc. Do that same exact search for Hetrosexual Bars in Chicago, and you get no such list. I know...I know...all others bars are presumed to be heterosexual bars, right? It's just an opinion, calling him a bigot for it is a bit over the top IMO.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 10:08 AM) I want Gingerbread on my Evo for the music syncing abilities alone. Marko, will this happen? You'd think with the Evo still selling like mad we'd get the upgrade. Odds are you can hack it on there already, otherwise you have to wait for Sprint to release it, if they decide to do so. Other concern is that the hardware is robust enough to handle the 2.3 requirements (and I believe the EVO is), so right now it's a matter of waiting on them to get it done -- if they get it done.

People tend to misdiagnose what caused their food poisoning because their memory is only of the last thing they ate, or the thing they think they shouldn't have have ate and choose to blame that specific thing. Fact is that it can take food poisoning up to 48 hours to set in...so it could have been ANYTHING you ate from the point you felt sick to as much as 48 hours back...and usually the thing you think it was...it wasn't. It was something else you still presume is safe that caused it. Unless diagnosed as to the exact type of food poisoning you had/have, it's otherwise impossible to guess how long it could have taken to set in. Some forms set in within 2 hours, while others take much longer, even days.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 09:00 PM) Yeah, it's sad that Republicans feel the need to sell their votes to support what should have been easily passed months ago. Because Democrats aren't for sale?

QUOTE (Heads22 @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 07:06 PM) Let's stop talking about the Bears and get to Rex Ryan's weird fetishes. I'm beginning to believe these fetishes might be YOURS, too.

QUOTE (SoxFan1 @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 06:58 PM) All I'm arguing is this: WHAT NFL quarterback CANNOT make that throw? Rex Grossman?

QUOTE (Heads22 @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 06:57 PM) http://deadspin.com/5715741/this-may-or-ma...t+fetish-videos Rex Ryan's wife may be making foot fetish videos. Enjoy. This surely deserves a

QUOTE (lostfan @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 06:54 PM) You're lumping probably 15-20 different people in as the same person. I tend to do that sometimes, especially when referring to Bears fans.

QUOTE (SoxFan1 @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 06:55 PM) Yes, because of PERCY HARVIN. And if you knew anything about the sport of football, you'd probably also attribute the score to the Bears' inability to tackle anyone on that entire first drive. And what the hell am I flip flopping about? My post had NOTHING to do with Lovie, Cutler, or the Bears at all really. I do know about football...but it's possible -- just possible -- that it was a COMBINATION of all the the things you mentioned, including the pass from Favre to Harvin. Including the bad tackling, including the out of place defenders, including the blocking, and including Harvin.

QUOTE (knightni @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 06:50 PM) Cutler's TD passes were not even close to screen passes. Cutler is the closest QB to young Favre in comparison/style of play who is playing in the NFL. I didn't say anything about that. And I agree, Cutler reminds me of a younger Favre, and it's why I like Cutler...he's exciting to watch. He's going to take risks, and I love QB's that do...I like Cutler...what I don't like is how everything others do is diminished but anything the Bears do is fantastic (if they won that week), if they lost, it's the exact opposite. Meanwhile, if anyone on a broadcast says something negative about the Bears, it's because they're stupid retards and biased, etc...I hear it every week, and the last 50 posts in this thread highlight it.

QUOTE (SoxFan1 @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 06:44 PM) What are you so confused about? The only play in which he was in the game that directly resulted in points for Minnesota had VERY little to do with Brett Favre. I'm pretty sure anyone on an NFL roster could make that pass and then watch Percy Harvin run in for the score. He had 1 interception. Another pulled back by a penalty and he fumbled on the play in which his night ended but they blew the whistle quickly. He didn't help Minnesota in the slightest. Exactly the sort of "Da Bers" s*** I'm talking about. You want your team praised, but never praise anyone else, unless they aren't playing the Bears...then MAYBE, but even then, probably not. I bet if Cutler has a bad week next week, you'll be on here crying about how crappy he is, how him, Lovie and the rest of the coaching staff need to be fired, and the Bears need to rebuild. This is the sort of flip flop crap I see from Bears fans every week depending on if they win or lose. If this was Cutler, or any other Bear, it would be, "Such beautiful blocking, beautiful misdirection on the screen, a perfect pass, and beautiful finish." When Favre does it, it's mediocre crap and anyone could have done it. So I repeat... That screen was perfect, and it resulted in a TD. That is all.

QUOTE (SoxFan1 @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 06:37 PM) No, I did not miss it. I saw him throw a screen to Percy Harvin and say "do the rest, young man."

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 04:01 PM) I'm sure that if you were to take your SS contributions to date at a 2% rate of return, and compare it to your private investments you'd still be better off with the loss. Tell that to the thousands that invested in Enron's 401k, or Worldcom's. Or Madoff. Or GM. I can keep going. Point is, in the face of those losses, those people would all GLADLY accept that safe 2% now, in hindsight.