WA Senate passes gay rights bill

[FlaSoxxJim]

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/257316...rights27ww.html

 

A Washington state gay rights bill passed both houses and is on the way to governor for signature which has been promised and may come as early as Tuesday.

 

This is the same bill that died a year ago Microsoft decided not to support it. This year they stood by it.

 

It kills me as a hardcore mac guy, but Gates is doing all kinds of good things now. This is small compared to the huge things the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is doing around the world for childrens' education and health.

 

It's getting harder and harder to say bad things about the guy (besides the crappy computers).

Edited January 27, 2006 by FlaSoxxJim

[NorthSideSox72]

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/257316...rights27ww.html

 

A Washington state gay rights bill passed both houses and is on the way to governor for signature which has been promised and may come as early as Tuesday.

 

This is the same bill that died a year ago Microsoft decided not to support it.  This year they stood by it.

 

It kills me as a hardcore mac guy, but Gates is doing all kinds of good things now.  This is small compared to the huge things the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is doing around the world for childrens' education and health.

 

It's getting harder and harder to say bad things about the guy (besides the crappy computers).

 

Good.

 

What's up with the tool quoted in the article who said that all discrimination is wrong, and that he couldn't vote for this bill because it goes against that? How do these people sleep at night? Is he blind?

 

And this argument that protecting gays against discrimination is stomping on religious freedom is awfully scary. By making that argument, you are saying that your religion allows you to practice bigotry in lending and hiring. Uh, no, guy. This is America. Here, you can hate whomever you want and whatever you want, but you can't expect your hatred to be legally recognized, or bigoted behavior to be tolerated.

 

To me, its these "protection of marriage" amendments (thinly veiled hatemongering) that are violating the seperation of church and state. You can believe whatever you want, but don't expect everyone else to have to believe it to.

 

These Christian fanatics (yes, fanatics, kind of like there are Islamic fanatics), who want to turn this into a religious state, make me physically ill. Turns my stomach. Nice to see freedom win today.

[mr_genius]

It's getting harder and harder to say bad things about the guy (besides the crappy computers).

 

 

lol

 

microsoft doesn't make computers

 

apple does make some cute little toy computation machines

[Balta1701]

microsoft doesn't make computers

It destroys them.

[mr_genius]

It destroys them.

 

lol

[JUGGERNAUT]

On general principle discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation where it applies to jobs, housing, & other monetary factors is an undesireable thing. But when it comes to protecting against such discrimination specifics need to be taken into consideration.

 

Being close-minded means only looking at an issue from one side. That's what most of you Dem voters do. Rarely do you ever discuss any pro from the other side. I don't think most of you are capable of such open-minded analysis.

 

The specifics of discrimination have little to do with one man or woman & everything to do with demographics. If a white employer chooses a white applicant over a black applicant in an area where the population is 90% white it's ridiculous to suggest he's discriminating against blacks. But if the population were say 30% black & he employs only 3% blacks then a case can be made. That's why quotas are good when they are applied with respect to LOCAL demographics.

 

Employers aren't just employing robots. They look for people who share thier same vision, principles, & values as they do. It makes for a more productive workforce. Gays nationally represent between 2-7% of the population. Of course that varies from town to town but it doesn't come close to making an argument for quotas and such.

 

In all fairness to the employers & residents of a community such laws should ban the practice of making sexual orientation the SOLE reason for denial. An employer should not be given the right to say his application has been denied because the person is gay. But the employer has every right to state that the coming views sodomy as a significant health risk & sufficient reason for denying health benefits to such applicants. All they need is a medical expert to confirm their view & their are plenty available to do that.

 

There is nothing wrong with a company denying an applicant employment on the basis of BEHAVIOR they feel warrants a significant health or attendance risk. If they feel certain BEHAVIORs will affect productivity then they have every right to deny an applicant work on that basis. All that should be required legally is for the employer to present a medical expert in good standing with the state as evidence in support of their claim.

Edited January 28, 2006 by JUGGERNAUT

[whitesoxfan101]

On general principle discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation where it applies to jobs, housing, & other monetary factors is an undesireable thing.  But when it comes to protecting against such discrimination specifics need to be taken into consideration.

