Don't Ask Don't Tell.

[bmags]

I may or may not be able to come to that depending on whether i can shirk some responsibilities.

[Jenksismyhero]

Maybe you feel that heterosexual soldiers need to have their rights protected by law as well. I would support such a law, but something tells me that you and I both know that its unnecessary. But I know that today, 29 states say that an employer can legally terminate or deny you employment based on what they suspect your sexual orientation to be. Close to 40 states offer no protection for transgender individuals. You can be legally denied housing based on the same thing in these states. Maybe you can point out where this is a problem for heterosexuals? If it is, I would be happy to support your fight to bring equal rights to all people, heterosexuals included.

 

This is probably going to receive a good amount of backlash, but oh well, it's how I feel.

 

In 50 states an employer can legally terminate or deny your employment based on the fact you're unattractive, have small boobs, are fat, have red hair, have moles on your face, wear glasses, grow up being a Cubs fan, etc etc etc. What's the difference? These are physical and biological things that are beyond your control, yet we allow that, but make an exception to protect 5% of the population. I think it's a great step that the military cannot discharge you for being gay or deny you the opportunity to serve. God knows if you sign up you deserve much more than that. I just don't understand why you should receive special treatment because you're gay. I get it, you've been discriminated in the past. But so have a lot of other people for a variety of things.

 

I'm all for equal protection. I'm all for government getting out of people's personal business. I feel though that too often the gay community wants to force people to accept them and their lifestyle more than just being equal with them.

[BigSqwert]

This is probably going to receive a good amount of backlash, but oh well, it's how I feel.

 

In 50 states an employer can legally terminate or deny your employment based on the fact you're unattractive, have small boobs, are fat, have red hair, have moles on your face, wear glasses, grow up being a Cubs fan, etc etc etc. What's the difference? These are physical and biological things that are beyond your control, yet we allow that, but make an exception to protect 5% of the population. I think it's a great step that the military cannot discharge you for being gay or deny you the opportunity to serve. God knows if you sign up you deserve much more than that. I just don't understand why you should receive special treatment because you're gay. I get it, you've been discriminated in the past. But so have a lot of other people for a variety of things.

 

I'm all for equal protection. I'm all for government getting out of people's personal business. I feel though that too often the gay community wants to force people to accept them and their lifestyle more than just being equal with them.

 

*shakes head*

[Jenksismyhero]

*shakes head*

 

I know right, God forbid people have differing opinions. So stupid!

[BigSqwert]

I know right, God forbid people have differing opinions. So stupid!

When they're bigoted they are stupid.

[Y2HH]

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.

[NorthSideSox72]

This is probably going to receive a good amount of backlash, but oh well, it's how I feel.

 

In 50 states an employer can legally terminate or deny your employment based on the fact you're unattractive, have small boobs, are fat, have red hair, have moles on your face, wear glasses, grow up being a Cubs fan, etc etc etc. What's the difference? These are physical and biological things that are beyond your control, yet we allow that, but make an exception to protect 5% of the population. I think it's a great step that the military cannot discharge you for being gay or deny you the opportunity to serve. God knows if you sign up you deserve much more than that. I just don't understand why you should receive special treatment because you're gay. I get it, you've been discriminated in the past. But so have a lot of other people for a variety of things.

 

I'm all for equal protection. I'm all for government getting out of people's personal business. I feel though that too often the gay community wants to force people to accept them and their lifestyle more than just being equal with them.

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.

 

[BigSqwert]

I feel though that too often the gay community wants to force people to accept them and their lifestyle more than just being equal with them.

 

Well they are currently not treated as equals. Why is it so hard for you understand that after so many examples have been cited here. This whole thread is about them currently being kicked out of the armed forces for simply being gay. Why is is that you think they are asking to be more than equal? It makes no sense.

[Y2HH]

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.

Edited December 22, 2010 by Y2HH

[bmags]

but they can also be sued for that.

[Y2HH]

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.

Edited December 22, 2010 by Y2HH

[bmags]

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.

 

That's not true. Civil courts have ruled against businesses who claimed it was different reasons.

[Jenksismyhero]

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, and I'm saying that somehow sexuality got thrown in there despite being nothing more than a physical and/or mental trait that's no different than being genetically prone to being overweight, or having red hair or being bald or whatever. It's something beyond your control. I want to know why it's different. I get that gays as a group have been discriminated against, and that's why they were thrown into EE protection, but so are fat people. Where's the outcry for that?

 

And Bigsqwert, you can call me a bigot all you want, but you're blind if you don't think members of the gay community want more than just equality. They want people to not only accept the fact that they're gay, but like it and agree with it. By calling me a bigot and my opinions stupid you've just proven that point.

 

[Y2HH]

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.

[Jenksismyhero]

That's not true. Civil courts have ruled against businesses who claimed it was different reasons.

 

I practice some in discrimination suits. It's difficult to prove this. The law is a joke most of the time, both for protecting and overprotecting certain classes of people.

