US House Approves Protections for Gay Workers

[Kuciwalker]

Er, it's not an article it's an official government report from July 2002.

Same difference.

And if the number of reported cases is low enough, you think discrimination based on something other than job performance and/or job qualifications is OK, Kuci? What kind of bullsh*t reasoning is that?

Bull**** reasoning like "if the problem almost never happens, Congress shouldn't waste time creating a new legal structure to solve it."

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
That's why you have expert witnesses and testimony . And really the qualification thing is a rebuttal. If you have overwhelming numbers, then the employer has to show that it wasn't racist. He may use qualification, but has to show why every black guy who applied was not as qualified.

Guilty until proven innocent eh?

[Kuciwalker]

Guilty until proven innocent eh?

I read this as "Gay until proven innocent eh?"

[Caligastia]

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Caligastia
Guilty until proven innocent eh?

Um.. no. Thanks for playing though. Perhaps read up on the law first?

[Dr Strangelove]

But will it protect legislators and other elected officials?

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Bull**** reasoning like "if the problem almost never happens, Congress shouldn't waste time creating a new legal structure to solve it."

I'm having the damnedest time finding the total number of reported job discrimination cases for any given month (I want 9'07 or 10'07), but the US Department of Labor says roughly 146,000,000 people were employed in September 2007 (specifically, they say that number for October is unchanged from September). I'm sure in the context of total number of jobs, the number of reported job discriminations will likewise look as if "the problem almost never happens" and as such we can remove protections for gender, military personal, age groups, race and ethnic groups, the disabled, and religions just because the VAST majority of the US workforce remains undiscriminated against.

[Kuciwalker]

Maybe we can.

[DRoseDARs]

*whistles*

Good luck to anyone defending that position...

[Kuciwalker]

If those protections are as unimportant as you claim.

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
If those protections are as unimportant as you claim.

Nice try, but this is YOUR claim, not mine.

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
From that article (no I haven't read it all, I skimmed to the end):

Relatively Few Complaints Have Followed Enactment of State Sexual Orientation Protection Laws

We found that, in those states with a law making it illegal to discriminate in employment on the basis of sexual orientation, relatively few complaints of such discrimination have been made. The statistics do not show any trend in the number of complaints over time.

I read that as meaning this is a non-issue that doesn't need legal intervention.

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Er, it's not an article it's an official government report from July 2002.

Same difference.

And if the number of reported cases is low enough, you think discrimination based on something other than job performance and/or job qualifications is OK, Kuci? What kind of bullsh*t reasoning is that?

Bull**** reasoning like "if the problem almost never happens, Congress shouldn't waste time creating a new legal structure to solve it."

[Kuciwalker]

Nice try, but this is YOUR claim, not mine.

Read again. I haven't claimed anything about protections for sex et. al. I've only posted my interpretation of a quick look at your document.

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Nice try, but this is YOUR claim, not mine.

Read again. I haven't claimed anything about protections for sex et. al. I've only posted my interpretation of a quick look at your document.

Sorry, but that dog still won't hunt.

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
I read that as meaning this is a non-issue that doesn't need legal intervention.

By your own words, you put into the GAO report your OWN interpretation of its meaning.

[Kuciwalker]

Isn't that what I said? My interpretation of the report?

[DRoseDARs]

Let's try it this way then: Instead of mincing words, do you or do you not think people should be protected from being hired/fired based on traits other than job performance/job qualifications? We can leave discussion of existing or future laws out of your answer.