 

Being close-minded means only looking at an issue from one side.  That's what most of you Dem voters do.  Rarely do you ever discuss any pro from the other side.  I don't think most of you are capable of such open-minded analysis.

 

The specifics of discrimination have little to do with one man or woman & everything to do with demographics.  If a white employer chooses a white applicant over a black applicant in an area where the population is 90% white it's ridiculous to suggest he's discriminating against blacks.  But if the population were say 30% black & he employs only 3% blacks then a case can be made.  That's why quotas are good when they are applied with respect to LOCAL demographics.

 

Employers aren't just employing robots.  They look for people who share thier same vision, principles, & values as they do.  It makes for a more productive workforce.  Gays nationally represent between 2-7% of the population.  Of course that varies from town to town but it doesn't come close to making an argument for quotas and such.

 

In all fairness to the employers & residents of a community such laws should ban the practice of making sexual orientation the SOLE reason for denial.  An employer should not be given the right to say his application has been denied because the person is gay.  But the employer has every right to state that the coming views sodomy as a significant health risk & sufficient reason for denying health benefits to such applicants.  All they need is a medical expert to confirm their view & their are plenty available to do that.

 

There is nothing wrong with a company denying an applicant employment on the basis of BEHAVIOR they feel warrants a significant health or attendance risk.  If they feel certain BEHAVIORs will affect productivity then they have every right to deny an applicant work on that basis.  All that should be required legally is for the employer to present a medical expert in good standing with the state as evidence in support of their claim.

 

Although I find your parental actions to be a bit curious, I must say this is very well said and I agree.

[CanOfCorn]

On general principle discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation where it applies to jobs, housing, & other monetary factors is an undesireable thing.  But when it comes to protecting against such discrimination specifics need to be taken into consideration.

 

Being close-minded means only looking at an issue from one side.  That's what most of you Dem voters do.  Rarely do you ever discuss any pro from the other side.  I don't think most of you are capable of such open-minded analysis.

 

The specifics of discrimination have little to do with one man or woman & everything to do with demographics.  If a white employer chooses a white applicant over a black applicant in an area where the population is 90% white it's ridiculous to suggest he's discriminating against blacks.  But if the population were say 30% black & he employs only 3% blacks then a case can be made.  That's why quotas are good when they are applied with respect to LOCAL demographics.

 

Employers aren't just employing robots.  They look for people who share thier same vision, principles, & values as they do.  It makes for a more productive workforce.  Gays nationally represent between 2-7% of the population.  Of course that varies from town to town but it doesn't come close to making an argument for quotas and such.

 

In all fairness to the employers & residents of a community such laws should ban the practice of making sexual orientation the SOLE reason for denial.  An employer should not be given the right to say his application has been denied because the person is gay.  But the employer has every right to state that the coming views sodomy as a significant health risk & sufficient reason for denying health benefits to such applicants.  All they need is a medical expert to confirm their view & their are plenty available to do that.

 

There is nothing wrong with a company denying an applicant employment on the basis of BEHAVIOR they feel warrants a significant health or attendance risk.  If they feel certain BEHAVIORs will affect productivity then they have every right to deny an applicant work on that basis.  All that should be required legally is for the employer to present a medical expert in good standing with the state as evidence in support of their claim.

 

Is that 2%-7% include people that haven't come out yet, or don't know yet or are afraid to come out for the reasons you stated? If you don't hire someone based on their BEHAVIOR outside of the office, that is discrimination. If someone walks in and states he/she wants to overhaul the entire company because it sucks, that's a basis.

 

I can go find a doctor to tell me anything I want, or twist it to mean anything I want. Shoot, I take my life into my own hands everyday just driving to work. Should we all have to take DNA tests and provide family health histories for every job now? If there is a history of cancer in a family or diabetes or anything that might require time off or a lot of medications and doctor visits, should I not be hired? I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous.

 

Do I think you can do the job? Can you work well with others? Does your personality fit? Are you gay never comes up and shouldn't ever come up. It's none of my employers business, just like if someone enjoyed skydiving, stamp collecting or racing motorcycles.