[BigSqwert]

And Bigsqwert, you can call me a bigot all you want, but you're blind if you don't think members of the gay community want more than just equality. They want people to not only accept the fact that they're gay, but like it and agree with it. By calling me a bigot and my opinions stupid you've just proven that point.

 

You are seriously delusional.

[Y2HH]

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.

[Jenksismyhero]

You are seriously delusional.

 

Dude, you JUST did this to me. I just stated that gays should be provided equal protection and that DADT repeal was a good move. That's clearly not enough for you though, because when I ask how this situation differs from other classes of people, you call me a bigot. Clearly it's not enough that I think equal protection is sufficient. I need to believe something more.

[StrangeSox]

This is probably going to receive a good amount of backlash, but oh well, it's how I feel.

 

In 50 states an employer can legally terminate or deny your employment based on the fact you're unattractive, have small boobs, are fat, have red hair, have moles on your face, wear glasses, grow up being a Cubs fan, etc etc etc. What's the difference? These are physical and biological things that are beyond your control, yet we allow that, but make an exception to protect 5% of the population. I think it's a great step that the military cannot discharge you for being gay or deny you the opportunity to serve. God knows if you sign up you deserve much more than that. I just don't understand why you should receive special treatment because you're gay. I get it, you've been discriminated in the past. But so have a lot of other people for a variety of things.

 

I'm all for equal protection. I'm all for government getting out of people's personal business. I feel though that too often the gay community wants to force people to accept them and their lifestyle more than just being equal with them.

 

Perhaps you're familiar with the concept of "protected class."

[FlaSoxxJim]

And Bigsqwert, you can call me a bigot all you want, but you're blind if you don't think members of the gay community want more than just equality. They want people to not only accept the fact that they're gay, but like it and agree with it. By calling me a bigot and my opinions stupid you've just proven that point.

 

I don't think a single gay person will lose sleep if you don't like or agree with them. Help ensure that they have the same workplace rights, societal rights, and legal rights as straight folk and I'm sure that will be more than enough.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

Perhaps you're familiar with the concept of "protected class."

 

Am I really not being very clear here? I'm asking why aren't there other protected classes for what I consider to be similarly situated people - classes of people that have a physical or mental trait that they cannot control. What sets a gay person apart in that respect, IGNORING the legal distinction that society created?

[StrangeSox]

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.

 

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.

[Balta1701]

Am I really not being very clear here? I'm asking why aren't there other protected classes for what I consider to be similarly situated people - classes of people that have a physical or mental trait that they cannot control. What sets a gay person apart in that respect, IGNORING the legal distinction that society created?

Just looking back at the last page or so of this thread for specific examples...the physical or mental traits that you've cited, as far as I can tell, are: being overweight, or appearance issues like being red-haired or bald.

 

First of all...when people are fired for being overweight, by my understanding it winds up being quite a complicated issue as-is. When an airline wants to require an overweight person to buy 2 tickets, it tends to wind up on the news/in court, and that's a place where that person's condition directly affects the ability of the plane to do its job.

 

If a person is failing to get jobs because they have red hair, or are bald, etc., then that probably should be a case where they can sue the employer, unless that specifically impacts the person's ability to perform that job.

 

Do you have better examples?

[StrangeSox]

Right, and I'm saying that somehow sexuality got thrown in there despite being nothing more than a physical and/or mental trait that's no different than being genetically prone to being overweight, or having red hair or being bald or whatever. It's something beyond your control. I want to know why it's different. I get that gays as a group have been discriminated against, and that's why they were thrown into EE protection, but so are fat people. Where's the outcry for that?

 

Maybe it's the centuries of persecution and outright hatred of them from a large portion of the population?

 

You could make the same argument for other protected classes like race or gender and it'd be equally wrong.

[Jenksismyhero]

Just looking back at the last page or so of this thread for specific examples...the physical or mental traits that you've cited, as far as I can tell, are: being overweight, or appearance issues like being red-haired or bald.

 

First of all...when people are fired for being overweight, by my understanding it winds up being quite a complicated issue as-is. When an airline wants to require an overweight person to buy 2 tickets, it tends to wind up on the news/in court, and that's a place where that person's condition directly affects the ability of the plane to do its job.

 

If a person is failing to get jobs because they have red hair, or are bald, etc., then that probably should be a case where they can sue the employer, unless that specifically impacts the person's ability to perform that job.

 

Do you have better examples?

 

Why aren't those enough? Forcing someone to buy 2 plane tickets isn't applicable here. And it's not a complicated issue as-is. I'm an employer. You're either an applicant or an existing employee. You're overweight, bald, or simply unattractive, and I decide I don't like that. It doesn't affect your performance. It doesn't affect how you could possible do the job. I just don't like it. Legally I can fire you and/or decide not to hire you for that very reason, and there's nothing you can do about it. No laws protect you. But if you're gay, I cannot. What's the difference exactly? IMO both are physical and/or mental traits that you cannot control. I'm asking why society decided to legally designate one group a special class, and force people to act a certain way towards that class, but not for the others. Is it simply the history of discrimination? If so I think "unattractive" people have a pretty good claim of being screwed over. Same with the obese.

Edited December 22, 2010 by Jenksismybitch